Congress of the United States Washington, D.C. 20515

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio

Testimony for the House Armed Services Committee

Full Committee Hearing: “Recommendations of the National Commission on Military,

National, and Public Service”

May 19, 2021

Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Rogers:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony as part of the House Armed Services

Committee’s hearing on the recommendations of the National Commission on Military,

National, and Public Service (NCMNPS).

As you know, the military draft has not been used since 1973, when President Nixon ended the

Vietnam War draft and created an all-volunteer force. President Ford ended draft registration in

1975. Unfortunately, despite all evidence demonstrating it was unneeded, President Carter

reinstated draft registration in 1980 largely for political reasons. Military draft registration has

existed ever since, requiring all men aged 18-26 to register with the Selective Service System

(SSS). It should be repealed altogether.

Alongside Congressman Rodney Davis, I’ve reintroduced bipartisan legislation – H.R. 2509, the

Selective Service Repeal Act – to repeal the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) and the draft

registration system. Senators Ron Wyden and Rand Paul have introduced identical legislation in

the Senate: S. 1139.

The SSS is an unnecessary, unwanted, archaic, wasteful, and punitive bureaucracy that violates

Americans’ civil liberties. The annual funding directed to the SSS could be better spent on

encouraging and enhancing public service or reducing our federal deficit. It’s beyond time for

Congress to repeal the SSS once and for all.

The SSS subjects individuals to unnecessarily severe penalties

Currently, men who fail to register with the SSS can be severely penalized by both the federal

government and state governments. This could include years in prison, hundreds-of-thousands of

dollars in fines, and the denial of federal student loans, grants, benefits, citizenship, job training,

and federal employment. Various state laws also penalize individuals for failing to register with

the SSS, including denial of driver’s licenses, state employment, and other services. Men who

fail to register by their 26th birthday face these penalties for life, unless they can successfully

appeal – which can be expensive, protracted, and require resources that many individuals don’t

have.

According to USA Today, “Selective Service statistics suggest that more than 1 million men

have been denied some government benefit because they weren't registered for the draft.”1

Unfortunately, low-income individuals and people of color are likely the ones most

adversely impacted by these severe penalties.

1 “For a million U.S. men, failing to register for the draft has serious, long-term consequences,” USA Today; Gregory Korte;

April 2, 2019; https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/04/02/failing-register-draft-women-court-consequences-men/3205425002/.

It makes no sense to keep these unnecessarily severe penalties on the books for a hypothetical

military draft that neither the Department of Defense (DOD) nor experts can conceivably

imagine ever occurring, under a system that maintains inaccurate and unreliable data.

We’ve known for decades that the SSS is redundant and unnecessary

The Pentagon and Republican and Democratic administrations have consistently agreed there is

no military or national security imperative to reinstate the draft. I learned this firsthand during

the Carter administration while serving as a congressional aide to Oregon Congressman Jim

Weaver, when I obtained a draft copy of then-Selective Service Director Dr. Bernard Rostker’s

report2 stating that military draft registration was “redundant and unnecessary.”3 Oregon Senator

Mark Hatfield entered Dr. Rostker’s report, which the Carter administration tried to hide from

the public, into the Congressional Record.4

Ever since the SSS’s dubious reinstatement, military leaders have acknowledged that there is no

realistic scenario in which the military anticipates ever reinstating a military draft. For example,

in response to a 2012 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report urging the DOD to

reassess the military necessity of the SSS, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense at

the time wrote to the GAO stating that DOD had completed a reassessment and concluded “that

there is no longer an immediate military necessity for the Selective Service System…DOD has

no operational plans that envision mobilization at a level that would require conscription.”5

There is an ongoing myth among some proponents of draft registration that we should maintain

the SSS for national security reasons “just in case.” A memorandum published by NCMNPS

staff6 echoed this misconception, claiming: “Although the DoD has no current plans to rely on

conscription, the nation has historically relied upon the SSS to provide personnel to fight and win

the nation’s wars and asserts that the United States must retain the ability to respond to

unanticipated crises.” In his 2019 testimony to the NCMNPS7, Dr. Rostker points out that the

staff memorandum’s “statement is misleading. It is an incorrect reading of our national history

and the history of the military draft.” Dr. Rostker continues:

In fact, a pre-mobilization draft only existed after World War II and impacted the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam. In Vietnam it proved so divisive that it was replaced by

an all-volunteer force we have today. A more correct reading of history shows that we

have engaged in active military conflict numerous times since 1973 without the “help” of the Selective Service System, including the longest military conflict in our history. There

are many reasons why we have been able to do so which negates the need for

conscription. Most significant is the change in military technology which makes the need

for a mass of untrained manpower, the very thing the draft provides, unnecessary and actually a burden. Today the Army does not need and cannot absorb the mass of

untrained and unskilled men, and potentially women, the draft would provide. If

2 Improving Capability to Mobilize Military Manpower: A Report by the Director of the Selective Service, draft working document, Washington, D.C.: Director of the Selective Service System. 3 “Selective Service Told Carter Registration Is 'Unnecessary'”, Washington Post; George C. Wilson; February 23, 1980; https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1980/02/23/selective-service-told-carter-registration-is-unnecessary/cce24e6e-6335-44b3-8bf9-1a91293b703a/. 4 “Improving Capability to Mobilize Military Manpower,” Congressional Record; Senator Mark Hatfield; February, 27, 1980; https://defazio.house.gov/sites/defazio.house.gov/files/Congressional%20Record%2C%20Feb%2027%2C%201980%2C%20Report.pdf. 5 “National Security: DOD Should Reevaluate Requirements for the Selective Service System,” Government Accountability Office; June 7, 2012; https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-623. 6 “Staff Memorandum: Expanding Selective Service Registration to All Americans,” National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service; https://inspire2serve.gov/_api/files/195. 7 Military and Public Service Policy Forum, Day 1, Part 2; C-SPAN; Testimony of Dr. Bernard Rostker, minutes 24:58 - 34:17,

https://www.c-span.org/video/?460068-2/national-commission-military-national-public-service-forum-part-2; A pre-written version of Dr. Rostker’s testimony to NCMNPS can be viewed here: https://www.inspire2serve.gov/_api/files/206.

history tells us anything, it is that when we have needed to build a mass Army, as we did for World War I and World War II, there was sufficient time to develop a new Selective

Service System from scratch; in the former case from the handbook written after the Civil

War, and in the latter case from the work of a planning cell at the Department of War.

Such a planning cell could again meet any future needs for the re-establishment of [a] military draft.

It’s clear that the idea of a peace-time military draft registration system is an obsolete relic that

has no place within the realities of 21st century warfare.

The SSS does not maintain an accurate or reliable database

Even if a military draft was reinstated, the SSS wouldn’t provide an accurate registry or achieve

its stated goals. According to Dr. Rostker’s 2019 testimony to the NCMNPS:

“As I’ve argued in my recent paper8 the current system of registration is ineffective and, frankly,

less than useless. It does not provide a comprehensive nor an accurate database upon which to

implement conscription. As I laid out, it systematically lacks large segments of the eligible male

population, and for those that are included, the currency of information contained is questionable.

Numerically, let me suggest that the database of those eligible for conscription should be at least

93 percent comprehensive and 98 percent accurate; levels that are far from achieved by the current system…”

Wadi Yakhur, a former Chief of Staff for the Selective Service Administration during the Trump

administration, stated that millions of American men have failed to register with the SSS.9 Men

aged 18-26 are also technically required to notify the SSS if they change their address, but this

requirement is almost universally ignored. This underscores the inaccuracy and inadequacy of

the SSS even if a draft was somehow reinstated.

The SSS violates Americans’ civil liberties:

Coercing Americans into the military – absent an extreme national emergency – has no place in a

free and democratic society. Civil liberties groups, faith organizations, pro-peace activists, and

more oppose the SSS because involuntary military conscription is a violation of fundamental

civil liberties and Americans’ constitutional rights. That’s why military draft registration has

garnered bipartisan support for decades.

The SSS is a wasteful bureaucracy

The SSS has cost well over $800 million over the last 35 years, and it receives approximately

$26 million in funding every fiscal year10. Eliminating this obsolete program will save American

taxpayers more than $250 million over ten years.

Repealing Draft Registration Would Achieve Equality Under the Law

As you know, after DOD lifted the ban on women serving in combat roles in 2013, some have

suggested that women should also be required to register for the military draft in order to achieve

equality under the law. However, equality under the law can also be achieved by repealing

military draft registration altogether. We should not double the number of Americans forced

to participate in an obsolete and unnecessarily punitive program that violates their civil liberties.

Rather, we should repeal the SSS and finally end this unnecessary program.

