Page images
PDF
EPUB

Now you state, in answer to Mr. Miller's observation-another good Californian, like both you and Mr. Hinshaw-that possibly in 2 years we may be over the hump so far as getting these people back into the field from which they came should they be taken. So you think if this committee and the Congress should find an avenue whereby we could spare these highly gifted people-I am one person who doesn't believe that all people are born equal. Some of them are smart enough to be in Congress and some of them are too smart to be there. Anyway, I don't think everybody is created equal. I just don't believe that. They are equal under the law, but they aren't equal up here [indicating head]. Those smart boys you have find a way to utilize their unusual innate and gifted skills. I think that I for one am quite impressed with it and I hope we can find a way to insure to your field of science the uninterrupted flow of the brains which our colleague has so well referred to.

Personally, I am quite impressed by it.

Mr. CHANEY. It is most gratifying that you say so.

The CHAIRMAN. Wait one minute. I want to pursue this a little bit further, because you are qualified. You are on some manpower board out there and no doubt you have had-serving on some other kind of boards connected with manpower-have some knowledge. Listen to this:

The board shall promptly screen such individual for technical ability or aptitude to warrant suspension of his obligation to serve in the Armed Forces because he is actually or potentially more valuable in the interest of national security and defense as a scientist.

Now I think-how do you determine what is potential value? Now is it due to the fact that he is the son of a scientist? Is it due to the fact that he has been living in the atmosphere where scientific work comes in? How would you determine that, the potential value of an individual coming up to you with an application now and saying, "I want to be a scientist. I have had some work in college along that line, but I do feel earnestly that I have the qualification to be a scientist."

Now he might have it and he might not. But how would you be able to pass upon whether he possesses the potential qualification to make him a scientist?

Mr. CHENEY. Most men in the category to which you and I refer show outstanding ability at early age. If I were concerned with the functioning of this bill, I should determine after the screening from their teachers, their employers, their associates, the relevant facts. Actually, an I. Q. is significant, but far more significant is competence which is early shown in mathematics, physics, and chemistry.

The great leaders in these fields which funnel into atomic science. were already great men when they turned 20. Einstein is an outstanding example of such a man.

The period of greatest productivity of many men in this field is in their twenties. That is why the loss of 2 years is so significant. Actually, the peak of production, it is agreed among theoretical physicists, comes early in the twenties. These things can be told. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am going to swim close to the shore, because I am in a little deep water now after listening to you. Thank you, indeed.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Blandford, you have a question to ask the doctor?

Mr. BLANDFORD. Yes, sir. Dr. Chaney, you are familiar with the State advisory committee out in California?

Mr. CHANEY. Quite.

Mr. BLANDFORD. And would you say that it is operating successfully out there?

Dr. CHANEY. Yes, and no. Yes in the south, no up north.

Mr. BLANDFORD. Well now, I would like to quote what your colleague says, Dr. Loeb, who is the associate assistant professor of physics at the University of California, in which he says:

It should be added apropos of the ultimate drafting of all vulnerable young men that there may occasionally occur a very unique and rare individual whose continued deferment for a 6-month period may be vital for the national welfare. Such individuals placed in such critical positions in vital activities must indeed be rare and few and far between. Colloquially, the name "rare bird" is given to them and it is up to the advisory boards carefully to determine whether in fact a man falls into this category or not. I should like further to add this thought. While our selective service advisory committee is purely advisory and its function and the actual decisions are made by the local and appeal boards in the various levels, it is clear that if we comprehend our mission and properly execute it, we will receive the complete cooperation of both the local and appeal board and in the end we, as technical men, will be able in our simple advisory capacity to do more in the proper allocation of the services of scientific and technical personnel than any other governmental agency.

Now, I also have a report on the functions of that committee to date. It states:

In conclusion, we believe that the basic approach sketched by Professor Loeb and the detailed methods of consideration which I have tried to outline for you match each other well and we have found the whole workable. Out of some 150 cases on each of which we spent on the average 5 minutes, we have recommended immediate induction for about 35, a limited deferment of 6 months or less for 57, and limited deferment beyond 6 months for 57. Our recommendations were always made unanimously except in 1 or 2 early cases where a member of the committee disqualified himself voluntarily. The draft boards have so far accepted our recommendations.

Now, that would appear that that committee in California is functioning very well, according to one of your own colleagues at the University of California.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, wouldn't the proper way to approach it be by advisory board? What disturbs me and I am saying this as much to Mr. Hinshaw-that here is a board of science. The boy is drafted in. He has 24 months before him. During that 24 months he has an avenue to get out if he wants to get out fixed by this amendment. He can apply to this board. This board screens him. And then the board suspends him of his obligation for the balance of the 24 months.

Now, that is what is disturbing me. You are going to have two systems. You have a system that the local draft board said he must serve 24 months. His case may have gone on to an appeal and may have come to the President, and the President says he serves the months. Then we say to him "On account of your learning and education, why, you are drafted like your neighbor and you are drafted for 24 months, but we will let you out if a scientific specialist board says that you have the potential qualifications of becoming a scientist."

Now, the best way to have a law is to have just one avenue of accomplishing things instead of so many outlets. If you have so many outlets you are bound to have too many efforts being made to circumvent what was the intention of the law which was equal obligation on all.

Mr. CHANEY. In brief reply, I should say that if we didn't have U. M. T. in the bill one outlet would be enough.

Mr. Leonard Loeb, whom I have known for over 40 years, a close friend, looks at selective service through U. M. T. glasses. He believes and has told me many times that every man should have a period of training and service in the Armed Forces except an occasional rare bird, and his definition of "rare" and mine do not agree.

There are too many definitions in this.

Mr. BLANDFORD. But you also agree that every man has an obligation to serve, because you support Congressman Hinshaw's bill?

Mr. CHANEY. No question about it. My idea, though-and I am sure Congressman Hinshaw's idea is that service in the case of specialized scientific and engineering personnel may better be in the laboratory than in the military camp.

Mr. BLANDFORD. You mean you can spare them for 89 days, but not for 24 months. That is what you mean?

Mr. CHANEY. We will settle for one-eighth.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Doctor.
Mr. DEVEREUX. Mr. Chairman

Mr. WILSON. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. We got a great many witnesses.
Mr. RIVERS. Make it short.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Devereux.

Mr. DEVEREUX. Would a possible solution to this problem be to keep them in the service and them if they are so essential to the development of some scientific project ask the Army to assign them to duty there? Do we have any people there?

Mr. CHANEY. In World War II there was such a corps of specialists assigned in civilian clothes to civilian projects, though still retained under service auspices.

There is no such unit at present. The Army is said not to like it. Certainly from our standpoint, at Oak Ridge and Berkeley, the two places where I had contact with it, it did not prove satisfactory. The CHAIRMAN. That answers the question.

Now, Mr. Wilson, what is your question?

Mr. WILSON. Just a brief question.

Dr. Chaney, do you think a workable scientific aptitude test could be worked out at some place along the line, either with the boards before the man is inducted, or afterward, that could be an almost foolproof way of determining whether a man was a scientist or a potential scientist?

Mr. CHANEY. Yes.

Mr. WILSON. Like we have a test for officer candidates, for example? Mr. CHANEY. Perhaps we could call it a nuclear I. Q.

Mr. WILSON. All right. Can it be worked out?

Mr. CHANEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. WILSON. That would be entirely workable on a local level? Mr. CHANEY. Well, the judge in this case, the ultimate judge, would be the specialist committee he mentioned in the Hinshaw amendment. But the screening would be done at local level, of course.

Mr. WILSON. I think everyone

Mr. CHANEY. But these are quantitative, these tests.

Mr. WILSON. Most people are in sympathy with the idea, at least I am, of giving deferment to the nuclear scientist and those who are going to be in effect defending us from their work there. But the method of working it out is the problem we have to face, and it seems to me that a system whereby a man could be tested by the draft boards to determine his aptitude in the first place might very well give you the men that you would want. You would get the cream of the crop, anyway, those that would pass the test that you devised.

Mr. CHANEY. On Monday I talked with Detlev Bronk, the president of the National Academy of Sciences, because the Academy is mentioned in the Hinshaw bill. He stated that he felt that such a committee, if we desired National Academy representation, could function effectively.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Doctor.

