Mr. DORN. And as I have indicated, they come out much better educated than they go in. I do not see where it is such a terrible thing to have to serve a couple of years. Under the present bill, is it not true that we have a lot of majors and lieutenant commanders 55 years of age enrolling in colleges? We have them down home. Then they are retiring and getting some of this education money at the same time. Mr. JACKSON. Yes, I think some of the officers of that rank are still eligible and taking advantage of that eligibility. Mr. DORN. Almost 60 years of age, sitting up there in college. Of course, that is commendable, but I am not so sure the education they are getting they hope to return to the country in the future. I rather think it is the money involved. Mr. HALEY. I might say to the distinguished gentleman from South Carolina that under some of our educational benefits, in my great State of Florida, we have very frequently colonels and brigadier generals and major generals and the same situation applies to the Navy; men who have spent 25 years in the service-and they come down there and take advantage of additional training that the services afford them and claim to be real estate people and so forth. While that is fine, and we are glad to have people to sell real estate in Florida-we have plenty of it, by the way, if anyone is interested-I do not see how that kind of training would be very helpful to the Defense Department. Mr. Adair? Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Secretary, how many people are we taking in the draft now; say, for the last year? Do you have those figures? Mr. JACKSON. The last call was 6,000. And I think for fiscal 1961do you have the figures, Mr. Wool? Mr. WOOL. It is in the order of magnitude of a hundred thousand. Mr. ADAIR. Per year? It is running about that. We will have the Mr. WooL. Per year. precise figures for the record, sir. Actual, fiscal year 1959- Estimated, fiscal year 1961. Inductions Mr. ADAIR. And is that for the year past? Mr. ADAIR. That is close enough. 111, 000 90,000 102, 000 Mr. JACKSON. I might say that is for the projected fiscal year 1961, approximately 100,000. This is our planned input this time, and it is borne out as to what we have taken in and what we plan to take in. Around that figure. Mr. ADAIR. In other words, you do not see any great increase in the draft calls for the foreseeable future? Mr. JACKSON. No, sir; we do not see any substantial change. We do not see any at the present time, and under present conditions; no, sir. Mr. ADAIR. Since we passed the bill a year or two ago, increasing rates of pay and giving certain other benefits to the armed services, the history has been that people have tended to stay in the services longer; is that not true? Mr. JACKSON. Our retention has improved; yes, sir. Mr. ADAIR. And as you said earlier in your statement, you think that is good? Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. Mr. ADAIR. You think that is the way it ought to me? Mr. JACKSON. We think it is good in the skills where there is a scarcity of trained men. We have, I think it is only fair to add, taken means to control reenlistment in skills of which we have sufficient numbers and which we are not in need of. But particularly in those skills where there is a large training investment and where there is a shortage, we are very happy to have increased retention. But we are still not at the desirable optimum. Mr. ADAIR. It is your feeling that if legislation of the nature of S. 1138 were enacted, it would tend to pull people out of the service. Is that correct? Mr. JACKSON. That is very definitely our feeling and our concern; yes, sir. Mr. ADAIR. In other words, it would be working at cross-purposes to existing legislation? Mr. JACKSON. It would, we fear, counteract some of the advantages that were intended and indeed are being realized under present legislative action. Mr. ADAIR. Do you consider that if we would pass legislation similar to this that is now before us, the rate of draft might be increased? Mr. JACKSON. I would not think so. It is difficult to say. Some people might go in to get the benefits and get out. This might be the effect. Others might not reenlist, which would cause a greater manpower input to make up the loss. Our grave concern is the fact that some of these people that we are referring to in these skills where we have shortages require a very considerable investment, a long period of time; and if we lose them, we have to start all over again on the replacement. And that is our main concern in this area, the requirement for skilled people, as our tables indicate, have shown a salutary and decisive increase. As you have indicated, the enactment of this bill would be at cross-purposes to what we have done to build it up. Mr. ADAIR. And would tend to pull those people out of the services? Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir. Mr. ADAIR. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mr. HALEY. Mr. Fino? Mr. FINO. Mr. Secretary, am I correct in saying that your Department's position is that you are all for education, but only if these draftees, enlistees stay in the service? Mr. JACKSON. Well, I am not so sure that it is that broad, sir. I say we are for education, but we are also extremely anxious to have the military posture from the standpoint of competent personnel to have the maximum degree of effectiveness as a deterrent to war. And the area, as I have indicated before, that we are concerned about, I would not say is retaining the draftees or indeed retaining all the enlistees. But to retain for career purposes the skilled people that we desperately need. Mr. FINO. What about these young kids who cannot possibly acclimate themselves to military life, and still want an education? Are you going to deprive them? In other words, you are telling them that if they stay in the service they can get all the education they want and need, but, if you go out, you are going to have tough sledding. Mr. JACKSON. I do not think that we guarantee to everyone who comes into the service all the education he will need. As I have indicated, this is primarily designed to enhance their usefulness as military personnel. And the lad that comes in for a couple of yearsI agree with what has been said; he has a gain no matter how inadequately he may have been trained in accordance with his capacity, even if he goes out at a couple of years. But I do not think his long-range opportunity for education has been very seriously impeded if he comes in at 17 and gets out a couple of years later. Mr. HALEY. The gentleman from California, Mr. Teague. Mr. TEAGUE of California. I have two observations. The first is that I think you have given us, Mr. Secretary, some very sound and sensible arguments on this matter. If it is any comfort to you, you will have at least one vote against S. 1138, and that is mine. I have one more comment you might not like so well. We hear a lot of talk these days about the point that Congress does not appropriate enough money for the Defense Department. It