September 1, 1970
Page 30584
Mr. PROXMIRE. Let us face it. The division and bitterness that has characterized the past few years, that has enfeebled our country, that has resulted in so much of the moral and morale collapse on our campuses and among so many of our youth, has been the Vietnam war and especially the overhanging, nightmarish threat for the young man, and for his mother and his father, of being drafted, sent to Vietnam, put into combat, and killed.
This amendment would go a long way toward ending this nightmare. The traumatic fear of death in Vietnam for unwilling draftees would be over. And just as important the sense of guilt that haunts tens of thousands of our young who have found ways to avoid this nightmare – the evasion of draft duty to avoid the possibility of death – this too would be ended.
Mr. President, this is a practical amendment. It is a just amendment. It would end a discrimination no man can explain or rationalize. How in the world can we condone a system that results in draftees constituting 11 percent of the Armed Forces but – more than twice as many – 25 percent of the troops in Vietnam and an incredible – this year four times as many in proportion to their numbers – 46 percent of the deaths in Vietnam?
If this amendment passes would there be enough troops to man Vietnam until we get out?
First, troops in Vietnam are being steadily drawn down so that replacement demands are rapidly diminishing.
Second, the combat activities are swiftly decreasing for American forces and the Secretary of Defense has announced they will stop next June 30 or earlier.
Third, only 3 percent of all our military forces – that is of all American military personnel are draftees in Vietnam. So obviously nondraftee military personnel is available in spades now, and the need for combat troops is rapidly diminishing.
Fourth, since 1964 some 275,000 Army military men have volunteered to go to Vietnam. In view of the rapidly diminishing need for American combat troops, volunteers for combat could supply much of the remaining need.
And, fifth, nothing but nothing would be more likely to reduce the division and bitterness that has plagued this country than the passage of this amendment that would end the long nightmare for so many thousands of young men and their mothers and fathers who dread the specter of their boy being drafted, sent to Vietnam, put into combat, and killed.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Ohio.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
Mr.SAXBE. Mr. President, I think this amendment points up that in any war it is the young who die. I do not support the amendment but I do recognize that if we continue to have this war, if we continue our wars all over the world as we have in the last 100 years, it is going to be the young and it is going to be the draftee. The majority of casualties are the riflemen. In the very nature of our Armed Forces, the riflemen are the lowest ranking soldiers in any echelon of our troops. My son, who is in the Marines, wrote to me recently and said that old soldiers never die, it is the young ones.
It points up the fact that war, in itself, is based upon the service of young men who do not enlist, who sometimes are used for cannon fodder, but in all cases are the ones who bear the brunt of service.
If we are really interested in keeping young men out of war we will wind up this war. If we are really interested in stopping the shipping of draftees all over the world we will pull in our horns to the point where we have sufficient professional soldiers – mercenaries, if you please – to answer the needs of this country.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, will the Senator from Wisconsin yield to me?
Mr. PROXMIRE. I yield to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I have not made up my mind on this amendment. While this amendment sounds fair and just; it would also remove the pressure to end the war. At present, the only thing that is really getting the country upset about the war is the draft, unfair and unequitable as it is, because young men are being drafted and then sent to Vietnam.
I have heard it said that only two of Harvard, Yale, and Princeton graduates have been drafted and then killed in combat in Vietnam. That may be so, but, let us remember that it is the draft itself that has made war so dreadfully unpopular. If that cause of unpopularity is removed, would not doing so extend the war?
Mr. PROXMIRE. The Senator from Rhode Island raises the question that was asked in connection with the volunteer army. I think in this case the answer is "No, it will not." There is no question that one of the principal reasons the American public is opposed to war is the fear that our sons will be sent to Vietnam and killed. That has been a factor. But at the same time the present use of draftees represents a mechanical device to get expert soldiers for Vietnam. We do not get them from the Regular Army or through people who enlist. People are drafted into the Army but it has been known among young people that the best way they can avoid going into combat in Vietnam is to enlist, so the military now has devices to attract people to the military forces. The amendment would stop the use of this device.
For that reason, it seems to me the present system is a way to continue the war. The more we can move into a situation where one goes into combat in Vietnam only if it is on a more or less volunteer basis, it seems to me the farther we move away from the practicality of continuing the war in Vietnam.