8 “What to Do with the Selective Service System? Historical Lessons and Future Posture,” RAND Corporation; Bernard D. Rostker; https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE197.html. 9 “Thousands of Pa. men fail to register with selective service,” ABC 27; Kendra Nichols; August 12, 2020; https://www.abc27.com/news/top-stories/thousands-of-pa-men-fail-to-register-with-selective-service/. 10 “The Selective Service System and Draft Registration: Issues for Congress,” Congressional Research Service; Kristiy N.

Kamarck; Updated May 1, 2020; https://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44452?source=search&guid=8d7aae033c694954bc8e42720f203719&index=1.

Congress Should Pass H.R. 2509/S. 1139, the Selective Service Repeal Act

I have reintroduced H.R. 2509 – the Selective Service Repeal Act – bipartisan, bicameral

legislation to repeal the military draft registration system. The Selective Service Repeal Act

would:

• Repeal the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA), which created the SSS.

• Eliminate all penalties for individuals who failed to register with the SSS and ensure

there is uniform protection from these penalties in all U.S. states and territories.

• Maintain the federal protections for conscientious objectors contained in the MSSA.

Endorsing organizations of the Selective Service Repeal Act include: Friends Committee on

National Legislation (FCNL), Center on Conscience & War, World BEYOND War,

RootsAction.org, Peace Action, CODEPINK, American Friends Service Committee (AFSC),

Just Foreign Policy, Pax Christi USA, Truth in Recruitment, the Military Law Task Force of the

National Lawyers Guild, Committee Opposed to Militarism and the Draft (COMD), Courage to

Resist, Presbyterian Peace Fellowship, Antiwar.com, Church of the Brethren, Veterans for

Peace, International Peace Research Association (IPRA), War Resisters League.

Conclusion

Our professional, all-volunteer military is the finest fighting force in the world. Recruits must

compete under exacting standards in order to enlist, which is why military leaders have said time

and time again they believe in and prefer an all-volunteer military. What we already knew in the

1970s is still true today: the SSS is an unnecessary, unwanted, archaic, wasteful, punitive, and

potentially unconstitutional bureaucracy whose funding could be better spent on encouraging and

enhancing public service or reducing our federal deficit.

Instead of expanding draft registration to all Americans aged 18-26 and thus doubling the

number of Americans who are subject to the undemocratic and unnecessarily punitive military

draft registration system – as some are now proposing to do – we should end draft registration

altogether by passing my legislation, the Selective Service Repeal Act.

Thank you again for the opportunity to submit testimony today. I appreciate the Committee’s

time and review of the arguments I’ve laid out, and I look forward to continued debate over the

future of the Selective Service System.

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE February 27, 1980

reer he specialized in tax and tariff lawand for many years was the principallegislative draftsman for the bills inthose fields coming before the Senate, inmore recent years Harry has workedvery closely with the Committee onRules and Administration and has givenour staff frequent and valuable counsel-ing and drafting assistance.

Harry Littell is an outstanding ex-ample of a career public servant. He hasskillfully, ably, and tirelessly served theSenate for 33 years. I most sincerely wishhim the enjoyment of a long and happyretirement, with his wife Becky and theirfamily of four children.@

IMPROVING CAPABILITY TO MOBI-LIZE MILITARY MANPOWER

* Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, it hasalways been my belief that it is incum-bent upon those charged with the de-fense of the Nation to choose the leastdivisive and intrusive means of accom-plishing that task. And so, I submit forthe RECORD today a 28-page report, is-sued January 16 by the Director of theSelective Service, which clearly statesthat draft registration, in its own words,is "redundant and unnecessary." Thisreport preceded the 63-page February 13report from the President to Congresson the state of the Selective Service. Theoption for a postmobilization registra-tion plan, apparently endorsed by theDirector of the Selective Service as themost efficient and cost-effective programfor mobilization, was excluded from thereport sent to Congress. The report Isubmit today shows that the adminis-tration has chosen to either ignore orbury the truth about draft registration.

I would like to point out, Mr. Presi-dent, that this report followed, by almosta month, the brutal Soviet invasion ofAfghanistan. As indicated in the officialreport sent to Congress, the SelectiveService mobilization timetable, based onthe Department of Defense's specifica-tions, because it is based on "worst case"planning already, includes exigencieslike those in Iran and Afghanistan.These war plans require the first induct-ees within 30 days after an emergencyis declared.

The postmobilization registration planrecommended by the Selective Servicein the report I am submitting states thatthe first inductee could be made avail-able within 17 days after mobilization.Under the Carter administration's pro-posed registration plan, the first in-ductee could be made available in 10 to13 days. This would indicate a 4 to 7day improvement over the capability ofthe system without draft registration.Either way, the requirements of the De-fense Department are exceeded by ahealthy margin.

Though the case is clearly made thatdraft registration is not necessary tocarry out the Department of Defense'swar plans, and one need not challengetheir assumptions to make that case, twofactors deserve mention because theystrengthen the case against draft regis-tration even more. First, the mobiliza-tion requirements assume that there will -

be no volunteers. I would remind my col-leagues that on June 4, 1917, 10 millionmen were registered and that on October16, 1940, 16 million men were registered.I think an argument can be made, Mr.President, that basing our requirementson the assumption that there will be ab-solutely no volunteers in times of truenational emergencies insults the patriot-ism of the American people.

In addition, given the current trainingbase capacity of the United States, it isunlikely that vast numbers of drafteescould be used prior to 30 days after mo-bilization. Optimistically, Army Reserveunits are not to be manned, equipped, andorganized until 19 days after mobiliza-tion. I urge my colleagues to study thisreport carefully. I have chosen to makethis information public, Mr. President,because the American people, particu-larly our young people and their parents,have the right to know the truth aboutthe empty symbolism of draft registra-tion.

The report follows:IMPROVED CAPABILITY TO MOBILIZE MILITARY

MANPOWERINTRODUCTION

Since 1973, the Armed Services of theUnited States have operated under an All-Volunteer Force (AVF) concept. Even thoughinductions under the Military Selective Serv-ice Act (MSSA) have been terminated, theSelective Service System is still responsiblefor providing the increased personnel neces-sary to man our Armed Services duringperiods of national emergency. The ability ofthe Selective Service to support a militarymobilization is of concern to the Administra-tion and the Congress. This report examinesa number of alternative Selective Servicepostures and sets forth a course of action toinsure that Selective Service can, in arealistic, efficient and equitable manner, meetthe emergency manpower needs of the De-partment of Defense.The Selective Service and the All-Volunteer

ForceIn 1970, the President's Commission on an

All-Volunteer Armed Force reported that they"unanimously believed that the nation's in-terest will be (best) served by an all-volun-teer force, supported by an effective standbydraft." (p. 56) Anticiting the advent of theAVF, the Congress, in 1971, amended theMSSA to provide that:

"The Selective Service System ... shall ...be maintained as an active standby organiza-tion, with (1) a complete registration andclassification structure capable of immediateoperations in the event of a national emer-gency and (2) personnel adequate to rein-state immediately the full operation of thesystem ... in the event of a national emer-gency."

In FY 1973, the AVF became a reality. Thelast draft calls were issued in December1972; statutory authority to induct expiredin June 1973. On April 1, 1975 the Presidentsuspended the requirement that those sub-ject to the MSSA register with the SelectiveService System. Classification actions wereterminated and local boards, State Head-quarters, and appeal boards were closed inFY 1976.

The Standby Selective Service System

Under the AVF concept, the Selective Serv-ice is to provide a "standby" system to sup-port a military mobilization. The systemmust be ready, without notice, to providethe untrained manpower that will be re-quired to staff our Armed Services during amilitary emergency. The specific require-

ment-numbers of people and deliveryschedule-are established by the Secretaryof Defense.

In the mid 1970's, the Secretary of Defenseestablished an induction requirement whichSelective Service believed they could meetwith their existing system. In October 1977,however, Defense increased the requirementand moved up the schedule. This changewas based upon the worst case senarlo inwhich there are no volunteers or enlist-ments from the delayed entry pool, and Se-lective Service provides the entire DOD re-quirement for untrained manpower. Table 1contrasts the original and the revised de-livery schedules.

TABLE I.-DOD INDUCTION REQUIREMENT

Total in-1st 100,000 ductions

induction inductions in 6 mo

Original..---------- M+110 M+150Revised.......----- . M+30 M+60 650,000

M=Mobilization day.

The ability of the Selective Service to meetthe revised schedule has been the subject ofa number of recent critical reviews, includ-ing a major President's Reorganization Proj-ect Study. Each study concluded, as did thethen Acting Director of Selective Service ina report to the Congress (March 1979), that,Selective Service does "not presently havethe capability to meet the Department ofDefense wartime manpower requirementsfrom our 'deep standby' status."

A report to the CongressThe 1980 Defense Authorization Act re-

quired that the President address a numberof issues pertaining to military manpowerprocurement policies and the appropriateposture for a "standby" Selective Service.

