In other words, whenever there is a national crisis or relaxation of a crisis, it definitely affects the enlistment rates.

Senator INOUYE. Your statement, Mr. Secretary, says a "large portion". I am just curious what you meant by "large portion."

Mr. PAUL. Perhaps Mr. Wool can give you some statistics on it. Mr. Wool. There have been attitude surveys conducted from time to time in the services recently. For example, in October 1962 the Air Force conducted a survey.

They found that over 40 percent of the men who had recently enlisted were influenced to enlist by the draft. The Army conducted a survey in early 1961 in which approximately 38 percent of the men said that their primary reason for enlisting in the Army was in fulfillment of their military service obligation. There have been similar types of surveys from time to time in other services.

What is very difficult, of course, is to conjecture as to whether or not these men who give other reasons, even, who say they enlist because of the positive benefits of service, training and so forth, would, in fact, have enlisted if not for this draft situation, and that is why this necessarily has to be conjectural, in part.

But a very sizable percentage advances this as their primary

reason.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, would this 40 percent figure also apply to officers?

Mr. WooL. The same type of surveys were not conducted in the case of officers. However, it is the opinion and judgment of the military personnel procurement experts in the services that particularly in the case of ROTC and some of the direct-appointment programs that a very sizable percentage of the officers, too, are motivated because of the draft liability, and this is evidenced, too, by the small percentages who stay in beyond their obligated tours of duty.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, according to the provisions of the present law, special treatment is granted doctors, dentists, and veterinarians.

Have you ever considered the same type of treatment to other professions?

Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir, we have. We have concluded, however, that, apart from proposals we have before the Congress now involving constructive credit for pay and promotion purposes for various specialties, the additional financial remuneration is not justified for other specialties. It creates a problem, as you know, Senator, a morale problem, within the services. Even the special pay for doctors and dentists and veterinarians, to some degree creates that type of problem, and it creates command problems.

If one were to expand that into the other specialties who deal more directly with the line elements in the services, I think the problem would be increased. It is largely for that reason that the services have not wanted to proceed with that program.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, I note from your testimony on the policy of deferment, that, somehow, special preference is being given to, say, young men of high intelligence. What I am trying to say is that, if you are making good grades in college, you are deferred, but if you are flunking, you are not.

What is the reason for this policy?

Mr. PAUL. Well, I believe I am correct, Senator, in stating that at a time back in the 1950's, when the standards were quite lowMr. WOOL. Senator, the obvious consideration is that there is a clear need for an assured flow of college graduates in the economy. Under circumstances when the manpower pool situation was tight, it was necessary to be careful as to who was given this deferment opportunity.

It is my understanding that currently the draft boards, in fact, are quite generous in enabling any young man going through college, normally, to get his college education.

The specific requirements on class standings are in deferment regulations, but I think the application effect is much more liberal at the present time.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, am I correct to assume from your testimony that the caliber of enlistees is much higher than those of the draftees?

Mr. PAUL. I would not say that they are much higher. There are differing standards. The physical standards are generally the same for inductees and enlistees. However, there is a difference in the mental aptitude standards that are applied. To say it is much higher, I do not know that I would go that far, but it certainly is higher.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, you noted in your testimony that you have considered the possibility of extending this act for 2 years. You have indicated that this would adversely affect the manpower situation in our military services. How much would it affect the manpower situation?

Mr. PAUL. Senator, first of all, we are not wedded to the 4-year period simply because this has been the tradition, although this is always an important consideration. However, we feel that if a young man's motivation, particularly if he is inclined to wonder whether he should enlist or volunteer for the services, could be greatly affected by having a feeling that 2 years hence, perhaps, there will not be any such obligation.

Another factor, which I did not mention in my statement but which I think is important is that, as a general matter, it would be well for our country and other countries around the world to know that we are planning to continue this 4-year authority again. Any indication that we are pursuing a less-than-4-year continuation of this important authority might suggest to some people a certain lack of resolve or uncertainty as to where we might be going in the future, as far as our national defense is concerned.

I think that would be most unfortunate, but that is a general consideration, not a specific one.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Thank you, Senator.

Mr. Secretary, there have been some suggestions made that lawyers, engineers and others should have the same benefits that doctors have as to special pay.

Have you had any difficulty securing all the lawyers you need for the Armed Forces under existing law?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe we have had. It has not been called to my attention.

Chairman RUSSELL. How about engineers? Are you suggesting any amendment here now to make a special provision for drafting engineers?

Mr. PAUL. No, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Under different conditions from existing law? Mr. PAUL. No, sir; we are not.

Chairman RUSSELL. Is there any great shortage of engineers in the Armed Forces at the present time?

Mr. PAUL. There are undoubtedly shortages, Mr. Chairman, in certain specialized fields of engineering, but we do not think this is a sufficiently serious problem to attempt to make special provisions for them.

Chairman RUSSELL. Do you know of any amendments that are necessary to this act to enable the Department of Defense to get the military personnel that is considered necessary to maintain the security of the United States?

Mr. PAUL. No, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Do you think this law, as it stands today, the present law, is adequate for that purpose?

Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir; I do, together with the other legislation under which we operate.

Chairman RUSSELL. Of course, one of the important provisions of the law which you referred to in your statement is that which suspends the ceilings on personnel in some of the Armed Forces.

I have forgotten, does your statement refer to the impact it would have if the law is not extended?

Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir.

I indicated that we would have to reduce active military strengths by more than a half million from our current program strengths, if this authority were not continued.

Chairman RUSSELL. Which service would be the principal loser in that half million.