I would like to support the position – but I do not think it would be practical – that a distinguished conservative commentator is said to have supported, and that is to send only volunteers to Vietnam. That might end the war. There were a number of volunteers, men who were Senators and Congressmen, in World War II, but not a single Member of Congress, none has wanted to go to Vietnam. In this way, if those who are forced to go into the military are not required to go to Vietnam and fight, it seems to me we are more likely to end the war, by simply making it more difficult for us to continue it.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I had the Library of Congress ascertain for me the percentage of veterans in the Senate and then the percentage of veterans in the Senate who sponsored the Hatfield-McGovern amendment. It was very interesting. The percentage of veterans in the Senate is 71 percent, but the percentage of veterans who cosponsored the Hatfield-McGovern amendment was 88 percent. So there is some truth in what the Senator has said.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Senator. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. THURMOND).
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the pending amendment No. 754 would prohibit the sending of draftees to Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia unless such draftees volunteer for this duty or extend their military service obligation.
Mr. President, this amendment should be opposed for a number of reasons. While I recognize the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin feels his amendment would not disrupt U.S. plans in Indochina, as announced by the President, I cannot agree with him.
First, passage of this amendment would make it impossible to meet our manpower needs in Indochina as we carry out President Nixon's plan of troop reduction. At present only 4 percent of personnel requirements for ground combat in Vietnam are met by enlistees who volunteer. We may as well face it, the tough job of the infantryman is not a sought-after role. Such duty is unpopular with American youth in this war as has been the case in most other wars.
If replacements to complete our commitment in Vietnam are cut off it would be necessary to extend tours of those draftees now in Vietnam. It would not be fair to ask these men to shoulder a disproportionate share of the tough job the infantryman bears.
Furthermore, the United States would have to reduce the time between Vietnam tours for our servicemen. This would aggravate the reenlistment problem and possibly drive from the service some well trained men who would remain in uniform otherwise.
Second, Mr. President, passage of this amendment would result in increased draft calls at a time when the President is trying to reduce them. Many men volunteer for the Army now in hopes of avoiding combat duty. Thus, if you remove the possibility of combat duty for the draftee this would reduce the incentive for a man to enlist voluntarily.
Defense Department officials estimate that at least half of all volunteers enlist because of the pressure of the draft. Thus, it is easy to see draft calls would have to increase sharply to meet military personnel requirements.
Finally, Mr. President, the Senate would be establishing an Army of men who live by different requirements. Some would have to face the hard task of combat, others would not. By such an action we would create conditions which would split our Army wide open. Those required to bear arms in Indochina would resent those who were not.
As our manpower requirements in Vietnam are reduced we should be able to reach the point soon where our personnel needs for combat troops would be small. By the middle of next year our fighting men in South Vietnam will be acting mainly in a defensive role.
Mr. President, if such a precedent as that proposed by the authors of this amendment is accepted it could lead to far reaching problems.
For example, draftees might also wish to be exempt from all hazardous duty, including riots and other internal disorders. There may be no end to the demand for exemptions.
Mr. President, we are a proud nation and a great people. Let us stand together in these trying times. Our men in uniform stand as one force, bound together by common goals and ideals. If we accept this amendment the divisions we have seen in our streets could erupt within our defense forces. By rejecting this amendment we can assure continued unity and the accomplishment of a tough job nearly completed.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER).
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I certainly recognize what the Senator from Wisconsin is trying to do. I only wish it were possible for me to support the amendment, because just last week I worked diligently, along with many other Senators, trying to establish a voluntary military force. I think it would work.
Again, this amendment at the present time I see as tying the hands of the Commander in Chief, and, in addition to that, and more important probably, tying the force level decisions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
I do not believe the "nightmare," as the Senator termed it, is necessarily Vietnam; I think it is the draft itself. While some young men complain about that, generally I have found that the complaint of young men is against being drafted and having to spend a period of their lives away from home and away from school doing something that they do not particularly want to do. The objections to going to Vietnam or elsewhere around this globe are not as loud or as numerous as they are to being drafted.
I see this amendment as unfortunately at the present time tying the hands of those who have to make the decisions.
I believe, for example – and I know the Senator from Wisconsin has supported me in this – that a voluntary military, had we approached it in the proper way, prior to the unfortunate war in Southeast Asia, probably would have provided all the forces we needed to fight a war of that size.
