We did have, of course, an involuntary recall, and that is brought out here, too, and I would like to clarify that situation.

In 1950 with our 4,500 women in Reserve we were anxious to get as many of them as possible on active duty. However, during the first 2 months after the Korean situation, a very small number had responded, and it is no reflection on the women.

We checked to find out why, because it was single women as well as those with children who did not respond, and their answer to us was this: The same thing was true of the nurses, "We are working for an employer who is not going to be too happy if we volunteer to go into the services now when he needs us. When we come back out of the services our jobs won't be there." Therefore, they did not volun

teer.

However, they said, "We will go willingly if there were an involuntary recall." So, 2 months after the Korean situation opened we said, "All right, we will go ahead with an involuntary recall. These Reserves know they had made a commitment."

Then we got a reaction from the women with children, and we felt it was justified. I had a letter from one Army area stating that they had had protests from women with small children against what they anticipated was coming up, this involuntary recall. What were we going to do about it? The nurses had the same thing in the way of telephone calls and personal contacts, and we said right then and there the number was small, but we could not force them against their will to come in when they had small babies; so then we separated from the service the women who had small children, and put out the involuntary recall of those who did not have.

DO WE NEED AN INFLEXIBLE MATERNITY DISCHARGE POLICY?

Senator LONG. I completely agree that no mother should be required to leave her children; that is her first responsibility; and if she prefers to stay at home with her children, I believe she should be able to do that.

However, as a former serviceman myself, I have had that same experience that many other servicemen who knew what it was to go through a training base where they had hundreds of billets where ladies could have filled them just as well as men, they go overseas, come back 2 years later, and find that same group of men still there at those same billets that ladies could have filled at that time, and made those men available to go overseas with the rest of us. It is not as a matter of resentment toward them, but it is a matter of feeling that more men could be made available if we gave the ladies more of an opportunity to help during a war effort.

I have wondered whether there was any necessity of a flat policy to say that merely because a lady happened to be a mother that she must be discharged from the Women's Army Corps.

Mrs. ROSENBERG. That is not the policy. We have a lot of mothers in the Women's Army Corps. It is with young children that during the time they have young children they can not be a member of the corps; isn't that right?

Colonel HALLAREN. Up to age 18.

Mrs. ROSENBERG. If I may say, Senator, we screen our Reserves very carefully now to make sure that when those who have any reason

which would make them unavailable, whether that is occupational or dependency when we call them, will now be screened out. We do not count on Reserves that we do not have. This is only a modification of the same policy that women who have small children, who cannot be counted on at all times, should not be called on or counted on to be part of the Reserve.

We are putting on the most energetic recruitment campaign, and we have a very, very fine committee of public-spirited women who are helping us, because we agree there are many jobs women ought to do. But we do think that we can get the women without putting the burden on mothers with young children. While it is true that there are some who would like to come, Senator, I am afraid that the reaction in the country would be far more severe against women being in the armed services if something happened during the term of service of a woman who has a small child, because she was not there, than the possibility of 1 or 2 or 10 desirable mothers would mean to the services.

Senator LONG. Of course, I do not feel that a mother under those circumstances should be shifted back and forth across the country, but I would visualize that type of service as a person being assigned to serve in the area where they usually live; but I have had the impression that the Regular services should be viewed in somewhat the sense of a fire department; that is their professional understanding, and when the fire breaks out they should go to the scene of the fire, and it would seem wise to me that we should make just as many of those men available to go as possible.

At the time the fire breaks out, someone else can maintain the alarm system back home while the firemen get on the fire truck and take off; and in that respect, it would seem to me that there could be some plan, and I should guess, perhaps, you do have some plan, to assign a large number of positions that are presently being held by men or certainly held by men in peacetime, to women in time of emergency.

Mrs. ROSENBERG. We have, Senator, and that is why we are anxious to get at least 75,000 women because we have the jobs designated, but we have not enough women for them, and I know that it seems strange to say here is one woman or two who may want to come, and we are not taking them.

As long as you feel so strongly, Senator, we would like to explore it to the utmost. We have a meeting on June 1 of our Women's Committee, and I am going to ask Colonel Hallaren to put it up to those women and let us see-let us explore it with them. They are women who come from all over the country, and let us explore whether they agree with us on this policy, and we will be glad to let you know what their opinion is.

Senator LONG. Generally speaking, you might be entirely right. However, personally I doubt the wisdom of inflexible rules. It seems to me that invariably when you do have that you run into worthy exceptions, and this conceivably would be one of those cases.

Colonel HALLAREN. Senator Long, may I make just another statement here? I heard Secretary Tobin's statement this morning, and apparently the manpower shortage is not limited to the armed services.

Now, in labor and industry, in agriculture, and so on, in civil defense also, there are jobs to be done right in the local area where the mother can be available to her child, and I know in civil defense particularly they have had requests-they have asked me about the names of our women who have been separated from the service, who have had the organization and administrative training, so that they could be utilized in civil defense.

Now, they may be lost temporarily to the services until their children are grown, but they are not lost to the national defense at large. Mrs. ROSENBERG. That is a good point.

