Mr. FLYNN. And that is in the special skills?

Mr. JACKSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLYNN. And in those skills, there are only from 40 to 47 percent actually receiving that schooling; is that right?

Mr. JACKSON. That is correct.

Mr. FLYNN. So that would leave about 25 percent of the boys coming into the service that get no training at all while they are in military service?

Mr. JACKSON. That is correct as far as formal school training is concerned. That is what this chart refers to, sir. But that is not to say that any that come into the service receive no training.

Mr. FLYNN. Yes. We all admit that the service itself is a good training. But there would be 25 percent that would receive no formal training while in service.

Mr. JACKSON. School service training; that is correct.

Colonel RUSH. Formal technical training. However, they will receive on-the-job training, which is a formal course out on the job. But this is where they actually go into a classroom situation in a technical school.

Mr. FLYNN. Yes; I understand. So there would be 25 percent that would receive no formal training other than on the job, and another 25 percent that would receive only from 9 to 15 weeks.

Colonel RUSH. Yes. You realize many men come in that we give a directed duty assignment to in the Air Force; 25 to 30 percent of the men coming in get that, for many of them have a skill that is translatable directly. For example a heavy equipment operator that has been trained outside.

Mr. FLYNN. Now, it is possible, is it not, that many of the 50 percent could be young men who had indicated a desire to go to college and were possibly drafted out of college or at least had their education interrupted, who might have a very strong desire to attend the university after separating from service; is that not right?

Mr. JACKSON. I do not know. I would dare say there could be some in that group who would want to go to college or gain similar education.

Mr. FLYNN. It is a fact, is it not, that the formal training they receive while in the service is more of a technical nature, to fit them for a craft or a trade, rather than formal training that one would receive in the arts division of any college or university?

Mr. JACKSON. That is correct. More of it is of the former, as you indicated.

Mr. FLYNN. Now, do the armed services have any objection to those boys and girls that have put in their service and performed their duty to the country receiving some assistance after their education has been interrupted, in getting the type of formal or arts type of education that they desire?

Mr. JACKSON. I do not want to quibble. I am not sure as to what "assistance." The type of educational assistance proposed in section 2 of the bill we are opposed to. All of the people who leave the service have some benefits that accrue to them as a result of their service.

Mr. FLYNN. What I am trying to get is: Would it not be a rather selfish attitude on the part of the services to deny these boys and girls assistance after they leave the service to get their higher education, merely because they wanted to keep them in service on the job they are in, and because they do not want to put other boys and girls through from 9 to 28 weeks of training when they receive them? Would that not be rather a selfish attitude on the part of the services, to not train new boys and thereby deny some educational benefits to those who have already served?

Mr. JACKSON. I am afraid I am a little confused as to what you are addressing yourself to. I thought you were talking about these young men who get the minimum amount, as we say, of service. And your question is

Mr. FLYNN. I will make it more simple. As I understand your objection to this bill, S. 1138, it is because you feel that it would draw trained personnel from the services who would leave because of the educational benefits they might get on the outside.

Mr. JACKSON. Right.

Mr. FLYNN. Thereby making it necessary for the armed services to train more personnel.

Mr. JACKSON. Correct.

Mr. FLYNN. I am pointing out that at least in the last three categories, which includes 50 percent of the service, you do not train 25 percent at all; that the other 25 percent are trained only to 15 weeks. I ask you the question: If, in appearing in opposition to this bill, the armed services are somewhat selfish in attempting to deny these educational benefits to these boys and girls merely to make it unnecessary for the armed services to train boys from 9 to 15 weeks.

Mr. JACKSON. Well, I think, sir, that it would be quite different or anomalous if we were to provide these benefits to this group and then to deny it to those in the critical skills. I do not think that would be very practical.

Mr. FLYNN. The same thing would apply to those in the critical skills, except in those cases, I note from your table that they have received as much as 28 weeks of training.

Mr. JACKSON. Some of them; yes.

Mr. FLYNN. And that, of course, is in the particular school; not in the arts or other education?

Mr. JACKSON. That is generally correct; yes sir.

Mr. FLYNN. And I would feel the same thing would apply to them if they wanted to go on. And might not your opposition to their getting an arts school education be somewhat selfish, merely because you did not want to train some of these boys as much as 28 weeks to replace them?

Mr. JACKSON. Well, I think the motive certainly is not any selfish motive directed toward these individuals. I think the motive is to attempt to maintain a minimum standard of efficiency for the security of the country, and I do not believe necessarily, because these skilled people are kept in, that it follows that they would have been deprived or would have gone to college. But we do feel that unless we have

the minimum requirement of skilled people to maintain the posture which is felt necessary for the national security, we are increasing the hazards of war or perhaps inviting an attack.

Mr. FLYNN. Let me go a step further in that regard. You are only drafting 100,000 boys a year?

Mr. JACKSON. Approximately; yes.

Mr. FLYNN. And there is no question but that there is a much larger pool that could be tapped; is there not?

Mr. JACKSON. There is a larger pool increasing; yes, sir.

Mr. FLYNN. So there is manpower available in this age group to train and replace those that would be leaving service; is there not? Mr. JACKSON. Oh, we could get replacements if he wanted to increase the draft, the call.

Mr. FLYNN. And you could get replacements capable of being trained, could you not?

Mr. JACKSON. It is hard to say. The draft is a 2-year period, and if we trained a man for 28 weeks, we would get a very short net use out of him, if he went out in 2 years.

Mr. FLYNN. But you would get a man capable of absorbing the training that you gave him, would you not?

Mr. JACKSON. We would get some.

Mr. FLYNN. Now, could you repeat that figure for me, please, as to the number of boys in 1958 that left the services, or during the Korean war, I believe, to take advantage of these educational facilities?