Specifically, Selective Service has addressedfive issues posed by the Congress:

The desirability and feasibility of estab-lishing a method of automatically register-ing persons under the Military SelectiveService Act;

The desirability and feasibility of estab-lishing a method of automatically register-ing persons under the Military SelectiveService Act through a centralized automatedsystem using school records and other exist-ing records, together with a discussion ofthe impact of such a registration on privacyrights and on other constitutional issues;

Whether persons registered under such Actshould also be immediately classified and ex-amined or whether classification and exam-ination of registrants should be subject tothe discretion of the President;

Such changes in the organization and op-eration of the Selective Service System as thePresident determines are necessary to enablethe Selective Service System to meet thepersonnel requirements of the Armed Forcesduring a mobilization in a more efficient andexpeditious manner than is presently pos-sible; and

Such other changes in existing law re-lating to registration, classification, selec-tion and induction as the President con-siders appropriate.

In addition, the Conference report ac-companying the 1980 DOD Authorization Actcharges that:

"The President's recommendations withregard to the feasibility of establishing aregistration plan through a centralized auto-mated system should specifically addresscourt decisions with respect to the require-ment for issuing induction orders in theproper 'order of call', as well as those dealingwith conscientious objectors, classificationprocedures, and other relevant court deci-sions."

February 27, 1980 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE"If the President intends to rely on post-

mobilization registration plans as the foun-dation of our mobilization capacity at timeof emergency, then the report should alsoaddress the extent of testing of the planthat will be done, the acquisition schedule,and capability of computers and other neces-sary equipment, the extent of agreementswith state election officials or other non-Federal agencies, the schedule for trainingFederal and non-Federal personnel whowould be involved in registration, and thelikelihood that induction orders issued undersuch a plan would survive potential courtchallenges."

The basic problem facing Selective Serviceis, "How should the Selective Service Systemoperate to meet, efficiently and equitably,the mobilization needs of the Department ofDefense for untrained manpower?" In orderto address this question, we examined anumber of options whi'h correspond to thealternatives suggested -y the Congress in the1980 Defense Authorization Act. Specific op-tions considered were:

1. A post-mobilization participatory (face-to-face) registration plan.

2. Pre-mobilization participatory registra-tion.

3. Pre-mobilization participatory registra-tion and classification.

4. Pre-mobilization participatory registra-tion, classification, and examination.

5. Non-participatory registration.This report

This report reflects the process undertakento provide an answer to the above questionand to choose a course of action designedto insure that Selective Service will be ableto carry out its mission in support of theDefense Department. First, we examined theDOD requirement with regard to the ArmedForces Examining and Entrance States(AFEES) capacity to process registrants forinduction. This established a minimum re-sponsiveness goal for Selective Service. Next,we examined five options and assess theirability to meet delivery requirements, andtheir costs. We reviewed the post-mobiliza-tion plans previously submitted to theCongress and determined that major im-provements could and should be made. Wetherefore developed a new post-mobilizationsystem, dramatically different from the planpreviously presented to the Congress, anddetermined its cost and responsiveness.*Using this plan as a base, we provide forpre-mobilization registration, and estimatedthe added cost and improved responsiveness.We then considered classification, and clas-sification and examinations, and, again pro-jected the marginal cost and improvementin responsiveness. Our analysis also consid-ered non-participatory registration as analternative to face-to-face registration. Ourbasic conclusion was that non-participatoryregistration is undesirable and that everyparticipatory registration option can morethan meet the DOD manpower requirement.The post-mobilization option is by far themost cost effective, and least intrusive, andis the option chosen by Selective Service. Thenext section of the Report examines that op-tion in detail, and steps taken to build anefficient and equitable standby SelectiveService System.

The Standby Selective Service System pre-sented in this report is markedly differentfrom previous standby plans. We highlightthe new system with respect to seven sub-systems which make up the registration/in-duction process. The major changes are (1)reliance on the U.S. Postal Service (USPS)to conduct face-to-face registration; (2) thesort of registration forms by USPS Into Ran-dom Sequence Numbers (RSN), the creationof computer data files in RSN order and theaccelerated promulgation of induction or-ders; and (3) the reliance on operating, In-

place, testable, Federal infrastructures tosupport the Selective Service in an emer-gency, i.e., Social Security Administrationand Internal Revenue Service for "keypunch"support and DOD for computer, facilities,and personnel support. This support in noway compromises the administrative inde-pendence of the Selective Service and com-pletely reserves for Selective Service theprocess by which claims for deferments andexemptions are adjudicated.

We also provide an Analysis of the newStandby Selective Service System to deter-mine how flexible it is likely to be in meetingDefense's requirements. Our analysis consid-ered (1) our ability to achieve a given sched-ule and (2) our ability to achieve a plannedrate of production. The total registration/in-duction system has the capability to meetthe DOD induction schedule even with con-siderable slippage in the assumed timetableor a failure of the Selective Service and/orthe AFEES to achieve a given rate ofperformance.

The report goes on to consider a number ofadditional concerns raised in the Conferencereport and statutory changes with regard tothe new post-mobilization plan. The reportconcludes with a Summary and Conclusionssection which highlights steps already takento ensure Selective Service's immediate abil-ity to respond to an emergency militarymobilization.

The DOD requirementsIn 1977, DOD asked the Selective Service to

develop the capability to start inductionswithin the first thirty days after mobilization(M+30), and to deliver 100,000 inductees toDefense by M+60, with 650,000 inductions totake place during the first six months of mo-bilization. This was based upon the worstcase scenario, namely that Selective Servicewould be the only source of untrainedmanpower.

As noted, the DOD requirements are statedas "inductions" and as such require the clos-est coordination between the Selective Serv-ice and DOD's Military Enlistment ProcessingCommand (MEPCOM). In the "induction"process, the Selective Service:

Registers those subject to the MSSA.Determines the order of those who will be

called for service.Orders registrants to take physical and

mental examinations.Issues orders for induction.Classifies individuals.Adjudicates claims for deferments, post-

ponements, and exemptions.The Military Enlisted Processing Com-

mand, through their 67 Armed Forces Ex-amining and Entrance Stations (AFEES) :

Provides physical and mental examina-tions.

Inducts qualified registrants into theArmed Services.

In order to understand clearly the impli-cations of the Defense requirement on theSelective Service, we have worked withMEPCOM to determine the AFEES capabilityto process registrants during a military mo-bilization. Our analysis shows that theAFEESs have the ability to give at least 14,000physical and mental examinations per day, 6days per week during mobilization. Thismeans that:

Historical analysis indicates that depend-ing upon the time of the year, the Selec-tive Service System must issue as many as35,000 indication orders per day in order toguarantee that 14,000 registrants will reportto the AFEES to take physical and mentalexaminations. (Induction orders would be is-sued ten days before an individual is ex-pected to report to an AFEES.)

Based upon a historical 50 percent physi-cal and mental examination acceptance rate,the system can induct 7,000 per day, 6 daysper week.

The AFEES could accept registrants as lateas M+43 and still provide 100,000 Induc-tions by M+60.

Earlier delivery of registrants to the APEESwould allow them to operate below maximumcapacity or the SSS/MEPCOM system to in-duct more than 100,000 by M+60.

SELECTIVE SERVICE OPTIONSSelective Service considered in detail the

five options in terms of the ability each pro-vides to carry out our mission. Before de-scribing the options and the results of ouranalysis in more detail, it is important tonote that there are a number of featureswhich are common to two or more of theseoptions. The most important of these are:

United States Postal Service will carry outthe face-to-face registration. USPS has agreedto undertake the task of face-to-face regis-tration under all participatory registrationoptions (Options 1, 2, 3 and 4). The USPSis attractive because it is a single commandInfrastructure with facilities and personnel,and a communication/transportation net-work extending to every corer of the coun-try. Postal locations are widely known. USPShas provided similar services for the Depart-ment of State (passport applications) and forthe United States Immigration and Natural-ization Service (alien registration). USPS iscapable of storing registration forms, trans-porting materials and training personnelThey can sort registration material andtransport forms to central locations for dataprocessing. The USPS has also agreed to jointtests of their capability to register drafteligible individuals. The first such test willbe conducted later this year.

The Emergency Military Manpower Pro-curement System procedures will be em-ployed wherever possible. Both pre- and post-mobilization participatory registration op-tions (1 and 2) will employ the proceduresincorporated in the Emergency Military Man-power Procurement System (EMMPS). Amajor feature of EMMPS is that it elimi-nates pre-induction examinations and classi-fication. After registration and a Random Se-quence Number (RSN) lottery, all regis-trants will be administratively classified 1-A,ready for induction. Induction orders wouldbe centrally issued in RSN order by the Di-rector of Selective Service. After receiving aninduction order, a registrant would eitherreport to an AFEES for examination (and Iffound physically and mentally qualified,would be inducted), or would request a de-ferment or exemption. Such requests wouldbe processed by local boards.

