CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
October 8, 1968
Page 30008
SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE DISCUSSES THE NEED FOR DRAFT LAW REVISION
Mr. YARBOROUGH. Mr. President, in recent days, the distinguished Senator from Maine, EDMUND S. MUSKIE, the Democratic Party's nominee for Vice President of the United States, has been making many friends for himself and for his party. Senator MUSKIE has avoided flamboyant partisanship and rhetorical flourishes that are used by some candidates to capture newspaper headlines. Rather, he has brought his quiet, low-keyed campaign directly to the people of America and has sought to engage the electorate in a thoughtful dialog on the critical issues facing America in this election year.
No speech is a better indication of Senator MUSKIE's desire to talk honestly and sincerely with the people than the one he made at the University of Colorado, at Boulder, last Thursday, October 3, 1968.
Speaking before a group of students at the University of Colorado, Senator MUSKIE confronted directly a critical problem that is uppermost in the minds of many students today -- the draft. In a very thoughtful and provocative address, Senator MUSKIE came to grips with this very complex issue. Nor would he talk in vague generalities or simply demagog on the inadequacy of the present system. Rather, the Democratic nominee spoke in terms of specific changes which are needed to make our system of selective service more equitable.
Mr. President, the issue of draft law revision is one of the great issues of this generation and of this decade. Any time young men are drafted to go into battle, possibly to die, it is essential that they be equitably and fairly selected. Even now, although hopeful peace talks are underway in Paris, hundreds of draftees are dying in Vietnam. If escalation continues in this tragic war, it may be assumed that hundreds and even thousands more will die. In this context, selective service is not just a matter of military manpower, it is a matter of human life. Clearly, then, our system of selection must be the best that concerned men can devise.
In his address to the students at Boulder, Colo., Senator MUSKIE clearly demonstrated his concern that a more equitable system must be devised. In his articulate statement, he spoke of the need to adopt a system of random selection of draft registrants, with the youngest man eligible first. This is a proposal that is contained in at least two thoughtful pieces of legislation that were introduced in this session of the 90th Congress. The first, S. 3052, offers a comprehensive revision of our Selective Service System and was introduced by the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. KENNEDY]. The second, S. 3394, would reverse the order of induction and provide a system of random selection as Senator MUSKIE proposed in Boulder, Colo. It was introduced by the distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. HART]. I have joined as a cosponsor of both of these bills, which I think offer needed reforms in our present draft laws.
Mr. President, draft reform is a major issue in America today. Among our youth, it may well be the paramount issue. Most certainly, it is an issue of such importance that it should be discussed by any serious candidate for national office. Senator MUSKIE is to be commended for taking this issue to the American people.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of his address at the University of Colorado be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the address was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
ADDRESS BY SENATOR EDMUND S. MUSKIE, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER, October 3, 1968
College and university stops have become as frequent as the proverbial railroad whistle stops for political candidates this year. At least, that's been true in my case, and it has been by choice.
I know that many college students are unable to vote. But I do not come here just to seek votes. I come rather to exchange ideas, to challenge and be challenged, and to encourage your participation in this critical election.
In the short time that I've been a candidate for Vice President, I've listened to what you are saying. I've tried to understand and appreciate your views -- and the reasons why you hold them. Since this is about the half way point in the campaign, it seems an appropriate time to give you my impression of what young America is saying -- and why.
You may regard this as a mid-term exam for you and me.
Few of you have been burdened by the economic uncertainty that has dominated the thinking of previous generations.
The problem of economic survival -- the simple fear of what tomorrow may bring and the limitations it has placed upon earlier generations -- has never inhibited your vision.
And because of this new freedom, your generation has developed a new perspective, a new point of view about American society.
My generation regards the historic social advances of the past 30 years as milestones of human progress: social security, medicare, the outlawing of segregation, the beginning of an effort to eradicate poverty.
Your generation refuses to rest on the achievements of the past.
You look to the future.
You see some progress, but not enough. You know that the average American has never been so well off, but you don't like what many Americans are doing with their wealth and leisure.
You know that affluence alone does not guarantee excellence.
You want those Americans who have made it to listen to and have compassion for those who have not.
You resent a system which forces you to serve in war which many of you do not support or understand.
Many of these views are not new to this Nation or to this generation.
What is new is the intensity with which you hold these views, your intention to act on those convictions, and your desire for instant results.
This is a healthy sign, for you and for America.
There is, of course, another side to the coin.
If you want to be heard, you must be willing to listen.
If you want to be respected, you must be willing to respect others.
If you want to participate in the democratic process, you must be willing to accept democratic decisions.
If there's something you don't like, work to change it. But don't tear down an institution unless you are prepared to build a better one.
As I said earlier, I came here today to share these thoughts with you and to listen to what you have to say. But first I want to spend a few minutes discussing a subject of interest to all of us -- the draft.
