their resentment when they discover that their friends and classmates in high school and as freshmen and sophomores in college are commissioned as captains in the Army and Air Force and full lieutenants in the Navy, while they have to start at the bottom of the officer's ladder. Those who select either medicine or dentistry are not only given higher rank, but also receive special pay ranging from $100 a month to $250 a month. The veterinarians also receive the benefit of the $100-a-month special pay. Our men are well trained in anatomy, physiology, and pathology, particularly as these subjects relate to the eye. Postgraduate work in physiological optics is available only on the campuses which have schools of optometry. The hard core of the teaching staff on this highly important subject is composed of optometrists with postgraduate degrees. The head of the Optometry Division of the University of Indiana is Henry Hofstetter, who holds not only an O.D. degree, but also a Ph. D in physiological optics and is a trustee of our association. It is my understanding that many of the optometrists in the armed services are giving courses in refraction, contact lenses, and visual training to physicians in the armed services. Yet, the physicians and dentists are given constructive credit for their professional education prior to entering the armed services and receive the special pay benefits. I realize, Mr. Chairman, that you and the members of this committee are vitally concerned with the cost of our national defense and are very loath to act favorably on legislation which adds to our annual deficit. For this I commend you, but authorizing special pay for optometrists equivalent to that now provided for physicians and dentists would be only a drop in the bucket in the total cost of our defense program, and would eliminate what we feel to be an unfair situation. We, therefore, respectfully request, Mr. Chairman, that you and the members of your subcommittee, in reporting S. 846 to the full committee, offer an amendment to provide that commissioned officers performing optometric services in the Army, Navy, or Air Force shall receive the same special pay as if their services had been those of a commissioned officer in the Medical Corps of the Army, Navy, or Air Force. The wording of such an amendment is attached to this statement. (The amendment referred to follows:) AMENDMENT Amend S. 846 by adding thereto on page 2 after line 12, the following: "SEC. 6. If a commissioned officer's regularly assigned duties require him to perform optometric services in the Army, Navy, or Air Force, he shall receive special pay determined under section 302(b) of title 37, United States Code the same as if his service performing those duties had been as a commissioned officer in the Medical Corps of the Army or Navy, or in a comparable status in the Air Force, whichever applies to him." Chairman RUSSELL. You make a very impressive statement, Dr. McCrary. I do not think there is any prohibition against optometrists being treated as medical doctors in existing law. I think they could serve as physicians, dentists, and allied specialists; I think they could be included by the Department of Defense now. I know the question was raised once here about chiropodists, podiatrists, I believe they are called now, foot doctors. Dr. MCCRARY. Yes, sir. Chairman RUSSELL. They may be more popular since the New Frontier brought out this 50-mile walking business, but I have often thought podiatrists would be about as important to an infantry regiment as most any other kind of a doctor, but they do not share in these benefits. We will ask the Department of Defense to submit its reasons for not having optometrists in this provision, particularly as to the matter of rank. (The following information was subsequently furnished by the Department of Defense:) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POSITION The differences in rank and pay between physicians and optometrists in the military service stem from several factors. 1. Physicians spend a considerably greater length of time achieving their professional training than do optometrists. The usual optometry training entails 5 years: 4 years of undergraduate study, plus 1 year of postgraduate training. Medical training entails a usual minimum of 9 years: 4 years undergraduate, 4 years of medical school, plus 1 year of internship. However, specialty training requires an additional 2 years in the case of pediatrics and anesthesiology to 4 years as exemplified by general surgery, pathology, and orthopedics. 2. None of the Armed Forces has been experiencing any difficulty obtaining the number of optometrists it needs. Were this otherwise, optometrists would not be required to serve 3 years in order to obtain a commission. 3. The hospital team is always headed by a physician. Only a physician can "treat" a patient in the full sense of the word. This is in no way intended to deprecate the role of the optometrists who, like the clinical psychologist, the social worker, the nurse, and the dietitian, is an important member of the hospital team. However, in order to be truly effective, this team must be supervised by a physician. Each of these people possess skills which may not be known to the general physician and it is undoubtedly true that physicians can and do learn from them. The medical counterpart of the optometrist, however, is the ophthalmologist whose training as a physician qualifies him to diagnose and treat diseases of the eye. The optometrist is not so qualified. 