Hi, this is Senator Bob Dole, welcoming you to my weekly radio program, ‘Ask Bob Dole.’ This week I received a letter from Sean D. Thornton of Hudson, Kansas, asking if I think we need to return to military draft system. 

Well, Sean, I along with most Kansans want to be certain that the United States is ready and strong enough to defend itself in the event of any emergency. However, at this point I have questions as to whether the All-Volunteer Army is capable of keeping us militarily healthily. When the All-Volunteer concept was agreed to in Congress back in 1973, the premise was that a small active force be backed up by a large Ready Reserve force, but it appears as if recruiting efforts, despite enticing benefits, have not given us a sufficient force for effective wartime mobilization. Not only are our active forces short of personnel, but some experts indicate that the Reserves and National Guard are nearly 200,000 short and that the Individual Ready Reserve is badly depleted, having fallen from 900,000 to 100,000. 

The seriousness of this situation is felt [not] only by those of us in the United States, but by our European allies, who count on our strong reserve force to furnish replacements for our NATO commitment, and other nations around the world who have traditionally looked to the United States for support in its times of trouble. It is clear that now is the time to take a look at what can be done to upgrade our armed forces. I'm not sure that compulsory military service is the answer, though. Most of us do not like the idea of forcing our young people to serve in the military. But I think at this point we must look at all the options available to us. One suggestion has been to coordinate the draft with a system of national service. But whatever the solution, I'm certain that Congress will consider the options carefully and with regard to the future security of the country. 

Also writing in this week was Mr. William Teller of Overland Park, who was concerned about a different kind of security; financial security for those sending their children to private colleges and universities. 

Bill, I believe a majority of the Congress agrees that some assistance must be given to help deal with skyrocketing educational costs. The fact that the tuition tax credit has passed the Senate each of the past three years is a good indication of that support. Middle income families are being pushed to the limit of their resources by large tuition bills. The National Center for Education Statistics reports that the average tuition and fees in both public and private universities increased nearly 100% in the past 10 years. During that same period, the after-tax income for middle income taxpayers only increased 66%. The tax credits are designed to provide financial relief for those struggling with the growing burdens of educational costs. Money necessary to finance the credit was only designed to be used when a family already has enough money to pay for these expenses. 

What the government lacks is a program to help individuals save the money necessary to finance the cost of higher education. I have proposed the issuance of a special educational savings bond to be used in addition to the tuition tax credit to help deflate costs. The bonds will have a maximum life of 20 years, with interest accruing at the rate of 7%. The interest on the bonds when redeemed would be tax free when used to pay for expenses associated with room, board or tuition in an institution of higher learning. Suppose a parent with one child buys $1000 of educational savings bond when the child is 8 years old. When that child becomes college age, say at age 18, bonds would be worth $1,970. The tax-exempt portion, $970, will go a long way in helping the family meet its financial obligation. 

Finally, W. E. Williams of our Arkansas City writes asking me to speak out against the construction of the new Hart Senate office building here in Washington. 

Well, it's a bit late to oppose construction, as the building is well underway, but you should know that I voted against granting additional appropriations for the building. Although the Senate has placed a limit of $135 million on the final cost of the project, $122 million has already been spent, and construction is far from being completed. I agree that the Senate does not need more room than we now have, but some of the extravagances due to include in the Hart building are clearly wastes of the taxpayers’ money. For example, there will be expensive wallpaper and paneling installed in the office of senators, a tennis court, a rooftop restaurant and an atrium. At a time when there is a definite need to cut back on government spending, the Senate can start right in its own backyard by slashing the waste from the Hart Building. 

Well, that's all for this week. If you have questions like to like me to answer, please write to: Ask Bob Dole, 2213, Dirksen Building, Washington, DC, ZIP 20510. And thank you for listening.