The CHAIRMAN. Notwithstanding that, it was impossible to get. your requirements.

Secretary BURGESS. That is correct, sir.

Mr. SHORT. You had just about 50 percent or one-half of what we built up.

Secretary BURGESS. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brooks, any questions?

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Secretary, I would like to mention this matter in connection with the very able explanation of the draft rendered by our counselor, Mr. Blandford.

Secretary BURGESS. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. This case, it seems to me, is not so prevalent, but I have run across several types of it, where you got a man in service, especially an officer, and for some reason he is called into service against his will, maybe as a reserve, and for some reason he is discharged and then immediately redrafted. I think that is an abuse of the draft law. I know I had a particular case in mind of a man who was a second lieutenant in the Army. He was discharged after he had been called into service, was in only 4 months, he was discharged and before he got home the draft was ready to recall him.

Now, they waited about 9 months to recall him. He had to go to work in that 9 months to live. And then they recalled him into the service. I think that is bad handling of the situation.

Secretary BURGESS. It certainly

Mr. BROOKS. If we are going to make any changes, I think we ought to provide that that should be done.

Secretary BURGESS. I would like to know about such cases.
Mr. BLANDFORD. I am familiar with it, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BROOKS. I know our counsel is familiar with it.

Mr. BLANDFORD. It was the case of Air Force ROTC people who were released because the Air Force was faced with the necessity of reducing some 9,000 officers in a hurry. We got ourselves into an awful mess. I think it has been straightened up now because they are allowed to go into the National Guard and then they are ordered to active duty as National Guard men.

Mr. BROOKS. In some cases the Reserves were called into active service, and they were released because they were not needed as officers and were sent home and after short periods they were drafted. Mr. BLANDFORD. That is right. Had they been ROTC graduates, they would not have been drafted. That was the situation. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bates.

Mr. BATES. Perhaps, I should address this question to the counsel. Are we going to have any presentation concerning the manpower pool?

The CHAIRMAN. Oh, yes.

Mr. BLANDFORD. I am sure General Hershey will go into that whole thing.

Mr. BATES. In prior years we always had charts up here.

The CHAIRMAN. We will have all that.

Mr. BATES. I would like to ask the Secretary one question.

The CHAIRMAN. One minute, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. BATES. How many volunteers, Mr. Secretary, are you receiving currently into the Army on an enlisted basis? Back in 1948, I believe, you got 446,000. What is the figure today?

Secretary BURGESS. I am not sure we have that tabulation. I am sure Mr. Milton is going to present that in the Army section. I am sure the Army is going to present that in their section of the presentation.

Mr. BATES. I will withdraw my question, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Secretary BURGESS. I think we better refer that to the Army, if that is satisfactory, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Wickersham.

Mr. WICKERSHAM. Mr. Secretary, in answer to Mr. Doyle's inquiry, could you not improve the possibility of reenlistment by two things: One would be for the services to hire dieticians in the preparation of the food-would that not improve it?

Secretary BURGESS. Well, I haven't heard any specific complaints about the food since I have been on this job, Mr. Wickersham, I think one of the things that is going to improve enlistment and reenlistment is this career incentive act that we are going to come before you with. I haven't heard any specific complaints about the food. That might be one point. I just haven't heard of it.

Mr. WICKERSHAM. Now, one other question: It is not the food, but the way it is prepared. One other one: Would it not improve or enhance its enlisted figures if you made effort, further efforts, to improve the surroundings affecting the morale of the boys, the young men? Would that not satisfy the parents?

Secretary BURGESS. Well, I think a very creditable job is being done in that area, Mr. Wickersham. There, again, I have not had that one specifically brought to me as any serious problem.

Mr. WICKERSHAM. That is all.

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Price.

Mr. PRICE. Mr. Secretary, in your thinking and your presentation on the extension of the draft for a period of 4 years, you have also taken into consideration the universal military training program?