4. If other scientific personnel are to be given constructive credit for postgraduate study and/or degrees, certainly no less should be done for the optometrist. Chairman RUSSELL. You say they are started off as second lieutenants? Dr. MCCRARY. Yes, sir. I might mention, Mr. Chairman, that I gave some testimony a couple of weeks ago before the House Armed Services Committee with relation to this matter of constructive service credit, and we have proposed an amendment on that side of the Congress to extend this also to optometrists, and we do feel that this would eliminate some of the inequities that do exist. We are having a little bit of a problem in retaining our younger optometrists to make military optometry a rewarding career for them. Chairman RUSSELL. You have had some splendid optometrists in the services. I have known some of them personally. Dr. MCCRARY. Yes, sir. We have been very proud of the record that they have made. As you will recall, we had quite a problem in obtaining commissions for optometrists until the passage of the Medical Service Corps Act. Chairman RUSSELL. Yes. Dr. MCCRARY. In 1947. Dr. MCCRARY. The great bulk of the optometrists who served during World War II and prior in the Army, and, of course, the Air Force was part of the Army at that time, served as enlisted men. Many of them were privates, corporals, and so forth, and yet they performed these duties of performing visual examinations. Chairman RUSSELL. They get the commission now, all right. Chairman RUSSELL. I happen to remember one I met at Walter Reed once who was a captain or a major, and who had been one of the instructors in optometry at the Tulane University Medical School. I have forgotten his name for the time being, but he was an exceedingly capable man. It never occurred to me that he was not drawing all the emoluments of the other members of the medical profession, but he did have the rank all right. For his age, I think he was perhaps just as high or higher than medical doctors were. Senator Inouye? Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman. Dr. McCrary, I realize that you represent the American Optometric Association, but could you think of any other profession allied to the medical profession that should be given similar treatment that you propose? Dr. MCCRARY. Let me just say this, Senator. I think, in general, the entire concept of the incentive pay does create a morale problem, as the Secretary mentioned a little earlier. There is, naturally, a resentment, because every man who serves in the Armed Forces feels that his time served is just as valuable as any other man's, and, yet, there is this problem of being able to attract men in the armed services, and we are beginning to feel this problem, as far as keeping our optometrists on active duty and encouraging them to make military duty a career. There is no doubt that there probably should be other groups included, as far as this pay is concerned, but I would hesitate to enumerate them, because, if I mentioned one, there would be the possibility that I might forget someone, and, rather than do that, I would not mention any of them. Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much. Chairman RUSSELL. Thank you, Dr. McCrary. Chairman RUSSELL. The next witness is Dr. Edward K. Ziegler, who represents the Church of the Brethren. STATEMENT OF REV. EDWARD K. ZIEGLER, ON BEHALF OF THE GENERAL BROTHERHOOD BOARD, CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN Reverend ZIEGLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman RUSSELL. Down in my State we have quite a few Zieglers. Reverend ZIEGLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Edward K. Ziegler, and my home is in Oakton, Va. I am appearing before this committee to testify on behalf of the General Brotherhood Board of the Church of the Brethren, and on behalf of my denomination. As a member of the general brotherhood board, a longtime pastor, and some years as a college teacher, I find myself in hearty agreement with the official statements the Church of the Brethren has made on many occasions in its history of 244 years in America in opposition to the use of military might in international affairs and with the position of the general board of the church on current proposals before this committee. Over the years, the Church of the Brethren has sent representatives to committees of the Congress which have considered bills relating to the Selective Service System. This testimony has always lifted up the historical position of the Church of the Brethren; that military service and war are contrary to the teachings of Jesus and the New Testament. Preparation for war and the drafting of manpower for war purposes or military training violates Christian conscience. However, the testimony of the Church of the Brethren has not been confined to pronouncing judgment on war, but has included positive suggestions for peacemaking. As you know, the Church of the Brethren has attempted to share food, clothing, blankets, physical help, and medical help for our brothers overseas and in this country. We have done this in the spirit of St. Paul: If thine enemy hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink— but more importantly in the spirit of Jesus: Inasmuch as ye have done it to one of the least of these, my brethren, ye have done it unto me. In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 31, 1950, W. Harold Row added