A new data processing system will supportall options. Everyone who has looked at thecurrent state of the Selective Service hasconcluded that the ADP system is inade-quate. In order to immediately provide thecapability to register and induct, the Selec-tive Service and the Department of Defensehave agreed that the United States ArmyManagement Systems Support Agency(USAMSSA) will provide computer supportfor the operation of EMMPS. This is only aninterim step. A joint Selective Service/MEPCOM computer center is planned for theFall of 1980. The joint center will provide asingle computer facility completely dedicatedto the registration/induction process whilepreserving the operational and administra-tive independence of the Selective Service.

The Selective Service field structure will bereactivated in accordance with the require-ments of each option. The Selective Servicewill recruit and train local and appeal boardmembers and will provide for the establish-ment of area offices under all options. In anemergency (Options 1 and 2), the Depart-ment of Defense will provide selected facili-ties and personnel temporarily detailed frommilitary recruiting commands to augmentand support area office operations. If Selec-tive Service undertakes pre-mobilization

4029

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE February 27, 1980classification of registrants (Option 3), areao•-ces will be established and staffed.

Given these common features, the follow-ing discussion highlights the responsiveness,cost, structure and operating procedures ofthe Selective Service System under eachoption. (Cost and personnel requirements arebased upon the assumption that the MSSAwill be amended to require women to reg-ister with the Selective Service.)

Option 1. Post-Mobilization ParticipatoryRegistration. The discussion of this optionreflects major changes from the post-mobilization plans previously presented bySelective Service. Our new plans providethat the USPS register one year of birthgroup (4 million men and women) four daysafter notification of mobilization (M+4).USPS employees will review completedforms, witness the registrant's signature,and provide the registrant with a copy ofthe form as a receipt. Two weeks later USPSwill begin continuous registration of 18 yearolds. Selective Service will conduct a lotteryon the evening of M+4. The USPS will sortregistration cards by lottery number andforward sorted data to IRS and/or SSA re-gional offices. Selective Service reserve officerswill be located at IRS/SSA regional officesand will receive and ensure the security ofthe registration forms. The IRS/SSA willkeypunch registrant data which will betransmitted to a central computer center.The Director of Selective Service, acting forthe President and using EEMPS, will issueinduction orders starting on M+7.

Concurrently, 434 area offices will open atpredesignated recruiting office locations.Fifteen hundred pre-trained personnel willtransfer from the Armed Services RecruitingCommands to Selective Service to augmentreserve officers already ad ssigned to SelectiveService. Area offices will provide adminis-trative assistance to local boards. StateHeadquarters will also be reestablished toprovide administrative assistance to areaoffices. Regional offices will continue to sup-port both.

Under this option, Selective Service ex-pects to exceed the current DOD require-ment for inductees. Registration will occurat M+4 and induction notices will be issuedstarting on M+7. Inductions will begin onM+17 at the rate of 7,000 per day, the esti-mated capacity of NEPCOM. With this sus-tained rate, 100,000 inductions could bemade by M+35 and 650,000 inductions byM+ 125.

The estimated yearly recurring cost forthis option, i.e., base level cost to keep theSelective Service System in a true standbyposture, is $9.7M.

Option 2. Pre-Mobilizatlon ParticipatoryRegistration. The USPS would conduct face-to-face pre-mobilization registration inlargely the same manner as they wouldunder emergency mobilization plans. Ini-tially, USPS would conduct a start-up regis-tration of one year of birth group (approxi-mately 4 million 19 year olds) over a periodof about a month. Continuous registrationof 18 year olds would start shortly there-after. Registration would occur during regu-lar USPS business hours at classified postoffices. The IRS/SSA would key only theregistration data for the initial group. Datagenerated from continuous registration andchange of address notices would be proc-essed by Selective Service.

In the event of mobilization, the Directorof Selective Service, acting for the Presi-dent, would immediately classify registrants1A and begin to issue order for induction.Registrants would begin to report to theAFEES the morning of M+10, seven daysahead of the Option 1 schedule.

As under Option 1, 434 area offices wouldbe established at Recruiting offices uponmobilization, and the Recruiting Serviceswould provide 1,500 pre-trained people toassist.

Under Option 2, Selective Service couldorder sufficient numbers of registrants onM-day so that the AFEES could immediatelyinduct 7,000 per day, the maximum capacityof MEPCOM. At this rate, 100,000 induc-tions would be made by M+26 and 650,000by M + 117.

Estimated cost for Option 2 is $11.3M inone-time costs and $23.8M in recurring costs.This is an additional $14.1M in annual re-curring costs above the costs of post-mo-bilization registration (Option 1).

The additional one-time pre-mobilizationcosts would be $5.8M for the USPS to con-duct the initial registration and $5.7M tothe IRS/SSA to key these data. The increasein recurring costs would include $5.8M to theUSPS to conduct continuous registration,$4M for additional rent, travel, printing, re-production, and other services. About $4.3Min additional costs would be for increasedpersonnel: three hundred twenty addition-al people would be needed in the regional of-fices to key and Input registration cards torecord address changes. Fifty-nine addition-al people would be needed for management,supervision and staff support.

Option 3. Pre-Mobilization Registration andClassification. If the President directs pre-mobilization registration and classification,the Selective Service would modify its Emer-gency Military Manpower Procurement Sys-tem (EMMPS) procedures.

Under this option, the USPS would reg-ister individuals as before. Registration datafor the first group would be keyed by theIRS/SSA. Four hundred thirty-four area of-fices would be established to handle follow-on data entry and would, in addition, workwith local draft boards in classification. Atthe same time, 97 appeal boards would beestablished. Registrants would be given con-tinuous opportunity to appeal or petitionfor change of classification.

Pre-mobilization classification of regis-trants under Option 3 would not improvemobilization response times. First inductionswould still occur at M+10. One hundredthousand inductions would be made byM+26 and 650,000 by M + 117. The bene-fit of classification before mobilization isnot response time, but in a more orderly in-duction process, since orders would be issuedonly to those already classified. It should benoted, however, that individuals who did notrequest reclassification in the pre-mobiliza-tion period might still do so during mobili-zation.

The additional costs incurred by rein-stating pre-mobilization classification wouldbe determined in part by the numbers classi-fied. Two sub-options were considered: (1)classify only enough registrants to insure thedelivery of 100,000 qualified inductees, and(2) classify an entire year of birth groupannually.

In order to provide 100,000 qualifiedinductees, Selective Service would classify ap-proximately one million registrants. Addi-tional staff would be needed to handle classi-fication questionnaires,, make and maintainregistrant files, request additional documen-tation when required, decide administrativereclassifications ,support local boards, up-date data bases, notify registrants of results,arrange for personal appearances, and re-spond to queries. The one-time costs wouldincrease by about $2.6M and recurring costswould increase by $12.0M-$5.7M for in-creased systems support, $0.2M for ADP sup-port, and $6.1M for additional personnel.

If an entire year group (about 4 millionmen and women) is classified each year, totalcosts would increase significantly, but withno increase in responsiveness. One-time costswould be about the same for classifying 4million as for classifying one million. How-ever, recurring costs'would increase-$23.1Mfor additional staff and $6.4M for system sup-port, e.g., communications, rent, printing,travel, and services. About 1,800 additional

people would be needed to handle the addi-tional 3 million classifications, and another450 people for management and supervision.

Option 4. Pre-Mobilization Classificationand Examination. Under this concept, regis-trants with specified classification would beordered to an AFEES for pre-induction exam-ination. Those found acceptable would beavailable for induction after a check of phys-ical status. Army regulations provide thatphysical examinations are valid for one year.If an individual is inducted within a yearafter his examination, only a physical in-spection is required. If the delay is more thana year, a new examination would be calledfor.

Responsiveness would be improved becauseMEPCOM is able to process pre-examinedindividuals more quickly. Current estimatesare that MEPCOM could accept up to 17,500pre-examined individuals per day and thatabout 16,000 of these (92%) would be foundacceptable and inducted.

As with pre-mobillzation classification, twosub-options are: (1) examine sufficient num-bers of classified registrants to insure 100,000qualified inductees and (2) examine an en-tire year of birth group annually. In eithercase, induction orders would be issued on M-day, and inductions would begin at M+10,initially at a rate of 16,000 per day. If a por-tion of a year group is examined, 100,000qualified males could be inducted by M+16and 650,000 individuals could be inducted byM+108. If the entire year group is examinedin the pre-mobilization period, then the total650,000 inductions could be made by M+56.

Both cases exceed DOD's stated requirementsfor inductees.

Under this option, additional costs wouldbe incurred by both the Selective Serviceand the Department of Defense. If a deci-sion is made to examine only enough peopleto meet DOD's 60-day requirement, SelectiveService would plan to order 600,000 regis-trants for examination. Additional SelectiveService resources would be needed to processexamination results, schedule transporta-tion for the registrants to take examinations,answer queries, and schedule the additionalworkloads for local boards. One-time costswould not increase in either case since areaoffices would already be operational. Theadditional recurring costs would total$11.4M if part of year group is examinedand $58.3M if an entire year group is ex-amined annually.

