Page images
PDF
EPUB

farm deferment, must not only determine that the man himself is necessary and irreplaceable on the farm on which he is employed, but that he is further employed in the production for market of a substantial quantity of those agricultural commodities which are necessary to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest. This same test of essentiality also applies to occupational deferments in other activities.

Sincerely yours,

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

LEWIS B. HERSHEY, Director.

The next witness is-let me see now, where is my list ?-Dr. Howard Meyerhoff, Executive Director, Scientific Manpower Commission. Is the Doctor here?

Dr. MEYERHOFF. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Doctor, under the rules of the committee, we will accept your statement and put it in the record and afford you 10 minutes to make a statement as to what you have in your printed report.

Dr. MEYERHOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (The statement follows:)

Representative CARL VINSON,

ENGINEERS JOINT COUNCIL,

New York, N. Y., January 28, 1955.

Chairman, House Committee on Armed Services,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR MR. VINSON: At the suggestion of Mr. Russell Blandford we are writing to you to place before the House Committee on Armed Services an analysis of the recent administration of the selective-service law. We trust it will receive the committee's attention when the extension of the Selective Service Act is under consideration. May we preface our remarks by expressing our substantial endorsement of the act and the extension for a suitable period of the authority to induct. It is our firm conviction that selective service must be maintained as an essential part of our preparation for national security. We feel, however, that it can do so only if its operation remains within the framework of congressional intent.

It is generally recognized now that real national security, with the flexibility to meet any contingency, involves not only the training of men for standing Armed Forces with adequate, dependable reserves but also the technological wherewithal to provide ample material support for the military branches as well as a civilian economy operating at as high a level as current planning permits. We believe with President Eisenhower that "*** security must be founded on a strong and expanding economy." In this period of continuing partial mobilization we feel it particularly vital that technology be given every opportunity to maintain our leadership in the various aspects of the preparedness race. We know that the Soviet Union understands clearly the modern source of power and is turning every attention to the development and fullest utilization of its technological manpower. We are, therefore, greatly concerned with the recent trends in the administration of the selective-service law. These were best explained by the following statement, which appeared in the November 1954 issue of Selective Service published by the national headquarters of the Selective Service System.

UNIVERSALITY OF SERVICE

The members of an advisory committee on scientific, engineering, and specialized personnel recently established in one of the States requested this headquarters to comment upon the intent of Congress with respect to the universality of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, as amended. The letter in reply that emanated from this headquarters is printed below.

"The concept of universality of service is implicit in the action of the Congress in 1951 in amending the Selective Service Act of 1948 to make it the Universal Military Training and Service Act, and to provide extended liability to age 35 for those persons deferred by their local boards prior to reaching age 26.

"The Selective Service Act of 1948, as passed on June 24, 1948, provides in section 1 (a): "This Act may be cited as the "Selective Service Act of 1948."' "The 1951 amendments provide: This Act may be cited as the "Universal Military Training and Service Act."

"This change in title was designed to accomplish not only universality of training but universality of service. The training features of the act have not been implemented by the Congress, but the universal military service portion is not only operative, but is fortified by the 1951 provision extending liability for induction for deferred persons. This extension of liability was enacted by the Congress because they were aware of the fact that those who become 26 without having served were those who had been deferred. Had Congress desired to exempt registrants who had long been deferred, this action would have been unnecessary and would not have been taken. This is spelled out quite clearly in the following statement found on page 34 of the House Armed Services Committee Report No. 271, in which the committee reported out to the House of Representatives the 1951 amendments to the Universal Military Training and Service Act: 'It should be observed that the new section permits the induction of persons now or hereafter deferred until the 35th anniversary of their birth should their basis for deferment terminate after passing their 26th birthday. This will prevent persons now deferred from escaping induction by continuing their education past the 26th anniversary of their birth, or by continuing to remain engaged in an essential industry or occupation until they pass their 26th birthday.'"

It is our firm conviction that the concept of universal military service advocated above is not only an invalid interpretation of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, but is inimical to our national security. In fact, the excerpt quoted from the House Armed Services Committee Report No. 271 is the very one that we would cite to indicate the congressional intent that industrial deferment in cases of demonstrated need should be allowed and extended beyond age 26. The extension of liability toward age 35 (equivalent to the sum of the occupational deferment period) was done obviously to prevent excessive leakage. We concur in this device, for we oppose the direct or indirect exemption of any individual or group.

Since 1950 American technology has been working under the handicap of skilled manpower shortages. Under these circumstances, we must agree with the warning contained in the Appley report presented by the Director of the Office of Defense Mobilization to the President in January of 1954. The report says: "The margin of skilled manpower for expanded war production is extremely narrow in the light of modern requirements. To strip American industry of a substantial number of these persons during partial mobilization puts the Nation in peril of not being able to meet production requirements in the event of a full emergency."

