Congress. Senate Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower, and Poverty of the Committee
on Labor and Public Welfare. Manpower Implications of Selective Service.
Washington, D.C. GPO, 1967.
SuDoc No.: Y4.L11/2:Se4
Date(s) of Hearings: March 20, 21, 22, 23, April 4, 5, 6, 1967
Congress and Session: 90th - 1st
March 22, 1967
Burke Marshall, Chairman, National Advisory Commission on Selective Service, accompanied by:
Bradley Patterson, Staff Director, National Advisory Commission on Selective Service
Senator Kennedy of New York. The third question which relates to that, what has
been the result of this policy up to the present time as far as the typical individual, typical
young man who is called in the draft? Is he a cross-section of the country or is he from an upper
or lower economic group?
There have been various reports there has been a higher percentage of Negroes and those in lower
economic groups than in the higher groups. Could you speak to that?
Mr. Marshall. Senator, the statistics are that in proportion to their
population, there are more Negroes that are drafted from the eligible group than whites. The
statistics also are when you look at the services and the units that bear the brunt of the combat
in Vietnam that the proportion of Negroes in those units and those services are far above the
That is also true of the statistics on the casualties. I think that the figures are that in the
last year 22 or somewhat over 22 percent of the men killed in Vietnam are Negroes.
Now, there are other reasons for that but I think that it starts, I think it starts with the fact
that this whole system of deferments hits Negroes worse and harder than it does other people.
Now, I say that about Negroes because we have statistics for them. I do not think those
statistics are the result of discrimination in the sense that Board members pick Negroes over
whites. I think they are the result of the poverty, of educational lacks and that kind of thing,
the fact that those incidents of our society are more characteristic of the Negroes in our society
than any other group.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Going back to the discussion we were having, you
talked about the effect that the deferment policy is having on students and also the effect of
the fact that a larger percentage of Negroes have been called and a larger percentage of Negroes
have served in Vietnam.
Has the fact that this has been true, and a larger percentage of Negroes also have been wounded
and killed as to their percentage of the population as a whole, has this had an effect in your
judgment on the attitude of not only the Negroes but those of the lower economic groups in this
country about the war?
Mr. Marshall. Senator, I guess I would have to say that I don't really know.
My impression is that it has had.
I would add this; that it seems to me to be awful important, when this country is engaged in the
kind of war that we are engaged in now, that it falls equal on all segments of the society; not
only from the point of view of how the people don't have a chance to avoid the draft, but also
that it can be real and understood by the young men and their parents and families who do have
this kind of opportunity; so that I think that the equal participation, the equal share in the
risk in this kind of a situation is important for the Nation as a whole and not just to avoid
disaffection of the poor or Negroes of the society but for the political process in the country
as a whole.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Have you found that there is a feeling that the
system at the present time is inequitable, unfair?
Mr. Marshall. Senator, I would just have to say that I don't have any statistics
and I don't have any surveys and I just don't know. I could only give you my personal judgment;
and my personal judgment is that many, very many of the people who are affected in the way that
you are talking about now think it is unfair.
April 4, 1967
Morris Bunch, Freddie Finch, William M. Stokes, accompanied by Vernon E. Hawkings (a panel)
Senator Kennedy of New York. What you are suggesting is that there are those who
grew up under extremely demanding circumstances and might have had a brush with the law, who are
deeply patriotic, who want to serve with the Armed Forces of our country, and who, having received
some additional training and counseling, find their skills and upgraded to the point where they
can serve in the Armed Forces. And that when they do, they have demonstrated themselves to be
extremely effective fighting men and patriotic young people.
Mr. Hawkings. I think I follow the same line of thought that you have expressed
Senator Kennedy of New York. Do you know whether, from your experience in working
with some of the rejectees, any of those who have demonstrated in civil rights and arrested have
been rejected on this ground?
Mr. Hawkings. Depending on the type of arrest. A young man can get arrested
for being disorderly and get a disorderly charge. It depends on how the interviewer or the
recruiter looks at this particular arrest.
If a man is demonstrating for something and he gets arrested, I know in this particular area, the
disorderly charge itself would have some bearing on the way in which it was looked at.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Say a southern sheriff were to arrest a civil rights
worker for disorderly conduct, and he had a record. Would that not, under the present definition,
be enough to exclude him?
Mr. Hawkings. It would, from my understanding of it, under the 1-Y regulations.
April 4, 1967
A College Papers Panel Consisting of Don Morrison, Editor in Chief, Daily Pennsylvanian;
Chuck Sable, Editorial Writer, Harvard Crimson; Tom Myles, Staff Writer, Howard
Hilltop; Carolyn Carter, Editor in Chief, Howard Hilltop, accompanied by Anthony Gittens
Senator Kennedy of New York. Could you comment generally as to the opinions
among the editorial staff at the Howard Hilltop?
Miss Carter. Yes. I think you mentioned already that we have a compulsory ROTC
system at Howard, and that we have taken an editorial stand against that, and just as it is the
compulsory feature of the ROTC program we object to, it is the compulsory nature of military
service that is the objection in the opinion of our staff.
We favor the creation of a volunteer career armed forces, or military system.
You know, since I feel sort of uncomfortable in the position of being a lady editor speaking about
the draft, I asked the feature editor of the paper to come along. He is on my left. I think he
has more feeling of some of the problems of the people who are here in the Hilltop. He is
the only one eligible for the draft now, and so I asked him to come along, but generally I feel
that it is the compulsory nature of the system and also the fact that the black man gets the worst
of it that we object to.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Excuse me?
Miss Carter. The black man gets the worst of the system.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Who do you think would get the worst of it if we had
a volunteer army?
Miss Carter. I think it would be impossible to assess.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Let us think it through together. Would it be
those on the lower rungs of the employment ladder?
Miss Carter. I think it is possibly so, but I think the fact that they want to
be there makes the difference.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Pardon?
Miss Carter. I think the difference is in the volunteer feature. I think the
black man gets the worst of it when you are being forced. I think that is different from the
Senator Kennedy of New York. You would not mind if we had a black army as long as
they were being paid?
Miss Carter. I object to people being forced into military service. I think the
objection to the system is the primary thing. If people want to go into the Armed Forces, I think
the panel who was just here proves there are a number of people who feel their educational
opportunities are in the service, and with some additional training they might have greater
vocational opportunities after they leave.