Colonel RUSH. About 45 to 50 percent of those who departed stated they were leaving to take advantage of educational opportunities. Mr. FLYNN. So, if that figure were to be correct, we could then anticipate if it ran true to form that 45 to 50 percent of these boys who had received only from 9 to 28 weeks of technical training would actually have a desire to leave service in order that they might get a formal education in one of the universities of the country?

Mr. JACKSON. I do not believe the colonel indicated that those boys had only 9 weeks' training.

These are boys that have served 4 years, I believe, Colonel. Colonel RUSH. Yes; with similar experiences in the other services. Mr. FLYNN. But 45 percent indicated they were leaving to take advantage of educational opportunities?

Colonel RUSH. Yes.

Mr. FLYNN. If that ran true to form, we could anticipate that of these 145,000 coming out, 45 percent of those would leave for the same reason?

Colonel RUSH. Yes to that question; but a qualified yes to your previous question, that came from that; because if you are saying that the bottom part of this chart, here, the low aptitude and intelligence people, are in this group-these people do not leave to enter the universities. Many of them, of course, will leave to go to an occupational or trade or business school, or something like that. But these are not the types who can qualify for advanced education.

It

is the highly skilled man in the other groups above that. If they leave, a higher percentage of these will leave for advanced education in your colleges and universities.

Mr. FLYNN. I feel it would be the responsibility of this committee and Members of Congress to decide in their own minds, in passing upon this, whether it is more important to save the military the work involved in training 50,000 new personnel per year in the various services, or whether it would be more important to permit these approximately 45,000 boys a year to come out and receive an advanced education, considering what they might be able to contribute to their country after they had received that education.

In other words, should they be denied that advanced education merely because the armed services do not desire to train replacements when it is admitted that the source for replacements is available?

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Congressman, none of these boys are required to stay on.

Mr. FLYNN. I understand that.

Mr. JACKSON. So we are not precluding them from the option to go. What we are saying is-and we are still below the minimum-if we are to keep to the minimum requirements for national security in these areas, we need these boys and more boys to stay on. And we feel that anything that would increase, as we have tried to indicate with our figures, the likelihood of their leaving, would be not in the interests of national security.

Mr. FLYNN. That is right, Mr. Secretary. I understand that no force is used. But I understand also that if the benefits of this act are not available, they will be less apt to separate and thereby take advantage of the educational opportunity.

Mr. JACKSON. That is just why we are here.

Colonel RUSH. But there is the equality of opportunity for the man out there, and I think he is in a better position once he is in the service. We are not denying him the education that is available to the rest of the manpower pool of the country.

Mr. HALEY. May I just say this: Mr. Secretary, the primary objective of the Department of Defense is the security and the defense of this Nation. And if this bill, you were convinced or the Department were convinced, would contribute anything to more securely defending this country, you certainly would not be in here opposing this bill? Mr. JACKSON. That is correct, sir.

Mr. HALEY. The gentlelady from Massachusetts.

Mrs. ROGERS. I am not a member of the subcommittee, as you know, Mr. Chairman; just ex officio. But I would like to tell all of the servicemen here how grateful I am to them for taking care of us all these years. There is not a day that I do not thank God for that. I have introduced a bill, Mr. Secretary, and perhaps I can talk to you about it later on.

Mr. GEORGE. I have one brief question. I understand the Senate wrote an amendment in respect to second enlistments, which I thought would meet some of your objections. What do you think of that amendment?

Mr. JACKSON. Well, we think particularly since that amendment was made, we have now the figures of the incidence of those who say they were leaving for education, which we think is quite markedly differ ent from the other. We do not now think that the amendment would be very effective in accomplishing what we are concerned with. Mr. HALEY. The gentleman from South Carolina.

Mr. DORN. Mr. Secretary, I am just curious to know what percentage of these men, of the 2-year enlistment period, go overseas. Do you have any breakdown on that, on the average? As to the Air Force, I would say most of them do, but I was just wondering about the Navy and the Army. I consider that a very broadening part of this service. mean, it costs the taxpayers a lot of money and is in itself an education. I would just like to know.

I

Colonel RUSH. I assumed, when you spoke of the 2-year people, you were limiting it to draftees.

Mr. DORN. Yes.

Colonel RUSH. The Air Force has no draftees. We only enlist people for 4 years. A good proportion, 25 percent, approximately, will go overseas.

Mr. DORN. What percentage of the 4-year-enlistment people? Colonel RUSH. We have no draftees, so the 35 percent is of the 4-year

men.

I will have to address that problem to the Army.

Colonel STREHLOW. I do not have that information. It will be submitted for the record.

(The information referred to follows:)

In the Army, 50 percent of enlisted personnel and 25 percent of the officers are stationed outside the continental limits of the United States.

Mr. DORN. Just offhand it is a considerable percentage, though, is it not?

Mr. JACKSON. If you will bear with us just one moment, we will have that for you.

Admiral CLAREY. We have no draftees. I would say 60 to 65 percent of our people are in the operating force, which makes them susceptible to deployment on ships anywhere in the world.

Mr. WOOL. For the Department of Defense as a whole, approximately 40 percent of all active duty personnel are either based overseas, or are on board ships in the Navy.

Mr. DORN. Now, how much does it cost, on the average, just roughly, to keep a young man in the Armed Forces for 1 year? Now we know about West Point and Annapolis. But just in the enlisted status, I would like to have some idea.

Mr. WOOL. We have estimated that the initial cost of training, just the initial cost of training and processing a young man, during his first half year of service, is over $3,200. This is not the total cost of supporting him for an entire year, but just this initial entry cost. We can supply the latter figure.

(The information referred to follows:)