Mr. PAUL. The Air Force would be the largest loser, although every service would suffer except for the Marine Corps.

Chairman RUSSELL. The Air Force would be required to reduce its personnel strength by more than the Army and Navy combined, would it not?

Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir, by well over 350,000.

Chairman RUSSELL. 361,000?

Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Chairman RUSSELL. That is what the figures before me indicate: 115,000 for the Army, and the Navy, 81,000, enlisted members. Mr. PAUL. Yes.

Chairman RUSSELL. Of course, that means a reduction of that many enlisted personnel would bring about a comparable reduction in the commissioned personnel?

Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir. That would be the case in Navy.

Chairman RUSSELL. You would not have any use for them. It is the recommendation of the Department of Defense that the law be extended in the form it presently stands for a period of 4 years? Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. You mentioned the uncertainty that might be created in the minds of young men liable for military service if the law were extended for a lesser period than 4 years.

Do you think it would have any detrimental effect in view of the fact that we moved from crises into crises on those who would destroy us if we were to just reduce it to 2 years, or whether those who are largely dependent upon the military forces of the United States for their own defense, would it be likely to create any uncertainty in the minds of those people?

Mr. PAUL. I think it would create uncertainties in the minds of both elements, Mr. Chairman.

I think it is most important that we leave no doubt in the minds of our potential enemies.

Chairman RUSSELL. Do you think it is among the factors, then, that deter aggression and help us to avoid the horrible catastrophe of a nuclear war?

Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to overstate it, but I believe it is a factor, yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. That is what I said, a factor.

Mr. PAUL. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. I did not say it was the controlling factor. I do not think it is, either. It is one of the factors, perhaps. Senator Inouye, do you have anything else?

Senator INOUYE. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, I have noted that in industry, with the advent of automation, manpower has been cut down rather drastically, or attempts have been made to cut down manpower, and, yet, in the military, with all the automation we have, there seems to be a need for an increase in manpower.

Is there any, or should there be any, correlation between automation in industry and the military?

Mr. PAUL. I think there very definitely is a correlation. I think the size of the various service strengths does, in fact, reflect that. For example, in looking ahead, there is not much question in my mind that the new roles and missions of the Air Force, the phasing out of certain of our manned bomber forces and the change to more highly automated weapons systems, our guided missile systems, for example, are bound to have personnel effects on that service. And I think there are bound to be similar effects on other services, although the fluctuations do not always go by service at the same time. The Army, for example, is now increasing its strength, despite all the automation and new technical weapons systems that have been developed.

That is a reflection of the fact that we need a larger standing Army. There are, undoubtedly, weapons systems that can be manned by lesser people than the weapons we had to do similar jobs a few years ago, but, on the other hand, we have many more different types of weapons systems these days. I do not think there is any clear-cut analogy that can be drawn between the two.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.

Chairman RUSSELL. The committee has received statements supporting the views of a number of organizations and individuals on various aspects of this proposed legislation. Included among them are the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations, the American Legion, the American Medical Association, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Disabled American Veterans, the Lobby for Peace, the National Guard Asso

ciation, the Peace Committee of the Friends Committee of Washington, the Veterans of World War I, various branches of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and from sundry individuals.

In accordance with the request of these organizations and individuals, these statements are hereby made a part of the official record of this hearing at this point.

(The statements from the following organizations and individuals follow:)

American Dental Association.

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations.
American Friends Service Committee, Inc.

The American Legion.

American Veterinary Medical Association.

Baltimore Yearly Meetings Joint Peace Committee.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States.

Disabled American Veterans.

Friends Meeting, Eugene, Oreg.

Lobby for Peace, San Francisco, Calif.

Metropolitan Board of Conscientious Objectors, Brooklyn, N.Y.

National Guard Association.

National Medical Veterans Society.

Veterans of World War I.

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Washington, D.C.
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, La Jolla, Calif.

Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, San Jose, Calif.
Mrs. Lois Barton, Eugene, Oreg.

William H. Meyer, former Congressman from Vermont.
Mr. G. J. Ringer, Boston, Mass.

Mrs. Ruth C. Smith, Mercer, Pa.

Mr. Dabney Stuart, Williamsburg, Va.

Mr. Robert Whitford, Madison, Wis.

"Voice of the People" column "the Record," Hackensack, N.J.

AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D.C., March 12, 1963.

Hon. RICHARD B. RUSSELL,

Chairman, Committee on Armed Services,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR RUSSELL: The purpose of this letter is to submit for the consideration of the Committee on Armed Services the position of the American Dental Association regarding legislation to extend the special registration provisions for dentists and physicians under the Universal Military Training and Service Act and to extend the existing authority for providing incentive pay for dentists, physicians, and allied health specialists in the uniformed services. It is requested that this letter be included in the record of the hearings on S. 846 and H.R. 2438.

The American Dental Association has no objection to continuing until June 30, 1967, the existing provisions of the Universal Military Training and Service Act which permit special calls for nonveteran dentists under the age of 35 years. This position, which is consistent with that submitted to the committee at the time extension of this authority was last considered, remains predicated on the assumptions that (1) the regular draft provisions of the Universal Military Training and Service Act will be extended until June 30, 1967, and (2) that the provisions authorizing special calls for dental registrants will continue to be necessary to assure that the Armed Forces will be able to procure sufficient numbers of dental officer replacements to permit the accomplishment of their assigned missions.

The applicable provisions of the present law are generally consistent with policies adopted by the association's house of delegates, as follows:

"Resolved, That the American Dental Association believes that the following considerations should be treated in any legislation under the terms of which members of the dental profession can be involuntarily ordered into military service: