Mr. PAUL. No sir; they do not.

Senator PELL. Referring to your testimony, I was struck by the fact that only 1 percent of the troops-this included a seaman second class who had not acquired a rating in one of these sections?

In other words, would only 14 percent of our people be combat people?

Mr. PAUL. There is a footnote to the chart that indicates that we have excluded bulk positions without occupational designations, so they are not included in that pie chart at all.

Mr. Wool. We are talking about the specialized skills which people possess. We are talking, for example, about men who are artillery crewmen. Now, in the infantry divisions and regiments and other combat forces we have now many electronic fire control specialists, who are just as much combat people as the artillery men. He needs a different skill. These specialties should not be equated with "combat people." We have perhaps as many as half of our forces in the services in the operating forces category which we associate with more or less direct combat activities.

Senator PELL. Where would a seaman, first class, be, for instance? Mr. Wool. A seaman, first class, who has not yet been designated for an occupational specialty would not be included here. Most of these seamen, first class, are either "strikers" in the sense of having been through a school already and therefore really occupationally designated or else are learning some kind of specialized duties in a ship at

sea.

They are not in this distribution unless they have already been designated for a specialty.

Senator PELL. Thank you. I particularly wish to extend my personal greetings to an old friend, Mr. Paul, and say that I believe our country is very fortunate to have him in his present position. Mr. PAUL. Thank you.

Senator CLARK. I would like to make a short observation before I, too, thank you gentlemen for your very helpful testimony this morning.

I think one of the very real problems which confronts the country is to correlate and coordinate the manpower needs of the armed services with the overall manpower policy of the country. This, I believe, is increasingly true as we continue with an inacceptable rate of employment for the labor force as a whole, and a totally unacceptable rate of unemployment for the youth of this country.

The last time the Congress extended the draft, we were promised that a study in depth of the implications of the Selective Service System on the employment problems of the country would be made. So far as I know, that was not made, and when the Senate was confronted this year with the extension of the draft, the bill was passed in 2 hours, without any discussion whatever of the manpower and employment implications of the draft on our total economy. There are several bills pending in the House that call for a serious study of the manpower policy implications of the selective service which I personally would support. I would like to see this committee make a recommendation from the Senate side that this be done.

For this unfortunate condition I do not blame you or, indeed, the Department of Defense at all. I think rather it is a matter of negli

gence on the part of Congress, and also through the compartmentalization of the way we operate, in both the House and the Senate.

The committees which are charged with furnishing you with an adequate stream of manpower through adequate legislation are totally indifferent to the total manpower needs of the country, just as we on this committee are perhaps not as aware as we should be of the needs of the armed services.

Some way has to be worked out before the present draft expires by which this subject can be fully studied and recommendations made so that when you gentlemen come up the next time with a request for an extension of the draft, you have taken into account, and we will have taken into account, the place where you fit into the overall manpower needs of the country.

I say again this is not intended as a critical comment, it is more a criticism of the Congress than it is the Department of Defense.

I want to thank you gentlemen for your candid help and testimony and your willingness to come before the subcommittee.

Mr. PAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator CLARK. The subcommittee will stand in recess until tomorrow at 10 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, November 13, 1963.)

NATION'S MANPOWER REVOLUTION

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 13, 1963

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMPLOYMENT AND MANPOWER

OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 4232, New Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph S. Clark (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Senators Clark, Randolph, and Kennedy.

Committee staff members present: Stewart E. McClure, chief clerk, Dr. Garth L. Mangum, research director of the subcommittee; and John Stringer, minority associate counsel.

Senator CLARK. The subcommittee will resume its sessions.

Our first witness this morning is Dr. J. Herbert Hollomon, Assistant Secretary for Science and Technology of the Department of Com

merce.

Dr. Hollomon, I have road your statement. We will have it placed in the record in full. I would like to ask you a few questions about it and, if you do not mind, sort of pick your brains somewhat more in depth.

(The prepared statement of Mr. Hollomon follows:)

STATEMENT OF J. HERBERT HOLLOMON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Secretary Hodges and others have already testified before this subcommittee on various aspects of scientific and technical manpower utilization in the United States. I shall try not to repeat other witnesses, but shall confine my comments to describing—

(1) How scientific and technical manpower is used to advance the economy.