The costs of the examinations would beborne by e earen the Department of the Army. TheOffice of the Army Deputy Chief of Staff forPersonnel provided an estimate of $75.00per examination based on the expected useof contract physicians. Re-examinationswould cost about $10.00. Using these pro-jected costs, examining part of a year groupwould cost about $45M and examining anentire year group (approximately 3.6 mil-lion) would cost about $266.0M.

Option 5. Non-Participatory Registration.The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) andthe General Accounting Office proposed thatSelective Service consider relying on exist-ing computer files to form a list of drafteligibles instead of a planning on a tradi-tional face-to-face registration. We havestudied this proposal In terms of (1) ourability to construct a list of sufficient sizeand accuracy from which to induct the re-quired personnel, and (2) the impact ofsuch procedures on the Privacy Act, on otherrelated statutes, on the MSSA, and on Con-stitutional questions of equal protectionand due process.

The Selective Service, in order to carryout the draft, needs the name, address, andbirth date of males subject to the MSSA. (Iffemales were subject to the MSSA, we wouldalso need to know the sex of the registrant.)At a minimum, we need valid data (correctaddresses) on sufficient numbers of peopleto insure we can induct the required numberof people; 5:1 in order to induct/Induction

4030

February 27, 1980 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE

ratio is planned. A master list must be avail-able no later than M+20 to insure that wecan deliver the first inductees to Defenseby M+30.

The most comprehensive data base avail-able is the master Social Security Adminis-tration (SSA) file which contains all theneeded data except current address. Basedupon our survey of five Federal agencies(Agriculture, HEW, Justice, Commerce, andTreasury); and the Education, Motor Vehicle,and Voter Registration agencies in six states,we found the most comprehensive source of"current" address is the Internal RevenueService (IRS).

The Congressional Budget Office, using De-partment of Labor employment statistics,has estimated that 85 percent of the 19-to-20 year old population work some time dur-ing each year, and therefore probably filedan Income Tax Return. The Bureau of theCensus reports that the mobility rate of theprime age group (18-26) ranged from 16to 34 percent during the period 1975 to 1976.Our best estimate Is that, unless a masterlist is updated regularly, approximately 25percent of the addresses will be invalid bythe end of a year. A merged SSA/IRS listwill be most accurate immediately afterApril 15, and will become progressively in-accurate until the following year's filing.Given our estimates of an 85 percent IRScoverage and 25 percent mobility rates, amaster list with "valid" addresses may cap-ture as little as 60 percent of the draft eli-gible population. This, however, appears tobe sufficient to meet DOD's induction re-quirements.

As noted, any registration system must beable to provide a list in about twenty days.CBO indicates that these agencies "alreadyhave a major tape exchange program in ef-fect, and they estimate it would take aboutthree to five days to merge the files . . ."However, in response to inquiries from Selec-tive Service, Social Security indicated itwould take a month to deliver the data, andIRS indicated two months to perform thematch and create the merged file. It appearsthat in order to insure a master file, weshould plan on merging SSA and IRS datain the pre-mubilization period.

While the construction of a master listfrom SSA and IRS computer files is feasible,questions have been raised on privacy andconstitutional guarantees of equal treat-

-ment and due process. All Federal agenciessurveyed advised that not only would thePrivacy Act of 1974 have to be amended, butprohibitions on individual agencies wouldalso have to be changed. (IRS has specificprohibitions in Title 26.) Moreover, IRS be-lieves that, "to use the Internal RevenueService system for tpe purpose suggestedwould adversely effect our extremely im-portant mission in a number of ways. It mayhave a significant impact on compliance inthe area of withholdings and return filings... if withholding records are used in themilitary induction process, draft protestorswould be presented with an irresistible temp-tation to become tax protestors."

The Selective Service General Counsel hasadvised that non-participatory registrationwould require an amendment to the MSSA,and that in his view such an amendmentwould violate both due process and equalprotection guarantees of the Constitution.

Under present plans, not everyone eligi-ble to serve is likely to be called. A system inwhich induction into military service is sys-tematically reserved for those who have so-cial security numbers, can be located becausethey have filed an Income Tax Return, andhave not moved, does not appear to be areasonable means for the Congress to carryout Its purpose. This is particularly truesince there are other ways open to the Con-gress-both pre- and post-mobilization face-

to-face registration-which guarantee dueprocess under the law. The argument thatmerged computer files will save money andavoid generational conflict does not appearcompelling enough to violate Constitutionalguarantees.

It is often argued that face-to-face regis-tration will not provide more names andaddresses than non-participatory registra-tion, and, therefore, the two systems areequivalent. This does not appear to be cor-rect. We estimate a face-to-face registrationwill provide a list over 90 percent completecompared to as little as 60 percent by meansof computer merger. More importantly, aslong as we give everyone a fair opportunityto register, we will legally account for 100percent of the population eligible for mili-tary service under the MSSA, i.e., those whodo not register are in violation of the lawand subject to legal penalty.

Non-participatory registration also appearsto violate standards of equal protection be-cause two people who are identical, exceptthat one recently moved, would be treateddifferently in terms of the probability theywould have to serve. The administration ofsuch a scheme would produce such disparityof treatment of persons similar in all legallyrecognized ways that there can be no ques-tion that there would not be equal treat-ment.

In reviewing the above arguments, it is theposition of the Director of the SelectiveService that while it is technically feasibleto construct a master list of draft eligibleindividuals, and meet the DOD requirements,such a system would be neither fair or equi-table. Construction of a master list duringpeacetime raises serious privacy questions.

4031Moreover, such a system would effectively ex-cuse as much as 40 percent of the eligiblepopulation from military service. The systemwould not be perceived as fair or equitableand could be challenged successfully as a vio-lation of the Constitution. For these rea-sons, the Director has concluded that a non-participatory registration scheme is not aviable system for Selective Service.

RECOMMEENDATION

Our analysis of non-participatory registra-tion suggests that while the system is tech-nically feasible it is not likely to be per-ceived as fair or equitable and would besubject to serious Constitutional challenge.Moreover, such a system does not seem nec-essary in light of the projected ability of alloptions to surpass the required DOD induc-tion schedule. For these reasons, the non-participatory registration concept is notrecommended.

Our analysis of the various face-to-faceregistration options suggests that the post-mobilization plan is preferable. Table 1shows the responsiveness, number of pre-mobilization full and part-time personnel,and initial and recurring costs for eachoption. The post-mobilization option shouldsubstantially exceed Defense requirements,employs the fewest number of full time per-sonnel, and costs the least. While costs andstaffing should not be the determining fac-tor, the reduced delivery time provided bythe other options is redundant and unneces-sary. The post-mobilization option, subjectto field testing later this year and the inter-national situation at any time, is recom-mended as the basis for an effective Standby

Selective Service.

TABLE I.-SUMMARY OF OPTIONS

Premobilization registrationPremobilization registration with classification and

with classification examinationPost-mobili- Premobili-

zation zation Part of Entire year Part of Entire yearSummary of options registration registration year group group year group group.

Responsiveness (DOD requirement):1st inductions (M+30)....... M+17 M+10 M+10 M+10 M+I10 M+10100,000 (M+60)---..-----. . M+33 M+26 M+26 M+26 M+17(6) M+16650,000 (M+180)------------.......... M+124 M+177 M+117 M+117 M+108 M+56

Premobilization employment:Full time-----........------. 116 495 1,080 2,885 1,535 4,960Part time..--- -.....--------- 715 715 300 100 200 0

Premobilization costs:SSS initial...................-------------- 1L5 14.1 i4.1 14.1 14.1

SSS recurring--------....... . 9.7 23.8 35.8 65.4 47.2 123.6DOD recurring--....---------.. .-----------..--.-...... ----......... 45.0 266.2

Total-------------------- 9.7 23.8 35.8 65.4 92.2 389.9

STANDBY sELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM

Calendar of eventsIn the event of a national emergency and

the reinstitution of the draft, the SelectiveService, operating under EMMPS, will ini-tiate the following process:

Time and event:M, The President declares a national emer-

gency and orders that registration be rein-stituted.

M + 1-M + 3, Civilians in specific year ofbirth groups are directed to their U. S. PostOffice facility to register.

M + 4, The USPS carries out the registra-tion and ships completed forms to regionalpostal processing centers.

The Selective Service conducts a lotteryafter the registration has been completedand establishes the "order-of-call" based onRandom Sequence Number (RSN).

Selective Service area offices are openedunder an agreement with the Department ofDefense to turn over recruiting commandfacilities and personnel to Selective Service.

SM + 5, The USPS sorts registration ma-terial by RSN and ships the cards to dataentry facilities.