Last year the National Advisory Commission on Selective Service completed a comprehensive study of the draft. Its chairman, Burke Marshall, said the Commission's objective was "to find the means of securing the manpower needed for our national security in a manner as consistent as possible with human dignity, individual liberty and fairness to all citizens."
The Commission first rejected the suggestion that the draft be eliminated in favor of a volunteer professional army.
It concluded:
(1) That such a system would not be able to provide larger numbers of men in times of crisis.
(2) That it could become a mercenary force unrepresentative of the Nation, and
(3) That it would probably be prohibitively expensive -- present estimates indicate that it would add from $8 to $16 billion a year to the military budget.
If the draft is then to be with us, how best can we reach Mr. Marshall's objective of conducting it with dignity and fairness?
We can begin by admitting that at present the draft does not operate in this manner.
To put it bluntly, the present system is unfair and unjust.
The methods of selection are not uniform. There are over 4,000 local boards with varying classifications and procedures, particularly for college student deferments.
The boards are not representative. Over one-fifth of the members are over 70. Only 1.3% are Negroes.
The appeals procedure is sadly inadequate. Most importantly, the present system of selecting the oldest first introduces a major disruption into the life of every young man from the time he is 18 until he is 26. He faces 8 years of uncertainty as to when -- or whether -- he will be called for induction. I think we ought to change that.
First, I propose that at age 19 all men eligible for the draft should be selected by lottery -- by the fair and impartial random system recommended by the Commission. Under this system, a man would have but one year in his life when he was vulnerable to the draft -- at age 19. If he were not selected during his 19th year, he would not have to serve, unless, of course, there were a prolonged and extreme emergency.
If a man were selected by this random system, he could choose to meet his obligation by serving at once or by postponing service until he has completed two years of college or vocational training. Those electing to take officer training would serve after completing their undergraduate education. However, student deferments would be understood to be simply postponements of service and not exemptions from service.
There would be certain categories of deferments for extreme hardship, conscientious objection, or essential occupation.
Second, I urge that we broaden the opportunities for those who wish to volunteer by making service more attractive through pay system reform. Better use of personnel in the specialties for which they have been trained, more use of civilians in place of military personnel, and careful re-examination of enlistment standards.
Third, local selective service boards should be strengthened by the adoption of uniform national standards, more adequate appeals procedures, and a greater effort to inform the draft registrant of his status and the timing of his induction.
Finally, I believe we ought to give careful consideration to permitting volunteer national service as an alternative to military service.
We must come to realize that although military security is a major element in preserving national security, the two are not synonymous.
Former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara expressed it well in 1966 when he said: "In a modernizing society, security means development."
Security is not military hardware -- though it may include it. Security is not traditional military activity -- though it may encompass it. Security is development. Without development, there can be no security.
The national service alternative would permit us to do, on a much broader and more meaningful scale, the kinds of things we need to do if we are to become the kind of society our declaration of independence and constitution promised.
America today faces a crisis of will. In the past few years we have made great advances in improving the quality of American life. Yet we still face a bewildering array of problems that seem insoluble to many.
Division over Vietnam saps our strength and diverts our energies.
Our cities are in danger of becoming nightmares of fear and decay.
There are disturbing signs that our races are drifting apart.
Our waters are fouled. Our air contaminated. A national mood of unrest, born of frustration over these problems, creates a fertile climate for the merchants of hate and fear. But we do have the resources to deal with these problems.
The question is whether we have the will to do so, as one people, united in the belief that no one of us is truly free unless every one of us is free.
I believe we have that will. We can and will end the war. We can and will rebuild our cities.
We can do all these things, and more. But we can do so only with the full and vigorous participation of every segment of our society, including our young people. That is why the national service alternative appeals to me.
It would open constructive channels to the enormous force for good which exists among American youth today.
By making a broad range of alternative services available -- from the Peace Corps to the Teacher Corps to VISTA -- we could mount a broad attack on the roots of poverty and deprivation at home and abroad, while at the same time insuring that everyone subject to the draft would have the opportunity to engage in alternative service.
There are some problems with the national service alternative which must be recognized:
1. Would it create a haven for draft dodgers?
2. Would it permit an educated elite to escape military service, dooming the poor -- black and white -- to an ever larger share of the mud and blood of battle?
3. Would it leave enough men subject to the draft to enable us to meet our basic military needs?
4. Could voluntary service programs be fairly equated with military service?
These are hard questions to which I don't pretend to know the final answers. But it seems to me that they are the kinds of questions we ought to be discussing in this campaign -- the kinds of questions you ought to be thinking about and searching for answers to.
Draft reform and the national service alternative represent a challenge to you to work for meaningful change within our democratic system -- change that will require deeds not words, commitment not indifference. I think you can meet this challenge.
Machiavelli said that: "There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things."
But Francis Bacon stressed the continuing need for new approaches when he said: "He that will not apply new remedies must expect new evils; for time is the greatest innovator."
I think they were both right.