(2) The problems associated with use of that manpower.

(3) Possible courses of action to assure full and effective utilization. Scientific and technical manpower, the heart of our technical resources, today is a most important contributor-and limiting factor-to economic growth and national strength. That importance is growing each day and extends to all facets of modern society.

Technical personnel are obviously the nuclei in the Nation's research and development programs, which now total almost $17 billion yearly, of which more than $12 billion is spent for such national-purpose programs as defense, space, atomic energy, health, and less than $5 billion is spent for the development of new products, processes, and techniques.

Technical people are also key elements in the process of invention, innovation, and adaptation and diffusion, the process by which technological change takes place and makes an impact on the economic and social structure of the Nation. Because of the expanding influence of technology and its greatly increased complexity, there is a need today not only for more technical people but for better and more advanced training. Thus, the modern inventor needs to be more sophisticated, and the innovator better informed on the potentialities of new

technology and how the needs of society can best be met. The adaptation and diffusion of technological developments need to be better rationalized and more effectively carried out. Unfortunately, because of the timelag between the investment in the education and training needed to bring this about and its eventual harvest in new products, increased productivity, etc., deficiencies in education or technology not now evident will create real problems in the future. The mounting mass of technical information, which is now doubling in volume every 81⁄2 years, presents a formidable problem of assimilation, especially by small- and medium-sized firms, which do not have the necessary professional staff to collect, evaluate, and use the information. Here, again, an adequate and properly trained supply of technical manpower is needed to perform this vital function.

Finally, technical competence in management, entrepreneurship, and labor is becoming increasingly crucial. Effective management in this age of rapid technological change requires not only the traditional business training in marketing, production, personnel, and other socio-economic disciplines, but today it also requires, more than ever, increased training and grounding in technical disciplines, and the capacity, developed by education and training. to adapt existing technical knowledge to the needs of society. If entrepreneurs are to be encouraged to take risks, and to assess intelligently the chance of reward, their calculation of the risk must be buttressed by an understanding and appreciation of the opportunities and challenges of new scientific and technical developments. And obviously, as the tasks of labor become more complex and sophisticated, workers need to be better trained and educated.

Political and social management in these times also requires a broader technical base, and this, too, means there is need for more technically trained people. The Congress is aware of this need, as is evidenced by the recent actions to reinforce legislative decisions with advice from technically qualified staff. However, I wish to emphasize that a Senator or Congressman does not have to be a scientist, a subject-matter specialist. to appreciate the implications and consequences of new technological developments and to make intelligent decisions on scientific and technical matters. Effective management, whether in business or government, needs pertinent and complete information to exercise judgment and choose among alternatives. Today that information input has a higher technical component.

I turn now to some of the problems our Nation faces with respect to the adequacy, training, and use of technical manpower.

Many agencies, both Government and private, notably the Office of Science and Technology in the Executive Office of the President, the President's Science Advisory Committee Manpower Panel, the Federal Council on Science and Technology, the National Science Foundation, the Labor Department, the Commerce Department, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, the Engineers Joint Council, and others, have collected considerable data, conducted many studies, and made projections with respect to the Nation's needs for scientific and technical manpower.

They have also compared our position with that of Soviet Russia and other industrialized nations of the world. Much of this information has already been presented to this committee; certainly all of it is available on call.

These studies indicate quite clearly that our national power, prestige, and prosperity-now, and increasingly so in the future-depend upon the number, quality, and training of scientists, engineers, and technicians, and the most important of these is quality and the kind of training to achieve it.

The battles of the future, whether they be military, political, economic, or ideological, will be fought on the field of technology, and the soldiers needed to win those battles are scientists, engineers, and technicians, as well as better trained and educated people in all disciplines of study. Failure to develop, and use to the fullest, our most important and most limiting resource-brainpower-will have serious consequences for our country.

Obviously this is a very broad problem, involving educational questions, directions of scientific inquiry, and many other important matters. My specific interest, and the thrust of my statement here, is the use of technical manpower for the purpose of advancing the economy.

What are some of the problems we face? One of them can be characterized by the phrase "not enough."

(1) Not enough of our bright young people are learning the practice of engineering and the technique of developing and applying knowledge to crucial