Secretary BURGESS. We call ours the national reserve plan, Mr. Price.

Mr. PRICE. And they are going to run concurrently with the Selective Service System?

Secretary BURGESS. That is correct, sir, for a period of 4 years, sir. The CHAIRMAN. We will go into that reserve plan a little bit later today. Let's confine this inquiry to an extension of the draft. Mr. PRICE. Well

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. PRICE. Just a minute, Mr. Chairman. I want to make my position heard. I think that has something to do with the subject we are talking about.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, then.

Mr. PRICE. I am finished, but I don't think the question was out of order. I think it was a perfectly appropriate question.

The CHAIRMAN. Any question you ask is appropriate.
Mr. PRICE. The question should be asked at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead and ask it.

Mr. PRICE. I already asked it and it was answered.
The CHAIRMAN. All right, fine. Thank you very much.

General Hershey, will you please come around? Now General Hershey, the committee would like for you to give them the benefit of your views in regard to-what is the number of this bill?

General HERSHEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee

Mr. BATES. 3005.

The CHAIRMAN. 3005. Now you just go ahead. Have you a prepared statement up here, so we can follow you?

General HERSHEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir.

General HERSHEY. I recommend approval of H. R. 3005, not only as a measure necessary to insure the maintenance, through voluntary and involuntary means, of the Armed Forces at their required strength for the next 4 years, but also to insure that the obligation to serve is shared equally by all the young men of the Nation.

Unless H. R. 3005 is approved, liability for service will cease on June 30, 1955, under the present provisions of section 17 (c) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended, for all persons under 26 years of age who have not had their liability extended by deferment. This would mean, then, that after June 30, only those persons who have been deferred and thus have had their liability extended to age 35, would be liable for service.

When it is remembered that each time one of this latter group was deferred someone else had to take his place in the Armed Forces, there can be no question as to the equity for the continued liability of these persons. If we are to observe the mandate of the Congress

in the act

that in a free society the obligations and privileges of serving in the Armed Forces and in the reserve components thereof should be shared generally,

it is even more important that authority for the induction of persons. under 26, who have not been deferred, should not terminate.

The planned strength of the Armed Forces for some years to come is approximately 3 million men. Experience has shown that never in our history have we been able to maintain through voluntary means alone an Armed Force anywhere approximating that figure. In 1948, when Selective Service was reestablished, the strength of the Armed Forces was slightly under 11⁄2 million. In 1950, just prior to Korea, the size of the Armed Forces was approximately 1,400,000 men, and while at that time Selective Service had inducted no men since early in 1949, nevertheless the System had been in operation and many thousands of men has been classified as available for service.

Since 1950 the Armed Forces have maintained a strength in excess of 3 million. The Selective Service System during this period has been called upon to furnish approximately 2 million men. I think it is generally accepted that while the Selective Service System did not deliver all of the men who went into service during this period, many of the persons who enlisted in each of the services were impelled to do so by the Selective Service operation. Without extension of authority to induct persons under 26 years of age not now deferred, I am convinced that the Armed Forces will have extreme difficulty in securing enlistments from this group of young men.

I think that this is a matter of the most vital importance in view of the fact that the present enlistment and reenlistment rates of the

Armed Forces are far below the rates required to maintain them at authorized strength.

For these reasons, I recommend approval of H. R. 3005.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, General.

Now, General, you are charged with the responsibility of the administration of the law, are you not?

General HERSHEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, give the committee some information as to what your views are with reference to these two proposed amendments that have been discussed briefly. What is your reaction in regard to the proposal to amend the law whereby a man who has had 6 months service can't be redrafted?

General HERSHEY. Well, sir, that has not been cleared with the Government, so what I shall say will only be based on what little value I might have as an individual. I favor it.

The CHAIRMAN. Good.

Now you answered so quick it sort of knocked me off my props. You answered in the affirmative so quickly.

Now upon what grounds do you favor it? What are your reasons for favoring it?