M + 6, The Internal Revenue Service and/or the Social Security Administration dataentry facilities receive the registration cardsand begin to keypunch the data in RSNorder-of-call sequence. Keypunched data aretransmitted to the central Selective Servicecomputer.

Congress authorizes the President to in-duct personnel into the Armed Forces.

M + 7, The Director of Selective Servicepursuant to regulations issued by the Presi-dent under Section 5(d) of the Military Se-lective Service Act (MSSA) issues orders forinduction in the proper RSN "order-of-call".

M+8-M+17, Registrants receiving or-ders for induction can: Report to AFEES forprocessing, request an exemption or defer-ment, or do neither.

If a registrant reports to an AFEES, he willreceive a physical and mental examination,and if found fit, will be inducted.

A registrant may request reclassificationby filing a claim with an area office of theSelective Service.

Under EMMPS, after a second order forinduction had been sent, a list of those whoneither appealed or reported to an AFEES

4032will be sent to the Enforcement Division inthe Department of Justice for appropriateaction.

M+18, The first inductees will report totheir assigned military training bases.

M+34, The system, working at maximumcapacity and without delays, will have proc-essed 100,000 inductees.

The schedule outlined above is substan-tially different from previous Selective Serv-ice plans. We can highlight the new StandbySystem with respect to seven subsystemswhich make up the registration-to-induc-tion process. The subsystems are:

A registration process that is rapid andreliable.

A method of entering registrant dataquickly into an ADP system.

An ADP system (hardware and software)that can handle the registrant and claimspopulations in the time required.

A system for the promulgation and dis-tribution of orders for induction.

A claims process that can quickly insureall registrants' rights to due process areprotected.

A field structure that can support theclaims process.

RegistrationThe Selective Service and the United

States Postal Service have entered into aMemorandum of Understanding which pro-vides that the USPS will conduct a registra-tion of up to 4 million draft eligible (twomale year of birth groups or one male/femaleyear of birth group) within 72 hours of no-tice. Postal employees will act as registrarsand check completed registration forms foraccuracy and legibility. They will sort com-pleted registration cards by date of birth,deliver sorted cards to data processing sites,and undertake a continuous registration forthose subject to the MSSA who were not re-quired to register immediately after mobiliza-tion. The two agencies have also agreed towork together to fully develop implementa-tion plans, i.e., training and storage of forms,etc., and to test the system in August 1980.The USPS has also agreed that even withoutthese last steps they could undertake anemergency registration within seven days.

This agreement is based upon the resultsof a detailed analysis of existing postal win-dows in each zip code area in three repre-sentative states, estimates of the twentyyear-of-birth population in each area andprojected transaction times of 5 minutesand 2.5 minutes per registration. (Postalofficials Indicate that their average transac-tion time is approximately one minute.) Forexample in the state of Illinois, using themost conservative estimate of five minutesper registration transaction, and withouttaking any special measures, there are suffi-cient postal windows in 97% of the urbanpost offices and 98% of the rural windows.Postal officials have agreed that where thereappears to be a lack of postal windows, theywill open additional "windows" using tablesand desks. In any event, postal facilities willstay open, so that no one required to registerwith Selective Service will be turned away.

We have also entered into an agreementwith the Department of State whereby theywill, operating from their overseas embassiesand consulates, conduct an initial registra-tion within 72 hours of notification and willtransmit the data to the Selective ServiceHeadquarters within 96 hours.

Data entryOne of the most fundamental changes in

Selective Service plans is the developmentof a new concept for conducting the lottery,entering the data into the central computerand issuing the first order for induction.The previous plans required that an entireyear group-2 million records-would haveto be keypunched and verified before a lot-tery could be held and the first induction

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATEnotice issued. It was estimated that thiswould take 1,300 persons per day for tendays.

In sizing the keypunch requirement, wefound .that, In fact, there was no need toinput into the computer a complete yeargroup before we held the lottery or issuedinduction orders. The important thing isthat induction orders are issued in RandomSequence Number (RSN) order. This canbe done by holding the lottery immediatelyafter the close of registration, sorting thecompleted registration forms according toRSNs-a task that the USPS has agreed toundertake-and entering registration datainto the computer in RSN order. Under thisconcept, induction notices can be issued tothe first inductees while the registrationdata for those to be called later is still being.processed. This "pre-sort" scheme substan-tially reduces the requirement for key-punchers by spreading the required workover the time available to Selective Service.

We estimate that at a minimum, we needto process 35,000 registrations forms a day,and this would require about 115 keypunchoperators compared with 1,300 as previouslyplanned. If we process more than 35,000 rec-ords per day, we would reduce the number ofdays it would take us to keypunch the regis-tration data, but would not increase ourability to induct.

Under present plans, we will make use ofthe keypunch capacity of the Internal Reve-nue Service (IRS) and/or the Social SecurityAdministration (SSA). Both agencies haveagreed that in event of a national emergency,they could suspend part of their operationsto support Selective Service. The IRS hasover 4,000 data entry terminals located Inten regional centers, which are convenientlylocated near USPS centers. During the taxreturn period of January to June, the IRShas about 6,000 data entry personnel on-board. During the non-tax period of July toDecember, the staff is reduced to about 1,500personnel. The SSA advises that they coulddo the entire job using some portion of the1,200 terminals located at Wilkes Barre, Al-buquerque and Salinas. In order to providea margin of error, both agencies have agreedto plan for a production rate of 100,000 reg-istration forms per day.

Automatic Data Processing SupportThe present Selective Service computer

center will not support a mobilized SelectiveService System. Current hardware cannot beexpanded to support EMMPS. In decidinghow best to meet our computer needs, weconsidered that:

Selective Service has an immediate needfor a substantial computer capability uponmobilization.

There is a very imited need for a computerduring standby.

Any new ADP system should facilitate theentire registration-to-induction order proc-ess. This requires that we consider MEPCOM's ability to process registrants in sup-port of Selective Service, as well as our needsto support our area offices and local boards.

To provide short term ADP capability, wehave developed a plan that will ensure wehave (1) an immediate capability to, In theleast, process registration data and issue or-ders of induction; and (2), within a year,provide for improved interface with MEPCOM and our area offices.

We have a formal agreement with the De-partment of Defense and the Army that theUSAMSSA computer center will supportEMMPS. The compatability of EMMPS andUSAMSSA computer was tested and demon-strated in December 1979.

The USAMSSA agreement is only tempo-rary. As a longer term solution to our ADPrequirements, we have also agreed that Selec-tive Service and MEPCOM will develop ajoint computer center, using a surplus IBM

February 27, 1980370/165 computer belonging to Defense. Webelieve that a joint center has many ad-vantages. It would reinforce the link betweenthe two organizations, e.g., after mobilizationthe volume of data transmitted each daywould be substantial and a joint facilitywould minimize delay and the need for anexpensive telecommunication network. Itwould put Selective Service on a computersolely dedicated to the military manpowerprocurement mission, and would help insurethe coordination of manpower flows fromSelective Service to AFEES. The joint com-puter center will also support our localboards through the 434 area offices. Computerterminals in each area office will be linkedto the IBM 370/165 and would be used to in-put and update registration and appeals in-formation. Current budget, and requests be-fore the Congress, are sufficient to carry outour plans and develop a joint Selective Serv-ice/MEPCOM computer center. It will, how-ever, be necessary to advance the procure-ment of terminals from PY82 to FY81. Ac-cordingly, we are asking for an increase inFY81 funds of $4.5M for this purpose.

Promulgation of orders for inductionUnder EMMPS, there will be a single na-

tional draft call based upon random selec-tion. Actual induction orders will be issuedby the Director of Selective Service, by direc-tion of the President and under authorityof section 5(d) of the MSSA. Using the Se-lective Service master registration file, whichwill be created and maintained by RSN, in-duction orders will be transmitted as West-ern Union Mailgrams. The Mailgrams willcontain the following information:

Identification of the inductee.Orders to report at a specific time to a

designated AFEES.Information on procedures to follow if un-

able to comply with the induction order.Information on exemption and deferment

rights.A simple claims form.The address of the inductees local board/

area office to which claims should be sent.The area office, upon receipt of a claim

will notify Selective Service Headquartersand will process the claim according tostandard Selective Service procedures.MEPCOM will also be notified of individualsordered to APEES and will report their statusto Selective Service Headquarters.Claims processing and the Selective Service

field structureUnder EMMPS, after receiving an order

for induction a registrant may apply for adeferment or exemption. It has historicallybeen, and will continue to be, the task oflocal draft boards supported by SelectiveService Area Offices to adjudicate suchclaims. It is imperative that a claims struc-ture be In place when we start issuing ordersfor induction. Under present plans, this islikely to be as early as M+7 days. We are,therefore, developing plans and proceduresfor the selection and training of local boardmembers. We are requesting $1.1 million inFY81 and approximately $250,000 per yearthereafter for this purpose. Included in thesetotals are funds for three additional full-time positions for management of this pro-gram.