I think it would be preferable for those who want to serve to be able to serve and continue their
education. Those who are not --
Senator Kennedy of New York. Do you believe that one of the principal reasons
that people go in the Army is because there are limited opportunities for them outside of the
Miss Carter. Yes, I believe so.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Today, wouldn't that be primarily the Negro?
Miss Carter. Right.
Senator Kennedy of New York. So, it seems to me, from the limited study I have
made, that a voluntary army will be a black army, made up of those who are in the low economic
scale of our society. The question, I think, which is presented to all Americans is whether we
want to have a mercenary army fighting the battles for our country. Are we going to take Johnny
Jones, whose opportunities are very limited, because of educational deficiencies no fault of his
own, or of health deficiencies no fault of his own? He sees as his only opportunity to get out
of this, is to enter the Army. He is the fellow sent over to South Vietnam, while other boys,
gifted financially or intellectually, are not.
Miss Carter. I have attempted to think it is a pleasant choice, but I think it
is really the lesser of two evils.
Senator Kennedy of New York. I am sure you can comment on this.
Mr. Gittens. I think that that is just about the case now, where you have our
poor individuals going into the Army. You have examples this afternoon, people who were up here.
If you notice, they were all Negroes; they went in because they wanted a better opportunity.
It is my feeling that instead of these boys, these men seeking financial security and just going
around in their life -- they should seek at home, these black ones should not be drafted, but
instead be left in their community, raise their families and all.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Of course, the statistics available show that more
than 75 percent of South Carolina Negroes are not accepted. The Negroes have a higher rate of
rejection than the whites, while actually the percent inducted, even in the Armed Forces, is
comparable, roughly, to those that are inducted of whites, on a proportionate basis.
Granted that the number of opportunities available for officer candidates are less, the enlistment
rate is higher for Negroes. And the battle casualties are higher. But just with regards to
inductions, the reports that I have seen do not convince me that we are taking a higher proportion
really. There are other elements working against the NEgro, as, for example, service on the draft
boards, but with regards to just taking them, it is not disproportionate.
Mr. Gittens. I still think that the draft should be even lower, the standards
for the draft into the Army still does not solve th problem. I think the problem is a domestic
one and I think if these people are left in the country and more effort was made by the Federal
Government, State government for that matter, to improve their education, economic situation,
that that is much better all the way around than to draft these people and put them in the Army.
I think they are very fortunate they have not been drafted.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Were you not trying to suggest that the prime or
principal way for the Negro to get a break today is through the Army?
Mr. Gittens. Well, that might be a truism, but I still think it's wrong.
Senator Kennedy of New York. That's probably the reason for your reservations
about having a volunteer army, as well.
The question that concerns me is the suggestion that those who would be taken in or attracted to
a volunteer army would be those in the lower rung of the economic scale, and that is going to be
Are we going to say this is going to be the principal opportunity that is going to be available
to them, or are we going to try to open up other employment and educational opportunities, a
whole host of different opportunities by providing greater educational chances, scholarships,
kinds of training for them so they can find better opportunities in the economy?
It seems to me you are saying that the volunteer army is going to foster what has been described
as the last chance for the Negroes of this country.
Mr. Gittens. As Senator Hatfield pointed out in his Senate bill, I think it's
1275, when he talks about a volunteer army, I think he presents a good argument. The fantastic
turnover, virtually when he is trained it is time for him to leave, well, he will leave.
Now, you have people going in there and they will be receiving this training and he also mentions
that in order to make it a bit more attractive --
Senator Kennedy of New York. They will get killed, too.
Mr. Gittens. Well, Negroes are getting killed in Vietnam now, in order to make
more attractive the rights.
Also, another aspect of this volunteer army, like any other job, a person can't take a position,
then if he feel -- to be more specific, if a black man is recruited into the Army and he is there
for a certain number of years and he feels that a certain issue does not interest him, that he
does not want to lay his life on the line for that issue, now he can quit like any other job.
Now, he can come back with this training, with the money that he has gained from this Army and put
all of this back into society.
Senator Kennedy of New York. How many can quit over in Vietnam?
Mr. Gittens. No one can quit now as far as that goes.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Under a volunteer army you will be able to quit?
Mr. Gittens. Right.
Senator Kennedy of New York. If we had a volunteer army, and suddenly we had a
hot war and we found a lot of people quitting -- what would that do for us as a country?
Mr. Gittens. Now the country, I do believe in the democratic process and I do
believe in the rule of the majority. It seems to me if the majority does not feel that an issue
is vital enough for them to lay their lives down on the line, that is up to them.
If they would rather have the enemy come over here and take over and rule them, then I think that
is a decision they have to make and it is not the right of the Government to make that decision
Senator Kennedy of New York. I wonder if you would express yourself with regards
to deferments, whether your own personal feelings is that we should continue the student deferments.
Mr. Gittens. You mentioned something at the beginning, I am not familiar with
the work that you have done before. But it appears to me that the college student on the average
is more intelligent because the income of his family and himself in general is higher than the
If you just draft the people, defer the students and just draft the people on the block, I am
speaking more of Negroes, that if you defer your students and you draft the people on the block,
that you have this intellectual leak, and I don't think that is fair or justifiable in any way.
Senator Kennedy of New York. So you have reservations about student deferments?
Mr. Gittens. Yes, I have. But I think with the Negro it is specifically more
generalized, it is a special situation.
Now, the Negro, because of oppression in this country, is on the lower level economically and
educationally, and I think specifically Negroes particularly should -- they should not lose their
student deferment, not at all. I am not quite sure, but I think something like 8,700 of the
casualties in Vietnam have been Negroe.
Senator Kennedy of New York. What percent?
Mr. Gittens. Well, 8,500, 8,700. That's not percentage, that is the number.
Senator Kennedy of New York. I see.
Mr. Gittens. Howard University has an enrollment of, I think, 8,512. If those
people were wiped out, it would have a very distinct effect on the Negro community. I think if
you draft your Negro students, that you will be in a way -- you will be destroying these freedoms
and these liberties that you are trying to maintain, because by pulling this intellectual force
out, this intellectual economic force out leaves the Negro in a worse situation than he was before
the war, before these people were drafted and I don't think it is fair at all.