seems to me a mistake to have brought so much of the Army with you today. They look like very good people who could have been doing something else rather than attending this hearing. Mr. HALEY. Do you care to comment on that, Mr. Secretary? Mr. JACKSON. I would like to have the opportunity of commenting with reference to these distinguished officers who have accompanied me. Within the last 2 weeks, Mr. Teague, in my Office, we have had approximately 10 hearings. I have personally had to attend four in a row. I try to familiarize myself as much as I can, and indeed I hope I have a grasp of the broad policies. Frequently, the committees are anxious to know detailed statistical data, detailed information, and it is just impossible for me to absorb it all and have it available for you gentlemen of the committee. And that is why we have asked from each service those who do have that information and who could give it to the committee in the event that they asked for it. Mr. TEAGUE of California. I want you to be sure to understand: I was not referring to those with you at the table. I was referring to the people who occupy such a large percentage of the chairs in the room. Now, maybe all the services are needed. And there is no reflection against them as individuals. My point is that there must be something else they could be doing at the Pentagon. Mr. JACKSON. Well, all four armed services are represented here, as well as my office, and it might appear that there is a superfluity. Mr. HALEY. The gentleman from Kansas. Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Secretary, I think you mentioned that the surveys indicate that 40 to 50 percent of airmen left for school, and since the GI bills expired only 20 percent gave that excuse. What is the difference between the total number leaving in both situations? Mr. JACKSON. This is a percentage figure. Mr. GEORGE. I want the percentage, the total number that left voluntarily, when those two bills were in effect, and the total number that separated when they were not. Mr. JACKSON. I will ask Colonel Rush of the Air Force, if I may call on one of my assistants to give me that information. Mr. GEORGE. That is why he brought these people with him, Mr. Teague. Colonel RUSH. We are losing, in the Air Force, about 40,000 to 50,000 first termers a year, or were at the time the figure of 45 to 50 percent was derived. So it is in the neighborhood of 20,000 to 25,000 that are getting out to pursue further education and take advantage of benefits. A drop to 20 percent would be of about the same magnitude and the same absolute figure. Mr. GEORGE. That is the reason for leaving? Colonel RUSH. Yes, sir. Mr. GEORGE. My question was what percentage was leaving, regardless of the reason, then as compared to now. Colonel RUSH. As for those coming up at expiration of service every year, about 45 to 50 percent are leaving. Mr. GEORGE. What was the percentage when the GI bills were in effect? About the same? Colonel RUSH. Yes. That is true. But the change has been that they are saying, in our surveys, that they are getting out for different reasons. Mr. GEORGE. The reasons are different, but the percentage is about the same. Is that correct? Colonel RUSH. That is essentially correct. Mr. GEORGE. Now I would like to ask the Secretary one more question: What percentage of these people you say you have been educating, that are in service, complete any program of education? Mr. JACKSON. I am not sure that I understand what you mean by a program of education. They complete the required service school terms, which our charts show run from 9 to 21 weeks. Mr. GEORGE. Does that qualify them to go out and become engineers or scientists, or merchanics, or anything of the sort? Mr. JACKSON. No, it qualifies them to do the job which they have, which may be that of a technician with respect to aircraft or maintenance and so on, and with that experience it would better qualify them to handle a job of that kind when they got outside. Mr. GEORGE. Another question, Mr. Secretary: Did you present this same argument before the Senate committee? Or was a similar argument submitted? Mr. JACKSON. May I ask the gentleman at my left? I think he was the witness there. Colonel RUSH. Yes, essentially the same. The statement today is longer and has been amplified with concrete data from the Department of Defense records. Mr. FLYNN. Under the draft law, those students attending colleges must they at the present time maintain any standard or be in the upper half of their class? Mr. JACKSON. Yes. As the chairman has indicated, they are required to maintain a standing equivalent to the upper half of their class; yes, sir. Mr. FLYNN. So that boys and girls of college age who did not happen to be in the upper half of their class, would have to be drafted out of school and into service, would they not? Mr. JACKSON. The young men would be liable for the draft. As to whether or not they would actually be drafted-or put it this way: Their deferment for attending college would be removed. But it would not be automatic; as I understand it, they would be liable for the draft. Mr. FLYNN. Whether they would be reached in the 100,000 a year you are now taking would be questionable? Mr. JACKSON. That is probably a proper way to state it. Mr. Wool is more familiar with this area. Mr. WOOL. Yes, the fact is that the minimum age for involuntary induction under Selective Service currently is 22 years or higher. In other words, very few if any young men who are continuing from high school through college would be reached normally for the draft until they had an opportunity to graduate. Mr. FLYNN. If they were not in the upper half they could be drafted, however? Mr. WOOL. If they were age 23, for example, and were not in the proper percentage-in some cases it is the upper half of their classthey might then be draft vulnerable. Mr. FLYNN. Now, referring, Mr. Secretary, to your chart, table III, you have the more skilled trained military personnel in the top three categories. And in the bottom three categories, administrative and clerical, crafts, and ground combat. It is a fact, is it not, that you did not consider those as skilled as the top three crafts? Mr. JACKSON. I think that is correct-meaning "skilled"-the particular degree of specialization in the skill. Mr. FLYNN. And therefore they are not quite as valuable to the services as the more skilled? Mr. JACKSON. I would hesitate very much to sit here and say that our ground combat people are not equally valuable as any other people in the services. Mr. FLYNN. These bottom three categories constitute about 50 percent of the personnel of the services? Mr. JACKSON. Roughly, yes, sir. Mr. FLYNN. And according to your chart, on table II, these 50 percent of the services receive from 9 to 15 weeks of schooling in service. Mr. JACKSON. Right. Yes, sir. Administrative and clerical, crafts, and services total 40 percent. Ground combat, not shown in table II, accounts for an additional 12 percent of the enlisted strength, making a total of 52 percent. 52087-60- -14 |