We have also streamlined our proceduresto reconstitute essential area offices in sup-port of local boards. On November 28, 1979,the Deputy Secretary of Defense and theDirector of Selective Service agreed that, "inorder to facilitate the operation of the Selec-tive Service in support of the manpowerprocurement needs of the Department ofDefense, we must better coordinate ourplanning and post-mobilization manpowersystem. In addition, it is appropriate thatDOD, like other Federal agencies, providesupport to the Selective Service during anational emergency. Such support from DOD

February 27, 1980 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD--SENATE

might include but not be limited to, com-puter and data processing, selected person-nel and facilities. However, DOD should notin any way be involved in the process bywhich the Selective Service adjudicatesclaims for deferment or exemption."

Selective Service has 715 military reservistswho are a cadre to reactivate the system.We have also entered into an agreement withDefense to take over specific Armed ForcesRecruiting Offices within 24 hours aftermobilization. Moreover, 1,500 RecruitingService personnel will augment the SelectiveService reservists for about 45 days aftermobilization. These personnel will be iden-tified by name, provided training and willparticipate in training exercises and fieldtests.

We have ordered a revision to this sum-mer's annual training, in order to test thesenew procedures. We will "mobilize" eachstate headquarters and "reestablish" areaoffices. This should allow us to work outproblems before Nifty Nugget 1980.

ANALYSIS

The capability of the Selective ServiceSystem to induct people into the ArmedForces depends upon (1) achieving, in atimely manner, the schedule of events and(2) achieving the appropriate rates of pro-duction in the various subsystems, e.g.,physical and mental examinations per day,etc. The robustness of the new plan is shownby comparing the following four figures. Eachfigure shows the number of males processedon the vertical axis, the calendar of events(time) on the horizontal axis, each line is adifferent subsystem, and the rate of produc-tion for each subsystem is the slope of therespective line.

Figure 1 shows how the system would workif Selective Service and the AFEESs achievedboth the schedule and the planned produc-tion rates. As is evident, first inductions start12 days ahead of the DOD timetable, with100,000 inductees delivered to Defense onM + 34-26 days ahead of schedule.

In order to examine the flexibility of theplan, we considered what would happen if weachieved the schedule of events, but op-erated at the minimum rate necessary tomeet the DOD delivery schedule. In such acase, the data entry, induction orders, andAFEES subsystem could work well belowtheir maximum mobilization capacity (2shifts, 6 days per week) and still not jeop-ardize the schedule. In other words, staffcapacity required for normal pre-mobiliza-tion operations, when expanded to a twoshift, 6 days per week operation, can morethan meet post-mobilization requirements,and provide a hedge against our failure toachieve our schedule of events. The extent ofthis hedge is seen in Figure 3.

Figure 3 shows that, if the AFEES op-erates at its stated post-mobilization capac-ity of 14,000 mental/physical examinationsper day, the Selective Service could issue itsfirst induction order as late as M + 32, 25days later than originally planned, and stillprovide 100,000 inductees by M + 60.

The above example assumes a failure in theschedule or rates of production, i.e., a fail-ure by the Selective Service or the AFEES.What if both failed? Clearly, there are com-binations of failures in both parts thatwould result in a system wide failure. Whatis more important, however, is that substan-tial combinations of failures in both sys-tems which would be sustained withoutcompromising the delivery schedule. For ex-ample (Figure 4), if the USPS could not reg-ister until M+5 and data entry began nottwo days, but four days after registration(M + 9) and induction letters did not go outone day, but two days after keypunching(M + 11), and if we allowed fourteen days toreport to the AFEES, instead of ten days, the

AFEES would still provide a hedge in meet-ing DOD requirements. In sum, over a rea-sonable range of failures in both the Selec-tive Service and the AFEES, the system iscapable of inducting 100,000 people byM+60.CONFERENCE REPORT AND STATUTORY CHANGES

The 1980 Defense Authorization Act re-quires Selective Service to recommend"changes in existing law relating to registra-tion, classification, selection and Induction."The Conference Report also raised a numberof points relating to post-mobilization regis-trations plans. Specifically:

"Order-of-Call" Court Decisions. There issome concern that under EMMPS, SelectiveService might not issue induction orders inthe proper order-of-call, and that the re-sulting legal challenge could stop the entiredraft. The Selective Service General Coun-sel has reviewed pertinent court cases andhas advised that even a successful "order-of-call" defense to a specific prosecutionunder the MSSA would not void the draft.Court decisions with respect to "order-of-call" merely reflect the well established rulethat an agency must follow its own regula-tions. In the past rules and regulations wereissued the National Headquarters, the in-dividual State Headquarters, and the over3,000 local boards with the result that localboards inadvertently did not always followour rather complex procedures. The order-of-call defense is less likely to be successfulin the future because under EMMPS wewill have a single order-of-call controlledfrom National Headquarters operating undera single set of simplified rules and regula-tions.

Extent of Testing the Plan. The Memo-randums of Understanding with supportingFederal agencies provide that we test pro-cedures in August 1980. We have also re-structured the summer training to test ourability to mobilize State Headquarters andreestablish area offices. Selective Service re-serve officers will visit the Armed Forces Re-cruiting Offices scheduled to support Selec-tive Service during a mobilization. Equip-ment and personnel in these offices will beinventoried and local contacts with GSA,OPM, USPS and the telephone company willbe made. The FY81 budget also has fundsto allow Selective Service to fully participatein Nifty Nugget 80.

Computer Capability. The EMMPS pro-gram is installed on the Defense Depart-ment's USAMSSA computer. In an emer-gency, Selective Service could register andinduct. We have also provided funds inFY80 and FY81 to take over a surplus DODIBM 370/165 computer and have agreed todevelop a joint SSS/MEPCOM computercenter. We will request additional FY81funds, originally programmed for FY82, topurchase 434 computer terminals to fullysupport our local boards and area offices.This will provide a computer network com-pletely dedicated to military manpower pro-curement and processing and will not onlyimprove the registration/induction process,but will insure a rapid adjudication of allclaims.

Agreement with state officials and othernon-Federal agencies. Under our new plans,the Selective Service does not rely on anyagreements with either state or non-federalagencies.

Schedule for training Federal personnel inregistration. Each Memorandum of Under-standing with a supporting Federal agencyprovides that personnel will be trained onappropriate aspects of Selective Service pro-cedures. Selective Service, USPS, IRS and SSAwill review registration forms to insure thatthey are compatible with normal operatingprocedures.

Likelihood that induction notices would

survive potential court challenges. The Selec-tive Service General Counsel has reviewed allpost-mobilization plans and procedures. Sec-tions 5(a) (1) and 10(b) of the MSSA implythat the local draft boards shall issue induc-tion orders. At the same time, Section 5(d)of the Act authorizes a uniform nationaldraft without regard to local boards when-ever the President prescribes the use of thelottery. The section places the issuance ofinduction orders under such rules and regu-lations as prescribed by the President. Selec-tive Service plans, through the EMMPS pro-cedures, to issue induction orders under au-thority of this section and is developing up-dated regulations. To insure that the au-thority to issue induction orders is com-pletely unambiguous, Selective Service rec-ommends a statute change which willspecifically grant the President authority toissue induction orders under Sections 5(a)(1); 10(b); and 5(j) of the MSSA.

The General Counsel has advised that theregistration and induction system may bevulnerable to legal challenges if a claimsstructure was not in place at the time ofinduction. Accordingly, we are planning toundertake the selection and training of localboard members in fiscal year 1981.

The General Counsel has also advised thatto meet current Constitutional law require-ments of equal protection, any system ofregistration for and induction into the armedforces must include both men and women.Accordingly, the Selective Service is recom-mending an amendment to the MSSA to pro-vide for the registration and induction ofmen and women.

At this time we know of no other legalquestions pertaining to a post-mobilizationregistration plan.

Registration and Induction of Women. TheSelective Service and the Department ofDefense agree that any future draft shouldbe applicable to both men and women, be-cause (1) it would be inequitable to restrictregistration and induction to men sincewomen can and currently do fill substantial,essential military requirements; and (2) theevolution of substantial relationship stand-ards of eaual protection in gender rendersall male draft constitutionally suspect.

The Department of Defense has also ad-vised that under the present state of thelaw, they assume the validity-of currentgender based combat restrictions, whetheraccomplished by statute or policy. In recog-nition of present combat restrictions, DODhas proposed, and Selective Service supports,a change to the MSSA to provide standbyPresidential authority to register and clas-sify both men and women, to randomly in-duct men only in sufficient numbers to fillcombat positions and to maintain a replace-ment pool for those positions, and to ran-domly induct men and women on an equalbasis to fill non-combat positions. We havebeen advised that given the above, Defensewould not require women within the first 60days, i.e., they would not be part of the100,000/M+60 requirement, and that 80,000women would be required over the periodM+90 to M+180. These women would bepart of the total 650,000 six-month require-ment.