Senator Kennedy of New York. You are not suggesting a special deferment for
Mr. Gittens. I think they have earned this -- well, that is not the correct
word, but I think because of the oppression that they face in this country, they do deserve that
at least. So here a little bit was given to them, a little hope was given to them and now the war
has taken that away.
Senator Kennedy of New York. What about Puerto Ricans?
Mr. Gittens. Well, they are just as oppressed as we are, any oppressed people
I don't believe should be drafted.
Senator Kennedy of New York. What about poor whites?
Mr. Gittens. As we stated before, we don't believe in the draft for anyone.
Senator Kennedy of New York. We are talking about deferments now, special
deferments. Negroes, Puerto Ricans, what about poor whites?
Mr. Gittens. Anyone on the lower economic level, anyone who will benefit,
whose community will benefit, whose race will benefit by them staying in college rather than
being drafted into the Armed Forces, I would think that these people should be deferred
automatically, automatically the Government owes that to them.
Senator Kennedy of New York. I understand there is another gentleman here who is
attending Howard University; is that correct?
Mr. Myles. That is correct.
Senator Kennedy of New York. You are a veteran, as I understand it. Would you
give us your name?
Mr. Myles. The name is Tom Myles.
I was taking note of your comment that you did not feel that a professional volunteer army would
necessarily benefit deprived people.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Would you tell us something about yourself?
Mr. Myles. My name is Tom Myles and I am a junior at Howard University, majoring
in government, political science. I am a feature writer for the Hilltop newspaper and
Senator Kennedy of New York. How old are you?
Mr. Myles. I am 30, and a veteran of the Navy.
Senator Kennedy of New York. How long were you in the Navy?
Mr. Myles. I spent 3 years there.
Senator Kennedy of New York. And then you came back to continue on in college?
Mr. Myles. Well, not in that sequence. After the Navy I worked for the Federal
Aviation Agency for 5 years and then I returned to Howard.
As I was about to say: I was taking notes of your comment that a professional volunteer army would
not necessarily improve the conditions of our oppressed, undereducated and ghetto black people;
and I also noticed what Mr. Sable said here; and that is that a professional army would tend to
recruit or accept those people with high level of qualifications and skills necessary to manage
the increased technological state of the army and I thing this is in accord with Senator
Hatfield's bill. He takes that position.
Even as the panel before us, as you say from the panel before us, even if poorly educated black
people did want to volunteer for a professional army, the requirements of the professional army
would still dictate that a large number of them be rejected, so I don't think that we would have
an all-black, mercenary-type army if it was made a volunteer profession.
Further, I think there is something slightly immoral about requiring, especially in the draft
system, it might be different if people wanted to volunteer and could qualify, but there is
something immoral about requiring a black person from the ghetto that has suffered all he has
suffered in the American system to go and law down his life.
I think it is a poor way to educate and train people technically; I think it is immoral to rely
on the military where a man risks his life for a country, to give a man an education. I think
the place to start for it is in the society rather than rely on the military.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Are you for having a special exemption for Negroes?
Mr. Myles. I would say yes. Especially for those Negroes who are not in
college, because the fact they are not in college might very well indicate they have not had the
opportunity or the chance to acquire the skills and abilities necessary for a better life.
Senator Kennedy of New York. I want to try and at least see if I understand the
previous position. You wanted the exemption for Negroes who were in college because this was
the Negro elite and they were the ones who should not get shot up over in Vietnam.
Mr. Myles. I don't think the two positions are mutually exclusive. I would say,
first of all, that all black people deserve a special consideration --
Senator Kennedy of New York. What about Puerto Ricans?
Mr. Myles. I would say if they have suffered the same as the Negroes have, they
should be given special considerations, too. Generally, my position is that those people who
benefit most from the society should be the people most readily to lay down their lives for the
Senator Kennedy of New York. Are those going to be just whites?
Mr. Myles. I wouldn't say just whites. I think I would go along with the
position, I don't remember which one -- people in the Ozarks have also been deprived, through
what reason, from the full fruits of the American system. Full fruits should be given them
depending on their local situation.
Senator Kennedy of New York. So the Ozarks will get excluded?
Mr. Myles. If the Ozarks had conditions similar to Harlem and Watts.
Senator Kennedy of New York. What does it hinge upon? You are going to exclude
Negroes; you are going to exclude Puerto Ricans; you are going to exclude Indians; you are going
to exclude poor whites. Are you going to exclude Mexicans or Spanish-speaking people?
Mr. Myles. I agree that is a large majority to exclude.
Senator Kennedy of New York. What about the oppression of the Jews? Should
they be excluded because they are oppressed in certain parts of the country?
Mr. Myles. Generally speaking, I don't generally have the impression that Jewish
people are deprived.
Senator Kennedy of New York. In some parts of the country they are not permitted
in clubs, they are restricted in corporations. What should be the rule about them?
Mr. Myles. Generally speaking on a par, one would be able to say, where the Jews
have suffered greatly under the hand of the Nazis; Jews have not suffered greatly under the hands
of the Americans. They have full access to schools, financial institutions of the country such as
we could not really classify and lump the Jews with Puerto Ricans, Negroes, and American Indians.
I realize there is a great deal of anti-Semitism that still exists in the country and indeed in
much of the world. And I sympathize with Jews, of course, as I sympathize with all oppressed
Back to your question about the large majority -- this large category of people being excluded.
I don't know just what the system could be, but I think any further draft system --
Senator Kennedy of New York. Before you go on, just following through the logic
of your argument, I think the only people who would really volunteer for the Army would be rich
whites because they would be the ones who have benefitted under your definition of our society.
I am wondering whether, in fact, you are going to get rich whites to volunteers.
Mr. Myles. I believe, as Mr. Sable pointed out, that you would also get a large
number of people volunteering for the Army, who, for economic reasons wanted to improve their
situation, those people perhaps not the brightest in the Nation, perhaps not the most competent
but not the least educated, not the least oppressed either. So -- and there are people who would
want to join the Army for adventuristic reasons, for the esprit de corps and for a variety of
And I think this was also pointed out in Senator Hatfield's bill, that there is a sufficient pool
of manpower such that perhaps our country should not have to rely on drafting people. I think he
suggested enough men could be acquired through a voluntary system for staffing the Army.
Senator Kennedy of New York. I would be interested in all your reactions to this.
The Defense Department, in considering the volunteer army, estimated the cost at from $4 to $17
billion, depending on a number of variables.
Professor Oi, who is an economist at the University of Washington, and the principal economist
relied upon advocates of the voluntary army, estimates the cost to be $7 to $9 billion.
This is a yearly cost. Now, would you rather have that $7 to $9 billion a year devoted toward
education, rehabilitating slums, providing open spaces, job retraining programs, expanded health
opportunities? Or would you rather have the $7 billion, the bare minimum estimated by those who
support the legislation, devoted to the volunteer army?
Mr. Gittens. One question. What are the figures --
Senator Kennedy of New York. $17 billion is the Defense Department per year
estimate of the cost.
Mr. Gittens. Now, with the present system --
Senator Kennedy of New York. This is an increase over the present costs.
Mr. Gittens. $17 billion.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Prof. Walter Oi says that the minimum would be $7
So you have a wide range. But that is what it is going to cost us, in addition, for a volunteer
Now, I would be interested in whether you feel that utilizing those funds to meet the problems of
poverty, in a comprehensive way, would be more meaningful to your interests, or would utilizing
them for a volunteer army?
Mr. Gittens. Well, let me ask you this question, if I may.
Senator Kennedy of New York. That's all right. We left the formality a long
Mr. Gittens. Would you rather a Negro, say, in Mississippi be drafted -- I
think it was a Negro from North Carolina, South Carolina -- I don't remember where -- who has
to quit school when he was 10 years old so he could work in the field. Because of his lack of
education he was drafted. Would you rather he be sent to Vietnam and killed or would you rather
worry about the $17 billion?
Senator Kennedy of New York. I would rather provide the Negro with an opportunity
for education and apprenticeship training, and upgrading his way of life, as I would the --
Mr. Gittens. The draft has been going on for quite a while and Negroes are still
struggling to get out from under this. So somewhere along the line somebody has failed.
Senator Kennedy of New York. There is no question that we are examining this
morning your feelings about the draft system, and that is why I asked those questions to you, who
gave us a very articulate explanation of your feelings with regard to a volunteer army.
I recognize this is going to be a costly affair. No one has suggested it would not be. If you
had the $7 or $9 billion it is going to cost, would you rather see the funds devoted to health
and education, improving the housing conditions, attacking the problems of poverty, or would you
rather have the volunteer army.
Mr. Gittens. I am not trying to skirt the question, but I think the choice
really is not a fair one.
I think when you consider that a nuclear submarine costs in the billions of dollars, if you just
do not build a few submarines we will have enough to fund the Army. So you see, the choices that
you give me really are not fair.
What I am stating, I am concerned about life. I am concerned about black people who have been
oppressed in this country.
Senator Kennedy of New York. You are not suggesting that we save the $7 billion
on tanks and airplanes so that we do not then have the equipment?
Mr. Gittens. We are saying because of the volunteer professional army, we are
going to need $17 million more to fund it, and you said -- billion dollars to fund this -- so I
am saying I think this $17 billion is very easy to come by in this country.
We are the richest country in the world. It is very easy to come by. I don't think that is any
Senator Kennedy of New York. Do you care to make a comment?
Mr. Myles. I had thought that one of the main arguments of the bill for a bigger
volunteer army was that it costs somewhere in the neighborhood of $6,000 just to train one recruit;
a the end of a 2-year period this man would be leaving the military again and that at this rate
our country was spending some $30 million, I think the figure was, just in the inefficiency
included through turnover --
Senator Kennedy of New York. I want you to include the salaries you are going
to have to pay. You are going to have to raise the salaries, of course, in order to attract these
people. You cannot use the present salary scale.
Mr. Myles. I see. To answer your question directly, then I think if we had a
choice between spending more money for a voluntary army and solving the social problems and ills
that we have here at home, I think our country would be far better off if we addressed ourselves
to the more salient problems here rather than spending billions more for some nebulously defined
interest in southeast Asia or maybe other parts of the world.
Senator Kennedy of New York. That is a different question, isn't it? I am not
asking you whether you think the commitment in southeast Asia is worse than the additional money
we would spend in a year. That is another question. I think I know what your answer would be on
But the question is given the volunteer army proposal which you have suggested here and the fact
that it is going to cost $7 billion. Would you rather have that $7 billion be directed toward the
problems of social ills in this country?
Mr. Myles. If I had to make such a rigid choice between the two, I would place
the emphasis, first, on people, whether or not people are going to be killed in a situation,
whether or not the lives of people are going to be improved by so spending the $17 billion in a
way as an alternative to the professional Army.
Miss Carter. May I respond to that?
Senator Kennedy of New York. Yes.
Miss Carter. I wanted to say if we ever came down to a choice of either figuring
out a fair way of defending the country and solving educational and economic problems in the Negro
community, we have sunk pretty low and I don't know where we are going to get our volunteers from
if we have to make that kind of a choice.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Chuck, do you have a brief word?
Mr. Sable. Since you have segregated us very cleverly, I will follow up and take
one shot at the Negro exemption.
One problem I see with it is that in the one case I know of a class, of a group that automatically
gets exempted from war, which is the Pennsylvania Dutch. There may be a legitimate case to be
made for saying the Negro should be exempted now or for 5 years or whatever, but as happened to
the Pennsylvania Dutch, they acquired the political means to extend it and extend it with the
result being that Pennsylvania Dutch just about automatically receive conscientious objector
status. They are not examined, so whatever arguments you could have about the Negro exemption
at the outset, you could certainly argue that in the long run it would be a dangerous thing.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Tom, would you like to say anything more?
Mr. Myles. No.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Would you like to say a final word?
Mr. Gittens. I would summarize our position, that theoretically the people in
the society who enjoy the benefit of the society should be willing to fight for it.
Well, the Negro has not been enjoying the benefit of the society and therefore should not be asked
to participate in the military.
Miss Carter. We got so far off on deferments I just wanted to remind people of
what our original position was, and that was that we did not believe in the draft for anyone
because we don't feel that compulsory military service is an appropriate obligation of
I thought this might need some clarification.
Senator Kennedy of New York. I want to thank all of you very much for coming
down here this morning. I appreciate the comments you have made and the candor with which you
have spoken. It has been very helpful, I think, and it will be to the members of this committee
and also to the Senate.
I think you have stated your positions with forcefulness, clarity, and passion, and I want to
express my appreciation to all of you and thank you on behalf of the committee.
April 6, 1967
Friedman, Milton, professor of economics, University of Chicago
Senator Kennedy of New York. Statistics are clear that the greater number of
volunteers for the Army have been the Negroes.
Mr. Friedman. Right now, because we underpay so much. They are the only ones
for whom the Army could be attractive on those terms. If we were to make service in the Armed
Forces more attractive, you would find that people who do not now think about entering would
change their minds, and people would be attracted to it who are not now.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Following a strictly congressional point of view,
and once again you can help me along on this, if we follow it strictly from an economic point of
view, those in the lower ranges of the economic ladder, are going to be more attracted to those
more desirable conditions and more desirable pay. Would they not be?
Mr. Friedman. The problem, Senator, is that we must look not only at what kind
of people are attracted, but also at the demand of the military forces for certain skills, and
the desirable thing in a volunteer army would be --
Senator Kennedy of New York. Let us talk about the rifleman, the infantryman,
rather than the technicians, because these are the ones who bear the principal burden, certainly,
of our obligations today.
As I understand it, if we were to look at the incomes today, we would have to realize that among
Negroes, their incomes are considerably lower than comparable whites.
Mr. Friedman. That is right.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Therefore, the attraction of going into the Armed
Forces for the Negro would be a good deal more than it would be for the white.
Mr. Friedman. Certainly.
Senator Kennedy of New York. Assuming we are able to develop various educational
programs to provide minimum education for Negroes in this country through, first, the
desegregation of schools; and second, providing additional kinds of training for Negroes, it
would appear to me that they would reach that minimum standard by which they could be, in our
definition, useful to the Armed Forces of our country.
From the studies of the Marshall Commission, it appears there are not more Negroes in the service
because more are rejected. It is interesting, also that the Negroes who are in the Armed Forces
today have by far the highest reenlistment rate.
Mr. Friedman. That is right.
Senator Kennedy of New York. So I am asking you, Professor, if you would not
agree with me that the principal reason Negroes today are not to a great extent in the armed
services is because of educational deficiencies. If these were remedied, we would have a much
higher percentage of Negroes in the Armed Forces than we do now. I am asking you why it would
not be just as true if we had a volunteer army, if we had additional economic incentives to
attract the lower economic groups into the Armed Forces, why we would not have a black army.
Mr. Friedman. We would not have a black army, that is clear --
Senator Kennedy of New York. Well, with the exception of the officers.
Mr. Friedman. No. The population figures are such that even if all likely
eligible Negroes were to enter the Armed Forces, you would be far from a black army.
But let me go back to the main point. In the first place, improving deficiencies would improve
the civilian opportunities of disadvantaged Negroes as well as the military opportunities.
However, the most important and basic points are different. If a young Negro would prefer a
career in the armed services to other opportunities in the civilian world, whom are we helping
by denying him that? We are hurting him, we are not helping him.
If this is a better opportunity, if in his view he can do better for himself by being in the Army
than by being in other activities, voluntarily chosen, if we say to him, "No, young man, we
are not going to let you go into the Army," we are hurting him. We are not helping him.
Consequently, if our aim is equal treatment for all citizens, which means that we let people
choose among the opportunities open to them in accordance with their own values, then we must give
the Negro the same opportunity as everyone to serve in the Armed Forces.
Senator Kennedy of New York. I do not know whether I would use the word
"treatment" as much as I would use the word "risk," because that is obviously
what is entailed today in South Vietnam.
I think in a peacetime situation, some of the points you have mentioned here this morning have a
great deal of validity.
The problem I have is trying to relate this to the current situation in Vietnam, and we are
really talking about that.
Mr. Friedman. Yes. In the current situation, we want, by all means, to make
available every young man, the information, so that he can choose with his eyes open. We do not
want to deceive him, but if we tell people what the situation is, and if under those circumstances
young men choose to volunteer -- if those young men happen to be Negroes, fine. That means that
military service is the best opportunity that is available to them, and we are only hurting them
if we say "No, you must not serve, because we insist on having a certain proportion of whites
in the Armed Forces."
Senator Kennedy of New York. That would be one statement that I have
reservations about, saying that the ones who would be attracted would be Negro, and that would be
fine, if this was the opportunity open in our society.
I think what we face is a more fundamental problem: the obligation of our defense if a national
responsibility, and we cannot put that responsibility on a particular group, as it would obviously
be a class obligation. I do not see how we could do that.
Mr. Friedman. Senator Kennedy, it seems to me it is no class obligation. If we
try to provide opportunities which are equal for all, the actual outcome is not going to be
equal. I do not know what the situation is with city police forces, but it seems to me that there
is no one who would argue there is somehow an inequity in the fact that the city police forces
contain relatively few Ph. D.'s.
Senator Kennedy of New York. And Irish, too.
Mr. Friedman. Quite right. Perhaps we have a class police force.
If we say to people "You must not serve because you are black, or because you are
white," we are then imposing a class responsibility.
However, if we need a certain number of men for the armed services, and get them by making the
armed services sufficiently attractive so that the requisite number choose voluntarily to serve,
then it seems to me we are providing equal opportunities to all, and not class opportunities.
[From the Washington Post, Sunday, Oct. 16, 1966]
Middle Class Is Bearing Brunt of the Draft, the Uneducated Poor Are Weeded Out and the Wealthy
Are Able to Hide in the "Catacombs" of College
(By Richard Harwood)
It is a political axiom in the United States that the draft is unfair.
Actor George Hamilton, secure in a draft exempt status, courts the President's daughter in the
night clubs of Hollywood and New York. At the same time, poor Negro boys -- in Adam Clayton
Powell's words -- are "packed off to Vietnam to be killed."
"Your status in society in my district," says Rep. Alvin O'Konski (R-Wis.), "is
now determined by what your draft status is. If you are 1-A, you are a nobody, you are one of
those who happened to get caught because you didn't know any better. If you are not 1-A, you
have status in society... That systems nauseates me... This is a poor man's war."
It appears that way to an increasing number of Americans, as the public opinion polls indicate.
But like so many pieces of conventional wisdom, the "poor man's war" theory is not
supported by all the facts.
The least likely candidate for the military services today is the slum child of Harlem or Watts.
