September 17, 1971
Page 32352
EXTENSION AND REVISION OF THE DRAFT ACT AND RELATED LAWS CONFERENCE REPORT
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the pending business, the conference report on H.R. 6531, the extension of the Draft Act, which will be stated by the clerk.
The second assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 6553) to amend the Military Selective Service Act of 1967; to increase military pay; to authorize military active duty strengths for fiscal year 1972; and for other purposes.
The Senate proceeded to the consideration of the conference report.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, much has been said about the crisis that is supposed to be developing due to the expiration of the draft. We have heard shrill pontifications on the cataclysmic occurrences happening to our national defense posture from knowledgeable citizens, not the least of whom, of course, is the President of the United States, who stated yesterday that the Senate was acting most irresponsibly in not renewing his powers to induct young men into the armed services.
In all these statements, there has been little proof and little fact to back up the projections.
The era of a nation of sheep has long passed. When we are told by those in high office that something bad will happen, we now demand a little more proof.
The fact that the President and some leaders in Congress may think something bad will happen does not necessarily mean it will happen. It does not even necessarily mean that they have any facts to back up their statements.
In fact, the evidence of the past 2 months demonstrates adequately and conclusively, including the specific evidence of the numbers of men who have enlisted, that the draft is not needed. That the leaders in this country, in the face of this evidence, continue to give pessimistic statements without the actual facts is a disservice to the Nation, if not actually a misleading of the people of this country.
Two days ago I inserted in the RECORD the enlistment figures for July of this year, namely, 35,800 men, as compared with 32,400 the year before.
That means that in the month of July, this year, without the draft, there were more volunteer enlistments in the armed services than volunteered last year when we had the draft.
Of course, the argument used by my colleague, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, that the reason that happened was fear of the draft, does not hold water, because there is no reason for a young man to enlist out of fear of the draft until he has received his physical. Of course, during July, that was not the case because inductions were suspended for that period of time. There was no immediate fear of the draft, yet the enlistments went up. The increases amount to 10,700 men, which is significant.
The experience over past years indicates that enlistments declined in July and August from a high in June. This year there was a decline, but less of a decline than had occurred previously.
I might note also the fact that the Washington Post published an article on August 9, 1971, reporting on the results of N. W. Ayer & Son, the advertising firm that was hired by the Army to promote enlistments for a volunteer army. It stated that the enlistments in armor, artillery, and infantry, during this period of time, March, April, and May, increased sevenfold.
That means that enlistments, which were 1,039 during the same months in 1970, increased to 7,642 in 1971.
It is interesting that when the draft expired the DOD halted the advertisements, I think to make a case, as was done in 1948, to bamboozle Congress into passing draft legislation. They are trying as hard as they can now to make a case that they need men. If they have to give early discharges, if they have to cut off their own programs which they have initiated, I think they will do that in order to make their argument.
But the argument is not made because, in the face of no advertisements, enlistments have increased over this period of time.
I do not know what further proof we can demand as to what are the elements of the argument.
We who oppose the draft have put forth the actual figures of the enlistments.
Those who are for the draft merely state that the national defense posture is in danger. I believe that any objective person, any intelligent person, can realize that we are offering specific figures and they are offering only opinions.
Yesterday, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee spoke of projections; in other words, the events and facts of today cannot make his case, so he must rely upon projections, under the leadership of Secretary of Defense Laird and the President; projections that, obviously, will make their case and not our case for 6 months from now.
I submit that Congress will still be here 6 months from now. If there really is something bad happening to the defense posture with regard to the force levels, then Congress can do something about it at that time.
Mr. President, I should like now to address myself to another subject area, namely a communication I had with the Secretary of Defense last August. Along with the expiration of the President's powers to draft, there also expired the suspension of troop force levels that have been in existence since the Korean war.
In 1948, Congress instituted the force levels of slightly over 2 million men. Today we have about 2.7 million men under arms.
I wrote and asked the Secretary of Defense what plans he had afoot, what considerations, what thoughts, what undertakings, to bring the force levels down in conformity with the law, which is a little over 2 million men.
The answer I received, paraphrased, is merely that they, of course, were waiting to see what Congress would do and until that time they were obeying the spirit of the law.
It is interesting that when Congress voted the draft in 1948, in an era prior to missiles, the electronic battlefield, and the computerization of our forces, we were told by the military experts that what we needed to defend the country was 2 million men. At that time, we had about 1,200,000 men under arms.
After the institution of the redundancy of three defense systems, Polaris, Minuteman, and bombers, we are still being told that in order to defend the country adequately we need 2.5 million men under arms.
I submit that the situation has not changed, that we can get along adequately with 2 million men under arms.
I would hope that the administration, which is so fond of indicating its prowess with respect to law and order, which has been so harsh in polarizing the youth of the Nation in its accusations of youthful disobedience and lack of obedience of the laws, would begin to follow the law. I see no difference between civil disobedience on the part of the President and the Secretary of Defense than I do with regard to civil disobedience on the part of our youth. In fact, I would be much more prone to tolerate the civil disobedience of the latter since certainly they would have some excuse through lack of knowledge and lack of experience. However, that certainly cannot be said with respect to the Chief Executive of this country. Melvin Laird and Richard Nixon know the law of the land, and if they chose deliberately not to obey the law of the land, I can only say it is typical of the schizophrenic approach that prevails in higher circles. It is utter hypocrisy.
With respect to the President's statement of yesterday that the act of letting the draft expire is one of the most irresponsible acts of the Senate that he could imagine, I can only say that I disagree with him totally. The Senate is probably guilty of many irresponsible acts. I think the most irresponsible act that we have been guilty of is that we have daily let him have the power to continue the war in Vietnam. And if we do not stand up and rally in support of an immoral act of the Government, he accuses us of being irresponsible in denying him the fuel to wage war. I think the shoe is certainly on the other foot.
I think the President has not kept faith with his promise of 1968 that he would do away with the draft. He has not kept faith with the American people with regard to his promise to end the war and to end the draft. He made those promises in 1968.
There are only two reasons why he would want to continue the draft legislatively at this time.
One is so that he might end it himself before election time and very dramatically claim that he had kept his promise. The second is that it would give him a choice as to what he wanted to do.
I do not think it would be good for the country to give him the draft in either instance. I would hope that the Senate would table the conference report and let the Senate and House conferees renegotiate so as to end the war.
I think it is the greatest tragedy of our time that this war can continue and that we in the highest offices in the land can only stand aside and watch this holocaust and this butchery. This is truly the most irresponsible thing that the Senate has done, and we do it daily, in permitting him to have the power to kill human beings.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Mr. PERCY. I intend to vote to table the draft bill conference report because there is still ample time for the conferees to return a bill more in line with the overwhelming vote of the Senate on a sharing of responsibility by Congress to end the war, and on increasing military pay raises in the lower ranks, so we can work more rapidly toward an all-volunteer army.
The Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force have stated it is essential that the draft be resumed by November. The conferees would have sufficient time to revise the bill so that Congress could meet that deadline.
AMERICAN LEGION SUPPORT FOR SPEEDY APPROVAL OF DRAFT EXTENSION
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the national commander of the American Legion, John H. Geiger, has sent me a telegram urging that I oppose the planned motion in the Senate to table the conference report on the draft extension bill.
The Legion is to be commended for the interest taken in this important vote today; and if other Senators received a similar wire, as I suppose they did, it is my hope they will weigh carefully the words of Commander Geiger.
The text of this wire reads as follows:
The American Legion urges you support extension of selective Service Act to maintain essential strength of active and reserve forces. Failure to extend the draft will create manpower crisis and, in our judgment, seriously impede our nation's defense effort.
Mr. President, I have spoken at length several times this week in opposition to any move to table the draft conference report. Some say the Nation can do without a draft the next few months; others feel there is no need to extend the draft at all.
The facts I have presented, and those offered by the members of the Armed Services Committee, as well as by other Members of the Senate, fully support the argument that the draft must continue.
While it may be argued that the no-draft situation since July 1 has not resulted in any great manpower shortages, the indicators clearly show that vital manpower accessions are in a dangerous downtrend.
The situation may be compared to that facing the pilot of an aircraft which has lost power. The plane is falling fast, and while it may not have yet crashed into the ground, the fact is that it will surely crash unless power is regained.