Senator, may I ask General Lynch to give you a quick review of our manpower policies because we think they are so basically part of our entire bill? He is the director of our manpower.

General LYNCH. I am Maj. Gen. Edmund C. Lynch, Director of Manpower Requirements.

ARMED FORCES STRENGTH AND MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Chairman, my testimony will cover four points: The size of the Armed Forces, the number of new men that we need to build and maintain those forces, where we expect to get the men, and the con-sequent effect on the manpower pool.

This gives a history of the strength of the active Armed Forces. On June 30, 1950, we had a strength of about a million and a half. During the next 17 months we built that to 32 million, over two and a half times.

For June 30, 1952, we project an authorized strength of 3.6 million, and on June 30, 1953, a strength of 3.7 million.

Our requirements for new men from civilian life are shown on this chart.

In 1951 our needs for replacements were very small because of the extension of the period of service. The 2 million men that we took in that year went toward the expansion of the forces.

In 1952 we take in 780,000 for replacements, which increases to 1,080,000 in fiscal 1953, which represents the replacement of a large number of inductions in 1951.

Now, for 1954-55 we show only the number of men required to maintain the active forces at 3.7 million, because no forces for fiscal 1954 have been approved by the President. It may be larger or smaller, but we took 3.7 to illustrate the needs for men.

In 1954 we need 930,000 for replacements only, and in 1955 1,160,000. New men to build and maintain the Armed Forces come generally from two groups: those from the draft eligibles under Public Law 51, Eighty-second Congress, first session, and those listed as "others." "Others" includes men who are under draft age, over draft age, men with prior service, and reservists.

In 1952 we will take, we expect to take, out of a total of 1.1 million, 770,000 from the draft-eligible group, partly enlistment and partly by induction.

In 1953, it is 870,000, and in 1954, 650,000, and 1955, 870,000.

Mrs. ROSENBERG. General Lynch, may I just call the Senator's attention to the fact that in all these requirements of what we need, full allowance has been made for the greatest possible number of reenlistments as experience has shown necessary.

General LYNCH. That is right.

Mrs. ROSENBERG. So these are net needs of men outside of that.
General LYNCH. New men.

As you will recall, Public Law 51 reduced the minimum age to 1812. It reduced the mental score for qualification, and it reduced the scope of dependency deferments.

Now, the Defense Department, working with other executive agencies, principally Selective Service System, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, made a reevaluation of the pool, and then, as the result of our needs for new men translated that into estimates of the inventory in the pool over the period through fiscal year 1955.

After going back over the change in Public Law 51, our assets on the 30th of November were 930,000. Now, it is important to appreciate that these represent the number of men who could be made available, not necessarily the ones classified in 1-A in General Hershey's records.

Also that these figures represent inventory or status reports of the pool. Actually, men enter the pool in increments, either as they reach the age of 1812 and are classified by Selective Service, or after their deferments lapse, and they are put into the pool, and the armed services draw men from the pool generally in monthly increments.

During fiscal year 1952, we take out 30,000 more than enter the pool. We have started eating into our capital.

During fiscal year 1953, the pool at the end of the year has dropped by 320,000, the difference between 900,000 and 580,000, and continuing to maintain the Armed Forces at 3,700,000 would further reduce the pool to 500,000 on June 30, 1954, and 200,000 on June 30, 1955, each year taking more out of the pool than enter it, so that we feel that we can maintain 3,700,000 through fiscal year 1954, and the early part of 1955 without difficulty, based on the present regulations for amending deferments in the Selective Service System.

Mrs. ROSENBERG. General Lynch, would you mind pointing out there the safety margin, however, that General Hershey needs in order to call men from his 3,800 boards?

General LYNCH. General Hershey has a problem of meeting calls because the people who are qualified and classified 1-A in the system are not necessarily geographically distributed the way he has to allocate the calls we make, so he needs a backlog of about 5 or 6 months of the average monthly draft call in order to assure that he does not run out of men in particular boards.

In this case we are inducting about 50,000 a month. It would mean in the vicinity of 250,000 to 300,000.

Mrs. ROSENBERG. Which we have not got.

Senator LONG. In 1955 you would be hard pressed for that manpower.

Mrs. ROSENBERG. We have not got it. We have not got enough to give General Hershey his safety margin or to meet our requirements. Senator LONG. Of course, if you proceed at that rate and the men who have had their training are discharged, why, you should have a very large Reserve at that time, should you not?

Mrs. ROSENBERG. Well, we cannot count on that; we cannot call on that Reserve. These needs are just to meet our requirements to maintain an Armed Force of 3.7 million.

General LYNCH. In general, Mr. Chairman, the number coming out on this chart in blue are the inductees who do have a Reserve obligation. This cross-hatch represents the reserves which are returned to

civil life, and the brown representing the regulars. The regulars, in general, have no Reserve obligation, so that the Reserve obligation exists in this group of men who are inducted for 2 years. Senator LONG. Would you supply that in a suitable size?

General LYNCH. Yes.

Mrs. ROSENBERG. Yes.

(The charts referred to follow :)