I may sound as if I am about to vote for the amendment, but I assure the Senator I am not. Had we not engaged in warfare over there, which to me was unfortunate, we would not have needed to draft young men at all had we had a volunteer force. But we decided to use ground forces there, which is not conducive to our type of living or our kind of fighting or our type of equipment. But that decision was made. That decision is still standing, and I am afraid we are going to have to use draftees over there.
I hope by the time the draft law ends in June of next year, the President can say, "Fine. We have this down so we would not send draftees to Southeast Asia."
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me 1 minute, on my time?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I would like to ask of the Senator from Arizona, since his objection is principally directed toward tying down the military, whether the principle of not using draftees is a sound one.
I ask the Senator if he does not recognize that the number of draftees in Vietnam, in relationship to our whole military force, is only 3 percent.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I recognize that.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Furthermore, the Secretary of Defense has announced that we are going to stop combat missions in 10 months. Furthermore, he is withdrawing 260,000 troops, so that the replacements will have to be very few. Under the circumstances, does it not seem logical that we can find that small number of volunteers to send there; and if not, end that feature of the draft which, according to my constituents, is giving the young people of this country the most concern: the prospect of being killed or badly wounded in Vietnam?
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, I might say to the Senator that the prospect of being killed or badly wounded is never tasteful to anyone, whether,18 or 180 years old.
I regret having to get back to this, because it may sound a bit like a personal bone I am chewing, but during the years when Robert McNamara was Secretary of Defense, we never had an adequate force structure, and when the war in Vietnam came along, we robbed the forces of NATO to send to Southeast Asia. Practically our whole force of trained men, at one time, were in Vietnam. Had we, during the unfortunate years of McNamara, paid some attention to force structure and training, we would not have been as bad off.
I agree with the Senator that 3 percent is not a large number, and one would think we could find volunteers to fill that number of places. Personally, I would hope so. I would hope that by next year, the President would have reduced the number of combat soldiers to the point where all we have over there are the GI's with their rifles guarding the supplies, the air bases, Naval installations, and communications installations.
If that happens, I think the President would be the first one to say, "Let us confine our Southeast Asia troops to volunteers."
But if we tie his hands now, and say we have a time certain past which no draftees can go, then, if he runs into this problem of July 1, and he says we have to extend the draft even in a limited way, and we say here today, "Fine, you can do that, but you cannot use those men where you want to use them," we tie his hands.
Mr. PROXMIRE. We do not say he cannot do it, but he has to come back to Congress in order to do it.
Mr. GOLDWATER. He has to come back to Congress in order to do it anyway. Even had we passed the bill the other day he would have had to come back.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for his fine work in this fine effort. I join him as a cosponsor in supporting this amendment. Mr. President, this amendment is vitally necessary to correct a gross inequity in our Selective Service System. I have long favored substantial draft reform, and I hope that the Senate will be able to take action on that matter early next year. In the meantime, I believe that we can now take a significant step forward by ending involuntary service in Vietnam.
The inequities of the present system have been detailed by the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin in his remarks on this amendment. I would remind the other Members of the Senate of these startling facts: Draftees comprised 88 percent of our infantry riflemen in Vietnam last year, while first-term Regular Army men comprised 10 percent of the riflemen. And Army draftees were killed in Vietnam last year at nearly double the rate of non-draftee enlisted men.
The inequity is undeniable. It was even admitted, although anonymously, by a Defense Department manpower expert. He told the National Journal:
We recognize the inequity this causes in a shooting war, but we don't know what to do about it.
Mr. President, we do know what to do about it: give the draftees a choice about fighting in Indochina.
The inequity goes deeper than a preference for volunteers over draftees because of the disparities in the groups actually drafted. Draft Director Curtis Tarr has said that in some affluent areas – where the white, middle-class, college-bound students live – up to 70 percent of the young men find some way or another to avoid military service. But in rural areas and among the poor, that figure is only 30 percent. Thus, over twice as many young men with better access to lawyers and to sympathetic doctors can find loopholes to avoid combat.
The Defense Department contends that with an amendment such as ours morale in the Armed Forces would be lowered under conditions where some must assume an inordinate share of our nation's combat burdens simply to spare others.
That, Mr. President, is the situation today.