Let us not make the error of gambling with our national security and then being faced with the need for rapid and costly steps which will undoubtedly result if the present no-draft situation continues.
Mr. President, I urge Senators to reject the motion to take the draft extension bill conference report.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, today I am voting in favor of the House-Senate conference report on the extension of the draft. In a time of shifting foreign policy and a continued arms race, we can ill afford to scrap the system of defense which has seen us through history's most troubled times. As I said at the Citadel last March, nothing can demonstrate as clearly as the draft the resolve of our people to shoulder the burdens of defense. The draft mirrors the strength and the will of a people. And I have always believed that the draft is the most equitable way to organize the Nation's defense. This bill will not only continue the draft, but will also put an end to college deferments, which are not in keeping with the spirit of the draft.
The conference report does not include the Mansfield amendment, which I voted for last June.
This measure declared it to be American policy to end the war and to provide for the orderly withdrawal of our troops within 9 months of passage, subject to the release of our prisoners of war being held throughout Indochina. The House-Senate conferees diluted the Mansfield amendment by changing it into a sense of the Congress resolution and by omitting the 9 months' deadline. Still, if the conference report is passed, the House will go on record with the Senate as advocating the swiftest possible withdrawal from Indochina, subject to the release of our prisoners. It will be the first time that both Houses of Congress have called for an end to the war.
While the original Mansfield amendment is stronger, the conference report is a long step forward. And given the urgent necessity of reinstituting the draft, I am not about to sacrifice national security by insisting on the original version.
I have just returned from a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Paris. While there, I did not call on the Vietcong or the North Vietnamese. We have but one President, and when I travel abroad my politics remain at home. However, I did talk with the President's negotiators, both of whom I had known personally – Ambassadors Porter and Habib. I am convinced from my conversations with them that the chance still exists to negotiate an end to the war. I believe Congress can help the President end the war by assuming as much of the responsibility as possible. The President operates under the fear of the first defeat. No Commander in Chief would like the results in Indochina. And no Commander in Chief can be expected to shoulder all of the responsibility. In short, Congress can no longer avoid sharing the burden of ending the longest and most frustrating war in our history. By adopting the conference report, Congress would be living up to the harsh demands of leadership. And it would also be playing the more active role in foreign policy that the Founding Fathers envisioned when they wrote the Constitution almost 185 years ago.
By continuing the draft and by assuming its share of the burden on Indochina, Congress would help insure a sound American national defense. If we were to jettison the draft as we withdraw from Indochina and disengage elsewhere, we would be inviting grave danger. Our first priority is always national defense; for without the shield of security, we could not go about the business of nurturing and encouraging the many liberties we hold dear. Let us, then, preserve the draft, showing the rest of the world that we in America are more interested in asking what we can do for our country than what our country can do for us. John Kennedy's summons to the 1960's must become the reality of the 1970's.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I shall vote to table the conference report on the draft bill today because it is essential that the original language of the Mansfield amendment be restored as an essential step toward ending our involvement in the war in Vietnam.
I feel that the best way to end the war – the quickest way, the surest way to obtain the return of our prisoners, and the best way to reallocate resources to our own society – is to set a date certain for the withdrawal of all our military personnel from Indochina. The Mansfield amendment language, although it does not cut off funds beyond a date certain, does set a date. For that reason, I feel it must be adopted.
Many argue that continued delay of the draft bill will seriously weaken our military effectiveness.
I believe that a reasonable delay in order to allow the conferees to agree on restoring the Mansfield language would not cause any weakening of our national security.
The best way to protect our national security is to push with all our strength to withdraw from Vietnam. Therefore, I shall vote to table the conference report and shall vote in favor of sending the bill back to conference with instructions to accept the Mansfield language.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, yesterday we were told that this body is on the verge of one of its "most irresponsible acts," and that a vote to table this conference report "is a vote that will make the United States the second strongest nation in the world, with all the implications that has insofar as the ability of the United States to keep the peace and to negotiate for peace in this critical period."
Seldom have words from the administration on such an issue disturbed me so deeply. Let us examine just who is being irresponsible. The administration has raised the threat that somehow our Armed Forces are suddenly dissipating in the absence of the draft during the past 2½ months.