SUMMA.Y AND cONCLUSIONThe Selective Service, over the last several

months, has completely revised the plans bywhich it will register and induct draft eligi-ble people into the Armed Services. Webelieve that we now have a capability to re-spond in an emergency. The changes whichhave provided this new capability are:

An agreement with the United StatesPostal Service to conduct registration attheir 34,000 postal offices throughout theUnited States, and with the Department ofState to conduct registration overseas.

An agreement with the Internal RevenueService and the Social Security Administra-

4033

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD- SENATE February 27, 1980tion of keypunch completed registrationforms.

A procedure to expedite the inductionprocess by sorting and processing completedregistration forms in Random Sequence-Lottery number order.

The development of a simplified procedureto issue induction orders, claims informa-tion and forms.

Agreements with the Department of De-fense to:

Support the Emergency Military ManpowerProcurement System (EMMPS) on an Armycomputer until we can build a joint SSS/MEPCOM computer center, which will becompletely dedicated to military manpowerprocurement and processing, peace and war.

Provide to Selective Service, 434 ArmedForces Recruiting Stations and 1,500 person-nel to facilitate the reestablishment of areaoffices.

While an immediate reactivation of thesystem, incorporating these changes, wouldbe difficult and could not be accomplishedin the minimum times suggested in this re-port, the actions already taken should enableus to meet the minimum needs of the De-partment of Defense. Selective Service iscommitted over the months ahead, workingwith supporting Federal agencies, to refineour plans, develop operating procedures,train personnel and test our ability to meetthe emergency military manpower require-ments of the Department of Defense..

"MAN OF THE YEAR" GERD HAHN

o Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, Iwould like to take a moment to sharewith my colleagues the heartwarmingstory of Gerd Hahn of New Milford, N.J.,who is soon to be honored as "Man ofthe Year" by the Corporal Charles M.Wallach Post 773 of the Jewish War Vet-erans of the U.S.A.

Born in Germany, Gerd and his wife,Peggy fled from the Nazis during theearly years of the Third Reich. Gerd wasamong 10 children rescued from theNazis by the Quakers who brought themto the United States in 1939. His wife,Peggy, who first fled to Holland, waslater able to escape to England whenHolland was invaded.

On his 18th birthday, Hahn volun-teered for military service in World WarII, but because he was not yet a citizen,he was unable to enlist. However, afterexpressing his desire to serve, he wasdrafted and became a citizen at Fort Mc-Clellan, Ala. He served in the Army for21/2 years-most of that time with theinfantry and port battalion in Italy.

Mr. President, during the past 21 years,Hahn has devoted himself to the com-munity of New Milford, giving freely ofhis time, money, energy, and talents tohelp others. This gratitude and love forthe country which gave him refuge andthe chance for a new life of freedom anddemocracy, is evidenced by his lifelongdedication.

Hahn holds the rank of captain in theNew Milford Auxiliary Police of whichhe has been a member for 21 years. Hehas originated and organized safety pro-grams for motorists, fund raisers for avolunteer police auxiliary and local BoyScout troops and blood drives for thosein need.

Hahn has also been active in the NewMilford Jewish Center where he has been

the synagogue's volunteer choir director.As a layman, he has also served as a"substitute Rabbi" and cantor.

Mr. President, while some native Amer-icans unfortunately take for grantedtheir rich heritage and the benefits ofliving in a democracy, Gerd Hahn hasdone nothing but prove his love for ourcountry. He and his wife have alwaysbeen willing to dedicate their own timeand energy for their fellow Americans,and have always been guided by a desireto preserve our Nation's ideals.

The "Man of the Year" award is cer-tainly a most fitting tribute to the life-long dedication of Gerd Hahn, and I ampleased to have had the opportunity tocall my colleague's attention to this well-deserved tribute to a noteworthy. con-stituent.0

DRAFT REGISTRATION VERSUSADEQUATE DEFENSE SPENDING

* Mr. SCHMITT. Mr. President, the is-sue of draft registration will soon be be-fore us. Although it is not the most crit-ical issue before us, the Congress will de-bate the need for and the merit of thisproposal just as the country is debat-ing these issues. We must, however, becareful that we evaluate the real de-fense issues involved. While a draft reg-istration system may decrease by a weekor so the time necessary to conscriptindividuals in times of prolonged emer-gency, it will do nothing to increase thequality, their training, or the short-term readiness of our Active and ReserveForces. The fact is that only the Activeand Reserve Forces are capable of rapidmobilization which would be required byan emergency.

It will be good to remember, as we de-bate the issues of draft registration andthe defense budget, that the problemswith our military are primarily in theareas of recruitment and retention.Draft registration will not address theseproblems; financial and nonfinancial in-centives will. It is interesting to notethat recently the Senate was again pre-vented from voting on the Armstrong-Matsunaga amendment for an addi-tional 3.4 percent pay raise for the mili-tary, the type of incentive which mayhelp resolve some of the problems. Let usunderstand that if we want an effectivemilitary, we will have to focus more at-tention on the problems in both theActive and the Reserve Forces as wellas demonstrate a willingness to pay forthe defense of our Nation.

Mr. President, recently an article byMilton Friedman appeared in the Feb-ruary 11, 1980 issue of Newsweek whichaddressed these very issues. I ask thatthe article appear in the RECORD.

The article follows:DaArF REGISTRATION

Draft registration is neither necessary nordesirable. It is being proposed to reassurethe public at home, not to frighten theRussians. It is not necessary because ourmilitary weakness derives neither from ashortage of manpower nor an ability to in-crease the number of people under arms byvoluntary means. It derives from a failureto build new weapons-one after anothercanceled by President Carter. Recruitment

difficulties with the all-volunteer force re-flect primarily the erosion of the inflation-adjusted compensation of first-term enlist-ees relative both to their civilian counter-parts and longer-service personnel. Whenthe draft was replaced by an all-volunteerforce in 1973, the pay scales were adjustedappropriately. Since then Congress and theAdministration have not seen fit to maintainthe pay scale for first-termers. If it is desiredto increase the size of the armed forces,either in general or for specialized personnelthat can and should be done without a draft.

Bad Arithmetic: It is said that we cannotafford to do so. That is nonsense. Propo-nents of a draft point out that total person-nel costs of the armed forces are more than50 per cent of total military spending. How-ever, only about 11 per cent of that goes forthe pay of first-termers-in 1979, total per-sonnel costs were $58.4 billion but only $6.3billion of that went to pay people servingfewer than four years. Even a major increasein the pay offered new recruits would involveonly a minor increase in the total defensebudget. The rest of the total personnel costsis for the pay of longer-term personnel offi-cers, civilians, and retirement benefits. Andonly first-termers would be recruited by adraft.

Registration would have a minor effecton the time involved in getting manpowerand womanpower if a draft were reinstituted.The time-consuming steps are not registra-tion but selection and training. That wasdemonstrated in earlier drafts. And even afull-scale draft would not provide person-nel rapidly enough for a modern war. Thatmust be fought largely by forces in being.

Draft registration is not desirable becausea draft is not desirable. It is a divisivemeasure completely in conflict with thebasic values of a free society Every emer-gency has shown that in time of real needthere is no shortage of patriotic citizenseager to defend the country. Draft registra-tion simply diverts attention from the realsource of our military weakness.

That source is the welfare state. In 1970,spending on defense was 40 per cent of theFederal budget, and 8 per cent of GNP-one and a half times the budget of HEW. In1979, spending on defense was 23 per centof the budget and 5 per cent of GNP. Thebudget of HEW was one and a half times thedefense budget. These developments haveoccurred under Republican and Democraticadministrations alike. Carter has simplycontinued on a well-worn path.

The Real Culprit: Transfer expenditureshave absorbed taxable capacity that hadsupported defense-and much more aswell. We cannot undertake a major rebuild-ing of the military without cutting down thedrain that the rest of the budget imposes onthe taxpayer-whether directly through ex-plicit taxes or indirectly through inflationand borrowing. There is, after all, a limit tothe total taxable capacity of the economy.Look at Britain's decline as a world power,which, as C. Northcote Parkinson some-where points out, owes much more to thegrowth of the welfare state than to any othersingle factor.

No series of symbolic acts, no expressionsof bellicose intent will change that brutefact. If we try to follow a policy of guns pluswelfare-state transfers, I fear we shall endup with neither.

President Carter has acknowledged thedrastic recent change in his opinions aboutRussia-a courageous admission of almostunbelievable prior nalvet4.

Is it outside the bounds of possibility thathe could acknowledge that past fiscal andmilitary mistakes have made it impossiblefor us to respond effectively to Russianaggression now or in the immediate future,but that we are going to change course inlight of the present danger?

4034