Perhaps we have a choice between inequities. How shall we resolve it? Should we say that the draftee, although he might not favor the war, should be sent into the front lines because he did not have the foresight or advice to volunteer? Or should we say that the volunteer, although he may now know what he is getting into, should be forced to prove his professionalism by laying his life on the line?
This judgment on equity is difficult to make, so we should consider other factors.
One is the feasibility of limiting combat roles to volunteers.
Last spring, the Secretary of Defense said that he hoped to phase down to an all-volunteer force in Vietnam by the middle of 1971. Now was it because of the alleged "success" of the Cambodian invasion? Mr. Laird has retreated from that position.
I believe that the plan is still feasible, and the able senior Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. PROXMIRE) has given the figures to prove it.
Such a plan would have important and significant "anicillary benefits," to use a term now much in vogue at the Pentagon.
One such benefit is that, if only volunteers are sent to Indochina, we are likely to have career- minded soldiers who are better trained and more highly motivated than draftees.
Another benefit was cited in a thoughtful letter to me last month by an Air Force officer. He wrote:
Requiring only career military personnel to serve in the war zone . . . would give the Pentagon a powerful incentive to end the combat as soon as possible.
The pending amendment is feasible. It would not require the immediate withdrawal of all nonvolunteers; it would only forbid the future sending of them.
The Pentagon estimates that about 1,800 men are required each month to replace rotating ground combat troops and that only about 800 volunteer each month. Are the men in the Pentagon so dubious of their own justifications for the war that they do not believe that, from our population of over 200 million people, 1,000 more men each month will volunteer to fight in Vietnam?
Perhaps they could improve their persuasiveness by changing their policy – or by ending the war.
This amendment is fully within the constitutional powers of the Congress. In 1940, Congress prohibited the sending of draftees beyond the western hemisphere. In every postwar draft law, we
have prohibited sending men overseas without a prescribed minimum of training.
We can draw a lesson from European experience. In France and Germany, an act of parliament is required for conscripts to serve outside the country.
During what was only the first Indochinese war – 1947 to 1954 – the French were so divided that parliament never approved such a law. As a result, that conflict was fought by career military men and volunteers.
In France's next major effort to preserve its empire – in Algeria – the question did not arise legally because Algeria was considered part of metropolitan France. Yet the disagreements over that war were so profound that the fourth republic was toppled by a military coup and General deGaulle rose to power.
That experience shows, I believe, that no nation can fight a war when it is deeply divided over its wisdom or justice. Using draftees only adds to domestic dissent and to the likelihood of political chaos.
There is also a moral factor which compels us to adopt this amendment. Our Indochinese war has divided our country more profoundly than any other public issue since the Civil War.
We can no longer calm the rising discontent – especially among the young who are being conscripted to die in this war – by shouting criticisms from our middle-aged safety.
It does our country no good to impugn the courage or integrity of those who go to great lengths to avoid military service.
We cannot ask the young to be united behind a war which has divided us so much.
We cannot ask them to accept uncritically the justifications for actions which so many of us find incredible or unacceptable.
We cannot even ask them to fight a war, because we have never followed the constitutionally required steps to declare the Indochinese conflict a war.
What we can ask of the young men of this country, however, is the same considered judgment that all other citizens are forced to make: If we favor the war, to support it; if we oppose the war, to deny our support.
In recent months, I have received a number of illuminating letters from combat soldiers in Southeast Asia. The tone of the letters is thoughtful, not complaining.
One theme runs through all of these communications – the idea that the young people of this Nation would willingly unite to defend our country if they truly felt our national security was endangered. In this undeclared war, they do not feel that our national security is imperiled. Nor do they believe it is in our national interest to try to determine, by military force, the political destinies of all of the countries of Southeast Asia.
I believe these young people have a case. I urge the Senate's support of this amendment to end sending draftees to Vietnam.
We got into Vietnam by political and diplomatic decision. We ultimately are going to withdraw from Vietnam by political and diplomatic decision. It is no use – in fact, it is unjust – to simply cry out against military leaders who, in the first place, advised us not to be involved and, in the second place, have undoubtedly been hampered in what they considered their best advice by the political intervention.