Yesterday I attempted to point out, as others have, the real facts and figures which give ample evidence for the needlessness of the draft, and I have consistently stated my opposition to the continuation of the conscription.
But that is not the real question before us. We all know that the administration can have the draft extended in a moment if they really feel it is all that vital. All they have to do is adopt the Mansfield amendment, and tell the American people that we will have our troops out and military operations end in Indochina by next spring, provided we have our prisoners returned.
The irresponsibility falls on those who refuse to say we will be completely out of Indochina by next spring.
If the administration actually believes what it says, and if they really believe that failure to extend the draft will make the United States a second-rate power and destroy our ability to keep the peace, then why do they not simply accept the Mansfield amendment?
The question we face then, is not whether the draft shall be extended. We are deciding whether this war will be further prolonged, or whether it shall be ended.
Let no one cloud the issue by false threats about the perils to our security. We are voting once again on the war – a war that, more than any other factor, has weakened the true security of our Nation, and destroyed our image as a peacemaker.
It is this war that we must face again. Since the Senate overwhelmingly adopted the Mansfield amendment, 270 more Americans have given their lives in Indochina.
Every reason for fighting this war has been discredited.
We have been told we were fighting: to stop aggression from the North; to contain Communist China; to maintain our Nation's credibility; to keep the dominoes from falling; to avoid being a "pitiful, helpless giant"; to get back our prisoners of war; and to give the South Vietnamese people a chance to choose their own destiny.
It has been these justifications which have fallen like dominoes. The pretense of our fighting there to give the South Vietnamese a chance to choose their own destiny – something our military presence has consistently made impossible for the South Vietnamese – now has been revealed as the final farce by the forthcoming one-man election.
So with no reasons left to defend the war, its defenders have turned to not talking about the war.
The economy has suddenly captured the stage as supposedly the paramount issue. So we forget about the war and look for a solution to our economic woes – which is about like forgetting about germs and looking for a cure to disease.
Yesterday in, the paper we read about a Cambodian village which was "liberated" from the enemy – and completely napalmed by American planes. The story read:
Today there are only blackened holes where the many wooden houses stood. The nearby trees are scorched from the heat of the fire that obliterated the empty town after air strikes by United States and Cambodian bombers.
Today in the news we have heard about a savage battle in South Vietnam, with the body count reported: 91 Vietcong killed, 47 South Vietnamese, and one American adviser. The Vietnamese, the Cambodians, and the Laotians have not been able to forget about the war. Neither have the families of the 270 Americans who have perished there since the Senate approved the Mansfield amendment. Some may find it easier to worry about their pocketbooks instead of our foreign policy – particularly as more dark-skinned, and fewer lightskinned people give their lives in support of our policy, and the version of one-man democracy that we now underwrite.
But I do not believe that the American conscience can be so easily numbed. This body must reflect both the conscience and the will of our people. Even more, each Member of this body is answerable to his own conscience. He bears the responsibility, given to each of us by the Constitution, for determining whether or not there shall be an end to the bombing of villages, and the daily killing and maiming of Americans and Asians by our bullets and bombs. Let us again express our will, and make it the policy of our country that we shall totally end our involvement in this war, provided only that our prisoners are returned
We must not allow the power of conscription to be extended as long as the executive branch refuses to totally terminate this tragic war – a war that we all can never afford to forget.
NOTICE OF MOTION TO TABLE-UNANIMOUS CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, for the information of the Senate, and in view of the fact that the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, the manager of the bill, should have advance knowledge, I wish to announce to the Senate that I will offer a motion to table at 11:30, before which there will be a brief quorum call.
In the meantime I ask unanimous consent, Mr. President, that the remaining time between now and the hour of 11:30 be equally divided between the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, the manager of the bill, and the Senator from Montana now speaking.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I yield all of my time to the distinguished Senator from Mississippi with the exception of 15 minutes, which I would like to have his permission to use at the conclusion of the debate.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, if the Senator would yield, I understand the leader's position here.
The statement was made yesterday that the motion to table would come at 2 o'clock yesterday afternoon, and it would have if there had not been intervention by the Senator from Montana. I understand the situation, and the Senator can understand my situation here.
I am not in the role of agreeing to a motion to table. However, I understand the Senator's position fully, and I appreciate his advance notice and the division of time.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.