In December of 1952 there were 31,017 persons deferred for occupational reasons. Currently the number is about 17,500. These figures indicate that the trend toward universal military service is much more than merely theoretical. There can be no justification of this on the basis of a reduction in the segment of industrial activity directly connected with the weaponry of national security, for such has not occurred. There can be no justification in reduction of activity in defense related activities for such has not occurred. As a matter of fact, American industry in keeping with the President's emphasis on a strong economy, has been encouraged to maintain the highest degree of activity in research and development. In spite of this, occupational deferments to those persons acknowledged to be of vital importance have dropped by almost 45 percent.

It is the normal practice to justify this on the theory that the level of availability is maintained by those engineers and scientists who have completed the active service obligation and are available to industry. Paraphrased this means that now American industry is deprived, by the unilateral action of the Selective Service System, of the services of large segments of two entire classes of engineering and scientific graduates. This is occurring at the very time when manpower needs for the armed services are at the lowest point in years. It has resulted in an impossible problem in the Army of trying to utilize the skills of far more technologists than the Army requires as such. It is universally agreed that it is at best foolhardy in this day and age to use technologists on nontechnical work. It is, by and large, not the fault of the Army that in its structure such malutilization runs high. The Army simply does not need most of the technologists they receive via selective-service inductions.

We know we cannot compete with our potential enemies in terms of total manpower. Therefore, it is of prime importance that we recognize that our survival in this age of peril will depend on the degree to which we utilize the very definitely limited scientific and engineering personnel which this Nation possesses. As pointed out by the Appley committee we must always keep in mind the possibility of stepped-up or full mobilization.

As the exact nature of the problem becomes manifest we have no doubt that the good judgement of our people will prevail in this, as it has in the past, in matters of grave national importance. To judge this problem, however, it is necessary that our people have the facts upon which sound judgment can be based.

Fundamentally, every man should serve the Nation where he can serve it best. If this leads to service in production or research, so long as those requirements are paramount, the individual registrant should be considered for deferment and deferred because of his importance to that work.

We are mindful, on the other hand, that the needs of the Armed Forces for physically fit young men must be met and that the young scientist or engineer should be deferred only when the work which he is performing in civilin life is more important to the Nation than that which he would perform if inducted into the Armed Forces. There is equal need to maintain the graduate and undergraduate programs in our colleges and universities in order to insure the continued flow of young scientists and engineers into production and research. We need, then, to reject universal military service as a basic concept and return to the principle of selection, under which men are selected for deferment by reason of their occupation and its importance to the national welfare or selected for induction because their service to the Nation in uniform is deemed more important than their civilian work. The drive for universal military service and the virtual nondeferment of young engineers and scientists have led many such individuals to volunteer despite their present value to research and production, just to get the matter over with, when their greatest conceivable contribution would be to remain on the job.

We sincerely seek the maximum contribution to the Nation from our scientists and engineers and do not advocate the exemption of such individuals from military service. The fear that some men might escape military service through continued deferment is no longer a practical one with the extension of the age of liability to 35 for those who are deferred for various reasons, and the denial of deferment to those whose child or children were conceived or born after August 25, 1953.

We agree with the intent of Congress, as expressed in the Universal Military Training and Service Act of 1951, as amended, in which it is stated: "The President is authorized, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, to provide for the deferment from training and service in the Armed Forces *** any or all categories of persons whose employment in industry, agriculture, * * * or other endeavors is found to be necessary to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest."

In this uneasy age in which we live, of simultaneous hot and cold war, we ask that the Nation make the most effective use of its specialized manpower, not as a matter of preferred treatment of scientists and engineers, but in order that the Nation may survive.

We believe it imperative, therefore, that the intent of Congress be made amply clear by including in the selective service law such revisions as will prevent the loss of the principle of selection. We are firmly opposed to the adoption of any procedure that would provide exemption from military obligation but it is our considered judgment that with international tension what it is we must bolster our technological defenses by the judicious utilization of all of our highly trained specialized manpower, particularly in the fields of science and engineering.

In short, we agree completely with title I, section 1, subsection (e) of the Universal Military Training and Selective Service Act: "The Congress further declares that adequate provision for national security requires maximum effort in the fields of scientific research and development, and the fullest possible utilization of the Nation's technological, scientific, and other critical manpower resources."

It is our sincere hope that your committee will assure that this will be done. To neglect to do so can merely jeopardize the security that all of us are seeking to preserve.

Sincerely yours,

M. M. BORING,

Chairman, Engineering Manpower Commission
of Engineers Joint Council.
H. A. MEYERHOFF,

Executive Director, Scientific Manpower Commission.

Dr. MEYERHOFF. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity you have given me to supplement and support the statement which has already been submitted to the committee. May I say at the beginning my name is Howard Meyerhoff. I am executive director of the Scientific Manpower Commission, but in speaking I am also speaking for the Engineering Manpower Commission of which Maynard M. Boring, of General Electric Co., is Chairman.