So, in the final analysis, the decisions that must be made are going to be made in Congress, in this determination. I urge the Senate to adopt this amendment on draftees in Vietnam.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HUGHES. I yield.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Did I correctly understand the Senator to say that in his judgment something like 1,000 replacements a month would be all that would be necessary under the circumstances?
Mr. HUGHES. That is correct.
Mr. PROXMIRE. It is a very interesting fact. The Senator pointed out that there are 200 million people in this country. I might also point out that 3 million are members of the Armed Forces. If out of that number we cannot get this tiny fraction, a fraction of 1 percent, to go to Vietnam, it raises very serious questions as to whether we should not find some way of terminating the Vietnam war much more rapidly.
Mr. HUGHES. As indicated, a total of 1,800 are needed, and approximately 800 volunteered, and they needed a thousand draftees to implement that on a rotating basis. I agree with the Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Senator for a very powerful statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining in apposition to the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi has 15 minutes remaining. The Senator from Wisconsin has 8 minutes remaining.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield me 3 minutes?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. DOMINICK. I thank the Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. President, I had not planned on engaging in a debate on this particular amendment, but I have been listening to the speeches that have been made; and I think that one of the things that the distinguished Senator from Iowa, for whom I have great respect, misses in his argument is the question of who is a draftee and who is a volunteer in this day and age.
We can say that only 3 percent of the forces are actually draftees; and, technically speaking, that is correct. But there are many men in the armed services or in the National Guard or in the Reserves who went in so that they would be volunteers and would get into the area they wanted, rather than be a draftee. If there had not been a draft, they would not have gone into service.
I happen to know this. My son happened to be one of them, so I can say it very easily.. He served in Vietnam for a year. He was a volunteer. He was a volunteer because he found that, although he did not like the military, there was less harassment in Vietnam and a better chance to accomplish something than there was if he was just in a home base over here. The military experience of 2 years that he had, obviously did not do him any particular harm, but it was not something that he liked. He had not wanted to be there, or to be any part of it. He got in because, as I said, he felt that otherwise he was going to be subject to the draft. There are many people in this category.
So if we suddenly take just the draftees and say that they do not have to go but that the fellows who have volunteered in lieu of the draft do have to go, we will have to draft many more people and we will have many more problems. We will have, as the Senator from South Carolina so aptly said, a two-system division within the Army, as to who is going to perform respective types of services. It seems to me that that would be very inequitable, when we are faced with this difficult psychological problem as well as a difficult military problem.
I just wanted to put that into the RECORD. I thank the Senator from Mississippi for giving me the time.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute to reply to the Senator from Colorado.
The President's Commission on an All-Volunteer Armed Force stated that in recent years approximately 500,000 men a year have volunteered for military service. Although some of these volunteers volunteered only because of the threat of the draft, the commission found that the best estimate is that at least half, 250,000, are true volunteers.
The reply to the Senator from Colorado, it seems to me, is that it is true that young people can volunteer for the National Guard or the Reserves; they can volunteer and get a particular assignment; and that is exactly the problem that this amendment tries to meet. Those people are exempt from combat. If not exempt, their chances of getting into combat are much less, while the men who are drafted are now put into combat in great numbers; 11 percent of the Armed Forces are draftees; 46 percent of the deaths in Vietnam are draftees. This terrible injustice is what we are trying to overcome.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield myself 10 minutes.
Mr. President, we are getting right down to the nub of things now. It has been agreed in all the debates. On a volunteer army, on the end-the-war amendment, that we want the war to end, that we would like to have a volunteer army. But, by a vote of 52 to 35, we decided that it was not wise now – in fact, that it was impossible now.
With respect to the McGovern-Hatfield amendment to end the war, everyone wants the war to end; but the judgment of this body was, by a vote of 55 to 39, that that was not the way to do it, by putting it in writing and stereotyping and limiting the President on the floor of the Congress.
We decided to stay in Vietnam, under the conditions, in debate, and we would like to say that we are going to stay but that we are not going to require anyone except volunteers for Vietnam to go to Vietnam. I am sure that we would get a hundred votes for that, if we were expressing our wishes. But, again, the realities must be considered. The realities do not permit it.