The rejection rate among Negro conscripts is the highest of any group in society -- about 75 per
The lowest rejection rate is among the well-scrubbed boys of the middle class who go off to
college with high hopes and a freshman beanie but fail to stay the course. Fully 60 per cent of
the college dropouts are claimed by the military services.
This is not to say that wealth and brains are unrelated to exemption from the draft. Pentagon
studies show that boys with the financial and intellectual resources to get an uninterrupted
college education -- and perhaps a graduate degree or two -- enjoy a distinct advantage. Only
40 per cent of the college graduates enter service, as against 50 per cent of the high school
dropouts and 57 per cent of the high school graduates who don't go on to college.
The longer the scholar hides away in "the endless catacombs of formal education," as
Yale President Kingman Brewster has put it, the less likely that he will have to hide in a
foxhole in Vietnam.
CULLING A SURPLUS
Nevertheless, it remains true that the main source of manpower for the military services is the
economic and educational middle class and not the poor. Two-thirds of the soldiers, sailors and
airmen taken by the Pentagon each year have had the benefit of either a high school education or
some exposure to a college classroom.
This is partly a result of the haphazard and inconsistent workings of a Selective Service system
that has given actor Hamilton and economic "hardship" deferment (as the sole support of
his mother, although he earns more than the President of the United States. But it is even more
a result of policies made by the military establishment.
The generals and admirals are confronted with a huge manpower surplus. For every man they need,
more than ten are theoretically available. And this surplus is constantly expanding because of
postwar birth rates that are producing nearly two million 18-year-olds each year.
The military establishment is thus able to pick and choose very carefully, with the result that
fewer than half of the draft age men are ever called on to serve. The prospect is that by 1974,
only one in three will be called.
14 PER CENT FIGHTERS
Rep. Powell, in attacking the inequities of the present system, has spoken of the Pentagon's need
for "cannon fodder." But &qout;cannon fodder" is the least of the military's needs.
Only 14 per cent of three million men under arms are trained for ground combat duties. The other
86 per cent are noncombatant clerks, mechanics, technicians and men skilled in various trades and
To fill these spots, the military establishment, as it informed Congress last summer, wants
"Highly trained and trainable men capable of manning and operating ... increasingly complex
weapons systems." It also wants well-behaved young men who will not "adversely (affect)
the image of American troops, particularly in overseas areas."
A high school graduate who is physically fit and who scores at least 16 on the Armed Forces
Qualification Test is taken into the service. A high school dropout who scores almost twice as
high is rejected unless he can pass additional tests. The reason is simply that the Pentagon
doesn't want high school dropouts.
HIGH IN THE SOUTH
Since poverty and poor education go hand in hand, the effect of these standards is to bar
disproportionate numbers of the poor from military service. White Southerners and Negroes are
primarily affected. The rejection rate in the District of Columbia in 1965 was 62.6 per cent; in
Georgia, 63.1 per cent; in South Carolina, 61.6 per cent; in Alabama, 59.8 per cent, and in
Mississippi, 59 per cent.
In the Midwest, on the other hand, the rejection rates ranged from 24 per cent in Iowa to about
36 per cent in Kansas, Wisconsin and South Dakota.
One of the ironies of this situation is that the very people who find it most difficult to enter
the military services are often the most anxious to serve. The South produces 40 per cent more
volunteers proportionately than the Nation as a whole and the highest reenlistment rates are
among Negro servicemen, who find that a military career offers more opportunities than civilian
society for equality and the good life.
Along with its vast vocational training program, the military establishment offers superior
fringe benefits under hot and cold war GI Bills, veterans' preference laws, pensions and the
like. But under the present policies, those most in need of such training are the least likely
to get it.
About 250,000 potential draftees are rejected each year solely for failing to pass the Pentagon's
written tests. And when those with the least skills are accepted, they are far more likely to be
assigned to the relatively unskilled combat functions.
Negroes, for example, represent 11 per cent of the population and 11 per cent of the armed
forces. But they fill 20 per cent of the combat jobs and account for 22 per cent of the
casualties in Vietnam.
College graduates, oddly enough, have somewhat the same experience. Most of them enter the
officer corps and roughly 50 per cent are assigned to combat units.
It can be argued that a rough kind of balance emerges in the end, with each educational class
sharing in different ways the burdens of war and defense. The middle class supplies the bulk of
the manpower. The poorly and highly educated supply a disproportionate number of the fighting
men and bear a disproportionate share of the risks.
But that argument is obviously unsatisfactory.
SYSTEM UNDER REVIEW
President Johnson has appointed a national committee under the chairmanship of Burke Marshall to
review the workings of the draft, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara recently ordered the services
to take in 40,000 undereducated youths each year for job training.
Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) has attracted wide support for his proposal for selection by
lottery, under which every 1-A would have an equal chance to be drafted whether he was a Yale
freshman or a Harlem dropout. Others have proposed on all-professional army, national deferment
standards for local draft boards and even universal training for all men.
But there is no expectation in the Government that the system will undergo any radical change.
The cost of an all-professional defense establishment is considered prohibitive by the
Pentagon -- an extra $5 billion to $16.6 billion a year -- and the generals do not want an aging
career service. Universal training is unpalatable to Congress and probably to the country.
Finally, whether and however the system is changed will have little effect on the basic problem.
So long as the manpower surplus continues, some boys will serve and some will stay home. No one
has devised a simple way to determine fairly who shall do which.
[From the New Republic, Nov. 5, 1966]
Who Gets In The Army?
(By Daniel P. Moynihan)
The poverty program was an effort to find ways to do something about the situation of Negro
Americans under a more inclusive heading, which would permit the support or acquiescence of
Southern congressmen and political leaders. (That there were millions of whites who would also
benefit from the program was simply an added argument.)
The Selective Service Study has made it clear enough that perhaps the largest single area of
de facto job discrimination (lacking a better word) faced by Negroes is -- the armed
forces. Negroes were simply not getting in because of the testing standards. In the Third Army
Area, roughly the Old Confederacy, 67.7 percent of Negroes failed the mental test alone.
Obviously volunteers ran into the same difficulty. Representing 12 percent of the population.