The Engineering Manpower Commission represents all the engineering societies, with memberships of about 185,000. The Scientific Manpower Commission represents nine major scientific groups, with a total membership of 155,000 scientists.

May I say to start with that we heartily support the extension of the selective service law, and furthermore, we are vehemently opposed to exemption for scientists, but we are here primarily to indicate a difference of opinion in the statements that General Hershey has just made with reference to the meaning of the law.

We do feel that the provisions of the law remain unchanged from the law of 1948, even though the title was changed, and that the law should be administered by provision rather than by title.

Section 1, subsection (c) of the law, of course, states that it should be administered under a principle of selection which is fair and just, and then in subsection (e) it goes on to indicate the importance of science and engineering, as General Hershey has just emphasized.

Under those circumstances we do feel that a system of deferments should be quite liberal where the need is demonstrated, and the need is demonstrable in our conviction only when men are essential and/or irreplaceable. And there are many such instances.

We feel that this is necessary only because of the dire shortage of engineers and scientists.

The Engineering Manpower Commission has conducted an annual survey for 4 years to determine the magnitude of the shortage of engineers in their several fields. Their figures for 1954 indicate that taking into account men inducted, men who returned from the service after their 2 years or more in uniform, there was a shortage of 6,000 engineers in the year 1954. However, we discovered that we had not taken into account one very important area of engineering. In the survey we could not discover a shortage of civil engineers, but it suddenly occurred to the Engineering Joint Council that they had not given consideration to the State highways departments. The survey was extended to the State highway departments, and a shortage of 3,000 civil engineers was discovered in that area alone.

And furthermore, if the President's roadbuilding program is undertaken, there simply is not the engineering personnel to man it.

In the fields of science there are given shortages. In some fields they are negligible, but in others they are acute. I received yesterday a statement from the University of Illinois School of Agriculture stating that for the next 3 years, at least, there will be 2 jobs for every agricultural scientist that they graduate.

We have also surveyed in our own Commission the demands for scientists in the year 1954, and we find that against a loss of 25 percent in the number of physics graduates since 1951, that the demand in industry alone has gone up, and that in 1954 research and develop

55066-55-No. 2- 7

ment departments alone in industry absorbed 70 percent of all the physicists at all degree levels that were graduated. Leaving, you see, 30 percent for education for Government, including AEC and the other arms of Government, and the production of departments of industry, too. Hardly enough to go around, I am sure you will agree. The figures in other fields are perhaps not quite so impressive as they are in physics, with a few exceptions.

In the mathematics we find that there are 200 teaching positions in the universities and colleges that are not filled because they can't find personnel. We could turn also to industry to get indications of the shortage. Maynard M. Boring, the Chairman of the Engineering Manpower Commission, stated on Friday of last week that his company alone has requisitions for 1,450 scientists and engineers for 1955 for research and development; that 3 other companies in his and related fields will absorb one-quarter of all the engineering and scientific graduates in this country for the year 1955, based, of course, on projections of graduations from men already enrolled and prospective graduates as of June 1955.

We have, of course, been conscious of the effort that the Russians are putting into this production of manpower in the scientific and engineering fields. And may I mention, in view of the statements that were made in the testimony yesterday, that M. H. Trytten, of the National Research Council, a man who was chairman of General Hershey's committee to study the question of deferments in the field of education, has recently completed a study of the production of engineers and scientists in the U. S. S. R. This book is ready for publication and will come out under the National Research Council's imprint within the next few months. The manuscript is completed. He has found that as of 1954 the Russians turned out 54,000 engineers. Our product was between 19,000 and 20,000 in the same period, 1954.

The CHAIRMAN. You have no assurance of what is the quality of the 54,000. It is quality instead of quantity that counts, isn't it?

Dr. MEYERHOFF. Yes, sir. That has been analyzed from all of the Soviet universities and academy statements that have come in. We know the curriculum in great detail, and Dr. Trytten has reproduced it in the manuscript of his book and it will appear there.

The curriculum is a 5-year curriculum as against 4 to 5 years in our own institutions, and the conclusion which he has reached is that most of the Russian engineers have the equivalent of a master of science. in engineering in this country.

Now, in the fields of science we find that the number of doctors of philosophy graduated in 1954 in science was 7,000, and in our own country it was 4,300. If we project these figures, knowing the approximate numbers of scientists and engineers in this country and in Russia, as we do, 400,000 engineers in Russia as against 525,000 in this country.

If we project that, you can see that the curve of Russian engineering personnel will cross our total personnel within a matter of 3 to 5 years, depending upon our step-up in the number of engineers registered.

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, could I ask him a question?

Dr. MEYERHOFF. And educate them. In science it will be about 2 years longer.

« PreviousContinue »