Mr. President, the effect of this amendment simply would be to stop effective military operations in Vietnam, and I believe that I can explain why. Overall, approximately 8,000 of the 21,000 monthly replacements for the Army to Vietnam are draftees. That is 8,000 and 13,000, to make a total of 21,000. It is estimated that half of the 13,000 are draft inducted – induced to volunteer by the draft; and that is a very respectful term to be used. It is a matter of choice. Some would just rather go when their time comes under the regular turning of the wheel in the Selective Service.
Others would rather go ahead. But from the realities of these figures, it is readily evident that there would be insufficient replacements to continue present operations even on the phased-down basis which is now in progress.
Let me refer to a crucial element of combat replacements. I brought this up during debate on the volunteer army.
These are the boys in the infantry, armor, and artillery units – and let me first observe just what the significance is of being assigned to this particular type of activity. In fiscal year 1970, 10 percent of all Army personnel in Vietnam – about 48,000 men – were riflemen – those who carry their gun in their hands, who bear the brunt of every attack, and whose lives are constantly at stake. This group, constituting only 16 percent of the Army in Vietnam, took 54 percent of all the casualties.
If we include all of the infantry skills, that is, those who handle the mortars, assist with the tanks, et cetera, this group constituted 22 percent of all the Army in Vietnam in 1970 and this group took 67 percent of all the casualties. These are the men, Mr. President, who bear the heaviest burden of war.
Mr. President, I want to speak now to the Vietnam monthly requirements for these combat elements – infantry, armor, and artillery. For August 1970, the monthly replacement requirements for this total group is 6,500 men. It is expected that this monthly figure will go down to 3,600 in May 1971.
Now let me state that the total monthly production for the Army worldwide is 7,500 men and, as I have indicated, 6,500 men go to Vietnam.
Where do these men come from, Mr. President, for these combat elements? Out of the 7,500, 5,100 are inductees or about two-thirds. Twenty-one hundred are volunteers with no particular skill choice but are placed in these combat elements after training. Three hundred are volunteers with a combat skill.
Mr. President, those figures are taken from the record. That is not an estimate. That is the record of what has been going on.
The Army has made some rather intensive studies of what would occur on the premise that we make no involuntary assignments to Vietnam or that we send no draftees to Vietnam. In either case, Mr. President, the result is the same. The total number of monthly replacements who could be expected to go to Vietnam under these conditions would range from 400 to 700 men. Three hundred of these would be the combat skill volunteers, with the remainder out of the other volunteer group. In other words, Mr. President, out of a present requirement of 6,500, and out of a May 1971 requirement of 3,600, only about 400 to 700 men would be available. We can always say this estimate is too low but even if we double it, the results are the same. The combat units in Vietnam could not continue to operate. Keep in mind that we have a 1-year tour in Vietnam and there must be the monthly replacements coming in for those who have served their required period of service.
The result of this amendment would be such that in a very short period of time we could anticipate a near breakdown of the combat elements of the Army in Vietnam. Among the several dire results is that the thousands of Americans who are already there, would have their lives placed in jeopardy. Under these circumstances I do not see how the Senate, by any stretch of the imagination, would be acting responsibly in adopting this amendment. I, therefore, urge amendment No. 754 be voted down.
Mr. President, these facts are sordid. I wish they could be to the contrary. I wish we could give this group some element of reasonable hope and practicality that the plan would work. But the overwhelming facts are to the contrary. The conclusion is inescapable, that as long as we have to continue the war, we must have the selectees, and we are going to have to send some of them to Vietnam. We pray that all will come back, even though we know that some will not. But, as long as the fighting goes on over there, I think it would be a debacle in Vietnam and in this country, should this amendment be adopted and become law.
Mr. President, I yield back such time as I did not use.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I yield myself the remainder of my time. In reply to the Senator from Mississippi, we fought for, and, from my standpoint, we lost the volunteer army amendment. But this amendment would not end the draft. It would provide that draftees would still be brought in as needed. But they would not be sent to Vietnam.
It is possible. The statistics are overwhelmingly clear that it is possible to stop sending draftees to Vietnam now.
After all, they constitute, in Vietnam, 3 percent of the whole of our military force. Why can we not send some from the 97 percent available, if, as the Senator from Iowa has pointed out, the replacements are only 1,000 a month? That is not much of a drain out of a 3-million man military force and out of 2½ million men who are volunteers.