General HERSHEY. Well, in the first place

The CHAIRMAN. As suggested over here by Mr. Kilday, it is good legal procedure to leave well enough alone and I agree with him. But I do want a little bit more elaborate statement as to reasons why you think it is a good, healthy amendment.

Mr. RIVERS. We are not used to straightforward answers.

General HERSHEY. Mr. Blandford has rather stolen my thunder both in content and in matter of delivery. And he has explained that we are in a very embarrassing position concerning when a man has served. We have 1 man that served 6 months and we do not take him and we are almost forced to take another man that served 2 years, 11 months and 29 days.

Now, I am assuming that when we put a man in the service, that if he is kept 6 months by the Armed Forces-he sometimes may get out and may create some inequity, by taking another man rather than taking him. But on the other hand, he has been in. You have to set some date. You can set 6 months or you can set a year or you can set some other date. But you will have to set some date.

And after they had him that long, if they decide for some reason they don't want him, with the amount of bookkeeping we have, I figure that that is a reasonable amount and that is a good place to quit.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right, exactly. They had him and they could have kept him longer, but they didn't do it. So, therefore, they discharged him. It was not his fault. And so, therefore, he shouldn't be required to go back to take the second crack.

General HERSHEY. We have an Executive order that covers most everybody except some of the people that didn't happen to come under this law, and that is why we are in an embarrassing position because under an Executive order we don't take the people who have been under the law, but some of these fellows that had straddled on the passage of the act of 1948 are neither fish nor fowl. I would like to have them all be one or the other.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now the next proposition is in reference to the time limit eligible for draft for those who volunteer under the

draft age for National Guard duty which now is 35 years. And I threw out the thought in view of letters we had that it should be reduced to 26 years of age. What is your reply to that?

General HERSHEY. Well, again, I only represent myself. I had some doubt in my mind initially what might have been the idea of Congress on that score, because the Congress did not require similar service of the individuals who entered the guard before 1951.

But on the other hand, we are always very anxious to carry out the law exactly as the Congress provides it. And they did use the word "deferment" for a National Guard man instead of "exemption." And for that reason, regardless of the evidence to the contrary, I felt we had to follow the letter of the law.

Therefore, if Congress is merely going to again reassert what they perhaps had in mind before, I have no objection whatsoever and it takes a great load off the Administrator, because when he knows what the boss wants, it is much easier than when he is in doubt.

[Laughter.]

The CHAIRMAN. Well, that puts us in the position where we have the support of the Director of Selective Service in behalf of each one of these members. So I think that is the proper place for me to stop. Mr. Short?

Mr. SHORT. No.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Brooks, any questions?

Mr. BROOKS. May I ask a question in reference to one of your amendments.

I am glad General Hershey says he favors that. That is the 6 months cutoff time. Now, would you apply that cutoff time to a reservist who is called in the service, maybe against his will, and then released after 7 months or after 6 months, and then subject to redraft? Would you apply it to that, too?

General HERSHEY. Well, it depends on whether you are calling a reservist for 6 months for training in order to make him a trained man to put in the Reserve, so that he may serve in the Reserve whatever time you provide for him or whether

Mr. BROOKS. We are referring to present law and not to the future. law.

General HERSHEY. I beg your pardon.

Mr. BROOKS. Referring to present law, where you don't call him for training but you call him for service.

General HERSHEY. If I understand the question, my answer is "yes."

Mr. BROOKS. Fine.

Mr. BLANDFORD. The amendment says active duty, Mr. Brooks, and not active credit.

Mr. BROOKS. Whether he comes in through the draft or whether he comes in through call from the Reserve, you would put a 6 months' cutoff date.

General HERSHEY. Now you are talking about a reservist who has served in the Armed Forces more than 6 months?

Mr. BROOKS. That is right, he is called into service and before the full 2 years time is up, he is released.

General HERSHEY. Well, if I am not tripped on some technicality that is not now apparent, I would agree with you.