Negroes made up eight percent of the armed forces. The power of these ratios is hardly to be
overestimated. If, in 1964, Negroes had had their proportion of the service and the number of
their males unemployed was correspondingly reduced, and had the reverse process occurred for
whites, the unemployment rate for non-white males in the relevant age group would have been
lower than that for whites. The argument for increasing the Negro representation in the
armed forces was immensely persuasive. For one thing there was a clear interest among Negroes
in such careers, as compared to what they perceive as their other options (Negroes in the army
have a fantastic reenlistment rate, 49 percent; one army sergeant in six is Negro). The next
step in the logic of the task force report would have been to systematically increase the Negro's
share of military employment. That this has not happened is one of the ironies, and in a small
way one of the tragedies of the politics of the past two years.
The Defense Department was at first decidedly reluctant to have anyone messing around with the
service -- their disposition, thanks be to God, is not to do good. However, the revelation of
what the lower third of American youths were like, had an extraordinary impact. It was not
unlike the impact of the discoveries of English made about themselves after conscription was
introduced during World War I. In 1964, Secretary McNamara proposed that he be allowed to induct
a limited number of persons who failed to meet the mental standards, and see if they could not be
brought up to standards. There was a solid precedent for thinking this could be done, based on
experience with 303,000 such persons inducted after manpower grew short in World War II.
(Department of Labor demonstration projects have since added to this evidence.) The proposal,
however, got nowhere in the armed services committees; explanations were not offered, but it is
fair to suppose that the concern for impoverished Negroes behind the proposal was plain to the
Southerners who control the committees and that the advantages of military service to Negroes
were known. (Look what came of letting James Meredith into the air force.)
Civil rights groups were never much interested in the subject anyway, but as war mounted in Asia,
they became, if anything, suspicious. There is, of course, a deep pacifist element in the civil
rights movement which would not wish to be associated with violence on any terms. More ominously,
the political left which had associated itself with the movement now began to present its due
bills: To be against the war in Vietnam became yet another test of true allegiance to the cause
of the Negro.
Negroes are concentrated in the combat infantry type unit that is naturally the subject of much
TV coverage from the battle zones. At the end of last year, the latest count available, Negroes
made up 15 percent of army personnel in Vietnam and accounted for 18 percent of army casualties
(22 percent of enlisted casualties). But altogether, Negroes make up only 12.5 percent of the
forces in Vietnam -- about their proportion of the age groups involved, and only 9.5 percent of
the over-all strength of the armed forces.
History may record that the single most important psychological event in race relations in the
1960's was the appearance of Negro fighting men on the TV screens of the nation. Acquiring a
reputation for military valor is one of the oldest known routes to social equality -- from the
Catholic Irish in the Mexican war to the Japanese-American Purple Heart Division of World War II.
Moreover, as employment pure and simple, the armed forces have much to offer men with limited
current options of, say, Southern Negroes. By rights, Negroes are entitled to a larger share of
employment in the armed forces and might well be demanding one. Yet when Secretary McNamara went
to Montreal to announce that he was going to enlist rejectees anyway, Adam Clayton Powell cried,
"racist," which is hardly what happened.
A LOST GENERATION?
When Congress enacted a peace-time GI Bill retroactive to 1965 -- a massive transfer of public
support away from the poorest segment of the population to a relatively well-off one -- liberal
spokesmen were silent. There ought to have been such a bill, but its passage ought also to have
given rise to widespread insistence that if this is going to be done for non-poor whites and
Negroes, then the poverty program appropriations ought at the same time to be increased--
If there is to be any change it is likely to come from the National Advisory Commission on
Selective Service, established by the President in July under the direction of Burke Marshall.
One may hope this time we take a longer look at the rejection figure. There are now new
statistics reporting the experience of the 18-year-olds who began to be tested in July 1964,
which certainly confirm the findings in One-Third of a Nation, and suggest matters may
indeed be worse. The task force estimated that a "true" mental rejection rate --
i.e., if all members of the age group were called up and examined at the same time -- would be
16.3 percent, and that stiffer standards then being imposed might raise it as high as 20 percent.
Now, however, it appears that the rejection rate for the 383,000 18-year-olds examined during the
period July 1964 - December 1965, was 25.3 percent. These young men were only a fifth of the age
group involved, but may have been representative than was thought. It may be that the task force
was wrong in deflating the 1962 rejection ratings. The "true" rates may be as high or
even higher. In the 18-year-old group, 19 percent of whites and 68 percent of Negroes failed the
mental test. These are exactly the rates which the task force found for 22- to 23-year-olds in
the Third Army Area in 1962. The current 18-year-old rejection rates in the South are horrendous:
For Negroes 86 percent in South Carolina, 85 percent in Mississippi, 71 percent in Tennessee, 79
percent in Georgia. But they are not so much better elsewhere: 54 percent in New York, 56 percent
in Illinois, 49 percent in California. White rates are no more reassuring: 44 percent in
Tennessee, 38 percent in Kentucky, 28 percent in Hawaii. Clearly, the place to send children to
public schools in the state of Washington or Minnesota (but not necessarily Negro children -- the
mental rejection rate is 25 percent in the former and 37 percent in the latter.) One-quarter is
the lowest Negro rate anywhere.
The Defense Department has not yet released any but the raw statistics and has not made clear how
they are to be interpreted. But I would hold that a whole generation of poor Negroes and whites
are missing their chance to get in touch with the American society. Once they pass through and
beyond the Selective Service screen they are very near gone for good in terms of the opportunity
to become genuinely functioning, self-sufficient individuals. Civil rights as an issue is
fading. The poverty program is heading for dismemberment and decline. Expectations of what can
be done in America are receding. Very possibly our best hope is seriously to use the armed forces
as a socializing experience for the poor -- particularly the Southern poor -- unless somehow their
environment begins turning out equal citizens.
[From the Trans-Action, March 1967]
American Democracy and Military Service
(By Morris Janowitz)
Current demands for changes in the Selective Service System are rooted in part in the strong
public presumption that the draft operates with a definite bias against America's lower
socio-economic groups. This claim has an important element of truth. But this image of social
class bias is so oversimplified as to be an inadequate and even dangerous basis for public
discussion of the draft.
The purpose of this article is to examine some of the social class and demographic factors
involved in the impact of the Selective Service System and to propose an alternative system which
I believe to be more compatible with the needs and goals of political democracy.
Since education in the United States is unequally distributed, in order to understand the social
risks of the military service, it is necessary to analyze these issues in terms of socio-economic
categories, particularly in terms of the interplay of social class and race. The interplay of
these two factors has meant that in the recent past the Negro is under-represented in the armed
services. This can be seen in two different ways.