There is a simple reason why. The argument made by the Senator from Mississippi is the one that the Pentagon has been making against this kind of amendment. They argue that this would disrupt the skills they now have in the military. What that means and as translated is that the skill the draftees have is carrying a rifle or a mortar, or serving in light artillery, and getting into combat and getting killed.
What happens is that those voluntary enlisted are given a choice. They can have vocational training and they can be put into something that keeps them out of combat, or some kind of training that they can use in later life. Those who are drafted are not given that kind of choice. They go into the area available because it is not chosen – to wit, combat – infantry and the much greater prospect of death.
We know that those in the military forces get about eight weeks' training When I was in, in 1941-1946 it was a sixteen weeks' training period. It is not a high skill but it is certainly respectable and a very vital skill to defend one's country. Nevertheless, it is possible for the military to change this. They have all the flexibility, and time, and all the personnel, to make the change. The system that now permits those who reenlist for three years to get out of combat makes it necessary for those who decide to do this to take their chances. Those chances are not increasing but diminishing sharply. Combat missions are to be ended at the end of this fiscal year, June 30. Personnel needs in Vietnam of all kinds are diminishing. This is the time when we can act and we must act now. We are facing a most troublesome school year just coming up in this country.
This is the kind of amendment that could help enormously toward easing the kind of serious problem we face.
Let me sum up by pointing out that the troops in Vietnam are being steadily drawn down and replacement demands are rapidly diminishing. Combat activities are decreasing for American forces. The Secretary of Defense has announced that it will stop next June 30 or earlier. Only 3 percent of all military form – that is, of all the American military personnel – are draftees in Vietnam, so that the number of draftees for military personnel is available now, and the need for combat troops is diminishing. Since 1964, 275,000 Army military men have volunteered to go to Vietnam.
In view of the rapidly diminishing need for American combat troops and the fact that volunteers for combat could supply much of the remaining need, few if any actions, Mr. President, perhaps nothing, would be more likely to reduce the division and the bitterness that is plaguing this country today than the adoption of this amendment.
It would end the long nightmare for so many thousands of young men, and their mothers and fathers who dread the prospect of their boy being drafted and sent to Vietnam and killed.
I realize – most of us realize – that the chances of that happening now are less than they used to be – that they are rather small. But that is not much comfort to the young man, or to the mother and father, who may be drafted.
We are in a position where we can provide, with the passage of this amendment, a great advantage for the country and the ending of a long nightmare.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I cannot support the amendment of the Senator from Wisconsin. The amendment suggests that only professional soldiers could fight our Nation's battles and that civilian inductees would be insulated from combat duties. And, as I have said on many occasions, I think it is unwise to free all but a relatively small number of volunteers from the possibilities of having to serve on the battlefield.
Under this amendment, any young man who is drafted would not have to serve in Indochina. This is directly contrary to one of the primary purposes of the draft – which is to assure that the burdens of war are, to the greatest extent possible, shared equally by all our citizens.
I also have the feeling that this amendment would be self-defeating and would create enormous confusion. The draft would become the haven for war-dodgers and the number of volunteers would rapidly decline. In all probability, it would soon become necessary to subject draftees to combat duties once again. We would be right back where we started with a great deal of dashed hopes and administrative inconvenience.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the Proxmire amendment poses a difficult issue for a Senator who is opposed to our continued involvement in the Indochina war: If we are opposed to a continuation of the fighting and the killing, why should we send young men who have not voluntarily accepted the risk to fight in Vietnam?
If the vote on the Proxmire amendment were treated as a symbolic gesture, the vote would be an easy one for me. I would vote for the amendment. But the vote is much more than a symbol; it is a statement of policy, affecting not only the Indochina war, but broader questions of national defense manpower.
I have spoken against our indefinite military involvement in Southeast Asia. I have submitted a resolution calling for a declaration of peace and steps to end the fighting and the killing. I have supported the McGovern-Hatfield amendment. But I voted against the proposal to create an all-volunteer army at this time, because I believe it would increase – not decrease – the danger of a repetition of our involvement in Vietnam, Cambodia, and the rest of Indochina. Having followed that path, which I believe to be the most consistent and logical path of opposition to military adventures and increases in the risks of war, I cannot support the Proxmire amendment, worthy as its objectives are.