Now, the next witness-thank you very much, Mr. Hinshaw, for giving the committee an opportunity to briefly consider your amendment and presenting these witnesses.

Mr. HINSHAW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will go in executive session. tomorrow.

Mr. HINSHAW. I might say if we had a little more notice we could have brought a hundred witnesses that would have given you varying points of view on the same subject, and which would have been very illuminating. But these hearings were called rather quickly and 2 weeks' notice is not sufficient.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course if we were hearing your bill, H. R. 2847, as a separate matter, I assure you that we would call all the witnesses you wanted. But my attention was called to the fact that you had this suggested amendment. You can either wait and offer it as a separate bill, or you can consider it when the bill is called up next Tuesday. And in view of the fact that I thought probably you might offer your amendment next Tuesday I at least wanted to get the committee acquainted with it.

If you want a longer hearing on 2847 I will refer it to the subcommittee of Mr. Kilday or Mr. Durham, and some men of the Atomic Energy Committee, and have the hearing which I think will be satisfactory to all.

But I was thinking probably that you might offer this whole bill as an amendment to the draft, and when it reached the floor, and I wanted at least to know something about it, and the committee wanted to know something about it, if you so desired to do that. If you do not intend to, then I will refer the bill to a separate subcommittee, either Mr. Durham or Mr. Kilday.

Mr. HINSHAW. Mr. Chairman, I have long since learned not to take the course which you have outlined, that is to say, go contrary to the best wishes of the chairman of this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, since you are here, let us talk about it, then. Because it will save a good deal if we can have an understanding. You have raised a very serious question. We haven't gone into it as deeply as we probably should do.

Now, the draft bill is coming up next Tuesday. It is going to be open to amendments. I know of only two members who have any

suggested amendments, you and Mr. Harrison. So, therefore, I invited you to appear before the committee. Now, Mr. Harrison did not offer a particular bill. For a long time I thought that I would ask the House to reenact the draft bill just like it is without any amendments, and then assure the House if any members had any suggested amendments we would have a hearing on the suggested amendments in a little bit more lengthy manner than we are considering this. Then I decided in view of the fact that I knew of no members except you two that had any that I wouldn't ask it, but would open it up for amendments.

Now, if you don't offer your amendmeat, I can promise you now that I will refer it to a subcommittee, and then you can bring all your witnesses here and have a full hearing.

But I am not trying to dicker with you. I am just offering you a proposition and want to know what you want to do about it.

Mr. HINSHAW. I understand. I appreciate the opportunity of having my bill heard briefly at this time, because I am quite convinced from my own work and in the Congress, and in my outside associations, that some thing such as this which I have attempted to the best of my ability to draft is absolutely necessary to the welfare and strength of the United States. It is not my intention to treat the thing lightly, to offer it as an amendment to a bill, and have no one know what is in it or anything of that sort. I want everyone to be thoroughly familiar with it, have an opportunity to amend the amendment, and do whatever is necessary to perfect it in the best interest of the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. I think, in view of that statement, the best way to handle this important subject-it is an important subject, and there is a great deal in what you said-would be to have it probably considered as a separate measure, than trying to offer it as an amendment to the Draft Act.

Of course, there are certain words you are using here that I think the House would hesitate to go along with, on the explanation of the actual working on it. But if you want to offer it, why, go ahead and offer it. But I might offer again the suggestion that it might be best for a bill of this character to let it stand on its own merit, and not try to put it in the draft bill, and to let it be considered as a separate measure from the committee. And I will assure you it will be referred either to Mr. Durham to Mr. Kilday and let them have a hearing on it, and bring all your witnesses on this.

Now, what do you want done?

Mr. HINSHAW. Well, I thank the chairman. Of course, his bill is numbered after mine, and all of that. But just the same I am not going to offer it as an amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

The WITNESS. To this bill.

The CHAIRMAN. With that, then, I will promise I will refer this bill to Mr. Kilday's subcommittee and ask Mr. Kilday just as soon as he finishes-because this is a very important bill. I think we can improve on it. I think we can change the language. We might be able to fix it up where the House will accept it. I doubt very seriously whether the House will accept it like it is because of such phraseology.

« PreviousContinue »