a positive suggestion for peacemaking in the following statement: We believe that a well motivated and supervised program of economic assistance and technical assistance is essential in building the peace. We see in the Peace Corps an attempt to take positive steps for peace, just as we see in the Military Establishment unmistakable and irrevocable steps toward war. It is our aim to be loyal and devoted citizens of our country with the understanding that loyalty to the state is always subject to a higher loyalty to God. Unless we resolutely obey what we believe to be the will of God, our ways are destined to failure. We feel our responsibility therefore to support legislation in harmony with God's law and to oppose that which is not. Basically, our testimony is an appeal to this committee to take steps to repeal the law establishing the Selective Service System. This would be a dramatic step toward a peaceful world. Mankind eagerly awaits such steps on the part of the nations of the world. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, you have before you a bill to extend the induction provisions of the Universal Military Training and Service Act until July 1, 1967. In November 1962 the Brethren service commission, which is a part of the general brotherhood board, recommended: That the Universal Military Training and Service Act be allowed to expire as a significant step toward disarmament and peace. The Universal Military Training and Service Act forces young men into postponement of careers and interruption of education; it places youth in an authoritarian setting that is not compatible with democratic institutions; and it erodes the civil dominance over the military in our society. The major impact of the draft is the extension of the military claim to every young man and many families and the establishment of a military frame of reference in our country. A continuing militarization of this country is a serious threat to the historical civilian basis of government in the United States. For more than 20 years, conscription for military service has been. the policy of this Government, and many persons now regard it as established and permanent policy. However, through most of our history, and that of the free world, this policy has been considered dangerous and repugnant to the basic principles of individual freedom and democracy. The power to induct makes the element of compulsion inherent in the Selective Service System and violates the dignity and freedom of the individual. The prospect of induction places young men in positions of extreme difficulty as they plan educational and vocational programs. For many men the years between 18 and 22 or 23 hold so much uncertainty that their lives lose purpose, the foundations of character are threatened, and morality is often temporarily destroyed. Education, vocation, and responsible adult life cannot be postponed until "military service" is out of the way without serious and debilitating consequences. We urge you to recommend this bill not be passed and to allow the induction provisions of the Universal Military Training and Service Act to expire on July 1, 1963. In the event the law is allowed to continue, which we fervently hope will not be the case, then we recommend that the religious definition of conscientious objector in the Universal Military Training and Service Act, section 6(j), be removed. In the judgment of Church of the Brethren leaders, it is not right for us to demand rights for conscientious objectors whom we have trained and encouraged, which are denied to persons who may be euqally sincere but with a different orientation. While many conscientious objectors would base their conscientious objection to war on a belief in a supreme being and on religious training, we believe conscientious objection to war is not the exclusive right of those who hold these beliefs. No religious objector is automatically classified, without careful and just examination of the sincerity of his motives. Equal care in investigation could determine whether an objector who may not claim religious belief and training as his motivation, is worthy of such consideration. We live in a pluralistic society, and the cherished rights claimed by religious minorities must be granted to all citizens, whether or not they profess belief in a supreme being. We would urge that the highest patriotism in the present time is that of the creative peacemaker, who resolutely and conscientiously spends his life in doing away with all the occasions of war, and in binding up the wounds of those whom past and present wars have hurt. We seek to inspire and train the people of our churches to be such creative peacemakers in the conviction that thus we can be of the highest service to our own beloved country and to all mankind. We believe in the light of this credo that conscription for military service is evil, unrelated to the highest interests of the Nation, and a denial of basic freedoms. Therefore, we urge that it be not further extended. I am grateful to the committee for the privilege of presenting the testimony of the Church of the Brethren in opposition to this bill. Chairman RUSSELL. We are glad to have heard you, Dr. Ziegler. I know one of the greatest forces in the world today is an atheistic society that suppresses the practice of any religion, not to speak of freedom of religion. I am sure your organization took that into consideration in arriving at its views. Reverend ZIEGLER. Yes, sir. |