Mr. President, there is a danger that as the level of combat for our ground forces drops, the temptation to hang on in Vietnam, propping up the Thieu-Ky regime, will grow. If we substitute volunteers for draftees, the danger will be greater, for the public cost of the war will be less obvious. If we are going to end the killing of American men in Indochina, Mr. President, let us end the killing of them all, not some. And let us do so in such a way that we increase the chances for an end to the killing of the people of that area, and help lay the groundwork for a negotiated settlement. Let us not be diverted from that goal by stratagems which cut our costs, but do not go to the heart of the problem. Let us work to end the war, and end it soon.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, in the muddy fire bases and in the thick, steamy jungles where the ugly warfare of body counts and kill ratio is being fought in Vietnam and Cambodia, the prospects of an end to the fighting tomorrow or even next summer have a cynical, unreal ring.
To the young soldiers and marines who spill out of helicopters with thumping rotors kicking up dust and debris, ready to lift quickly in case of attack, war is present and endless.
By ever-increasing numbers, the young men who make up the units that seek out and destroy the suspected sanctuaries of the elusive Vietcong guerrillas are not the volunteer soldiers of 5 years ago, but the draftee, who in most cases would have finished his schooling or started a family and a career had he not been drafted.
And he goes to fight with a good chance of not returning from a confusing, unpopular war that no rational man wants to see continue and that nearly every American leader in and out of Government says must come to an end.
He is fighting and sacrificing his life in a war Congress did not declare. In a war that grew to full scale as the country first sent economic and military assistance to the shaky government of South Vietnamese President Diem after the French colonial rule ended in 1954, then sent advisers. then volunteers, and then the draftees.
The draftee, as so often has been the case in this country's wars, is an efficient, economical source of manpower. He can be quickly trained and is inexpensive because he falls into the lower ranks. At present, it is estimated that it costs only $6,200 a year to maintain a foot soldier.
With the overwhelming bulk of the draftees – some 95 percent – going into the Army ground forces, the draftee's chance of becoming a combat soldier is very good. With the reenlistment rates of regular Army soldiers dropping from a normally stable level, the draftee, while numbering only one-third of all the troops in Vietnam, is bearing an increasingly heavier share of the fighting and now is representing almost 65 percent of the total of the men dying in the Southeast Asian war.
The likelihood of a draftee ending up in a combat rifle company is also increased by the fact that the enlisted or volunteer soldier has the first choice for the technical and support jobs available. It is estimated that it takes about 10 men outside the immediate combat areas to support one rifleman in combat.
Since he makes up two-thirds of the total of all men going into the Army, increasing numbers of draftees are being sent to Southeast Asia.
The Marines, an almost totally volunteer force, and the Army are handling the bulk of the fighting in Vietnam. Since 1965, when we first committed ground combat troops to Vietnam the reenlistment rates of the career soldier plunged along with the increase in the war's unpopularity.
In 1965, the reenlistment rate for the Army was 47.4 percent. According to recent Department of Defense figures for fiscal year 1969, it has dropped to 30.1 percent. For the Marines, it was 34.3 percent in 1965. By fiscal 1969, it had fallen to a dramatic 14.7 percent,
The reenlistment figures are even dwindling for the Air Force and Navy. The Navy has experienced a drop from 40.4 to 34.5 percent, and the Air Force from 61.4 to 54.3 percent during the same period.
On April 23 of this year, the President sent a message to Congress proposing an end to the draft.
He said the draft "must be phased out, so that we can be certain of maintaining our defense strength at every step ... as we move away from reliance on the draft, we must make provisions to establish a standby draft system that can be used in case of emergency." In addition, last May, Secretary Laird stated that by the end of fiscal 1971, we will have some ground forces in Vietnam, but they will not be assigned a combat mission.
The goal of an all-volunteer Army, which I have strongly supported, is the concern of many Congressmen. But that goal seems to be slipping farther and farther away as this country places greater reliance on the draftee to fill the widening gap left by the diminishing reenlistment rates.
That problem, like so many of the others – domestic and foreign – presently plaguing this Nation, is tied tightly to the undeclared war in Vietnam that is tarnishing the Nation's image, draining our resources, and destroying the morale of young and old alike, both within and outside the armed forces.
Amendment 754, which I have coauthored with Senators PROXMIRE and HUGHES, will provide that after the date of enactment of the military authorization bill, no funds may be expended to send draftees to South Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos unless they volunteer for such duty.