Among men with less than eighth grade education, Negroes served to a lesser degree than whites.
The same held true among those with nine to eleven grades of education. But among high school
graduates Negroes and whites served in similar proportions.
Among men of low socio-economic background, the difference in military service between Negroes
and whites with middle class socio-economic background declines.
REENLISTMENT AND RACE
The overall participation of Negroes has risen from 8.2 percent in 1962 to 9.0 percent in 1965
and is most likely to continue to rise. This rise is related both to the procurement rate of new
Negro personnel and more pointedly to the reenlistment rates of Negroes. During the period 1962
through 1965, Negroes -- both volunteers and inductees -- were entering the armed services at
about their proportion in the civilian society. Given the attractiveness of a military career to
low income groups, this percentage still reflects the lack of educational preparation of Negroes.
But the period 1962-1965 was one of an improvement in the quantity and quality of Negroes seeking
admission to the armed services.
On the other hand, once there was an increase in selective service quotas in the latter part of
1965 because of South Vietnam, the procurement of Negroes by induction fell from 15.2 percent to
10.8 percent in December 1965. This shows that representative draft without college deferments
would in the long run contribute to the elimination of any over-representation of Negro enlisted
personnel, a point to be borne in mind for further discussion of this problem below.
However, more important in accounting for the representation of Negroes in the armed forces is
the markedly higher reenlistment rate for Negro enlisted personnel. In 1965 the first term
reenlistments of white personnel was 17.1 percent while for Negroes it was 45.1 percent. Given
their educational backgrounds and previous levels of skills, Negroes have tended to concentrate
in the combat arms of the Army where the opportunities are greatest for rapid advancement into
non-commissioned officer positions. In some units, such as the Airborne the percentage of Negroes
is near 40. Overall participation of Negroes in Vietnam for the last part of 1965 showed the
Army had the highest proportion with 15.8 percent, the Air Force 8.3 percent, the Marines 8.9
percent, and the Navy 5.1 percent. From 1961 to 1965 Negro fatalities were 237 out of 1,620 or
The armed services are aware of the dangers of creating units in which Negroes are concentrated.
It is, of course, basic to the operations of the armed services not to use racial quotas; on the
contrary, they look with pride on the success of integrating the Negro into combat units, for
success in combat units is the basis of military prestige. The armed services have a variety of
personnel practices designed to distribute Negroes more equally throughout the services, but
these are only slowly being implemented. Given the high rate of reenlistment among Negroes, it
is not difficult to anticipate future trends.
Thus, in summary, it is clear that there have been distortions of the Selective Service System,
mainly in the past, through the exclusion of low educational groups, especially Negroes, and
contrariwise through exclusion of persons following post-college education. To some degree,
exclusion at the lower levels will be modified as educational standards of the country rise and
criteria for selection are altered. Efforts on the part of the armed services to deal with this
question by having special remedial battalions have not received congressional support; but
special civilian and military programs are certain to emerge in the years ahead not only because
of the requirements of the military but because of broader social policy. Already the Secretary
of Defense has lowered the entrance standards and thereby increased the input of low income groups
into the armed forces. Between 40,000 and 100,000 "category four" men (percentiles
10-30 in mental tests) will be inducted because it is believed that the armed forces can
efficiently train and utilize them. Alternatively, distortions due to post-college education
seem to be growing as the emphasis on such education increases in the United States. In the
current situation we are dealing not only with the facts of distortion but with the growing
public conviction that educational deferments per se are morally undesirable.
Assessment of the past performance of the Selective Service System must encompass more than the
social characteristics of those who entered military service. We must also look at its
administrative effectiveness. The system has operated in the past with a considerable degree of
effectiveness in meeting immediate and short term requirements.
The organization represents an effective balance between highly centralized policy decision-making
and decentralized implementation. The Selective Service System has worked with an amazing absence
of personal corruption. To select young men for military service is a painful task, and the use
of local community personnel has reduced hostility to rules and regulations. Moreover, there is
a general feeling that local boards have been fair in applying national directives to local
situations. Decentralized operating procedure has reduced local friction, but it produced
considerable variation in practice from state to state, and these differences have become a new
source of criticism.
Selective service and its local boards operate with local quotas, not on the basis of a national
manpower pool which would take wide discrepancies in population characteristics among communities
into consideration. Moreover, there are wide variations in quotas on a month-to-month basis.
Another problem is that the Selective Service System has emerged more and more as a procurement
agency for the Department of Defense without adequately representing the interests of the
registrants in the larger society. While local boards are civilian, all other officials from
national headquarters to state directors tend to be military in rank or orientation.
RESOLUTION OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO, FIRST SESSION, TWENTY-EIGHTH
(Senate Memorial No. 28 Introduced by Senators Anthony A. Lucero, Jerry Apodaca, Thomas R.
Benavidez, Sterling F. Black, Tibo J. Chavez, Ozzie Davis, Edmundo R. Delgado, R. Leo Dow,
Emmett C. Hart, Junio Lopez, and Alex G. Martinez)
A MEMORIAL REQUESTING THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES TO AMEND THE DRAFT LAWS TO ALLOW A MORE
EQUITABLE SELECTION FROM DISADVANTAGED MINORITY GROUPS
Whereas the minority groups in the state of New Mexico have been economically and educationally
deprived and few of the young men in these groups can afford to attend college; and
Whereas without a college deferment from the draft, these young men are inducted into the armed
forces, or to avoid the draft, volunteer for other branches of the armed forces; and
Whereas New Mexico's largest minority group consists of Americans of Spanish descent and
constitutes some twenty-nine percent of the population of the state; and
Whereas approximately sixty-nine percent of all inductees from New Mexico are of Spanish
Whereas of fifty-eight New Mexicans killed in Vietnam during 1966, twenty-five were Americans of
Spanish descent; Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate of the State of New Mexico, That the congress of the United States
is requested to amend the draft laws to allow a more equitable selection from disadvantaged
minority groups; and be it further
Resolved, That copies of this memorial be sent to the speaker of the United States house
of representatives, the president pro tempore of the United States senate and the New Mexico
delegation to the United States Congress.
Signed and sealed at The Capitol, in the City of Santa Fe.
E. Lee Francis
President, New Mexico Senate.
Chief Clerk, New Mexico Senate.