Page images

100,000 are able to go through the same cycle as the other men being trained, and so I am not completely convinced that we will, as a result of this 100,000, have a very clear idea whether we will be able to do the kind of extraordinary work that might be necessary to rehabilitate some of the people we have talked about this morning.

Secretary WIRTZ. I think that is right. If that whole thing is described in terms of simply lowering the entrance qualifications a little bit, it would seem to have a wholly different impact; and I am not sure how different it would be. So I respond to your broader question, it does not bother me, Mr. Chairman, at all, that there be consideration given to use of military service as part of the broader preparation or training process.

In fact, it seems to me affirmative that it is a good idea, if you are talking about what to do with 2 years of every young man's life. It seems to me that there is every affirmative reason for tying in the educational, the military, and the employment matter completely; and I would reject completely any demarcations of responsibility at all. I would not be concerned about the military overtones of the limited amount of training that would be here.

I would feel that in a good many cases, they were a good thing. And so, in general, my answer would be that I think an integration of the various programs is a good thing. Affirmatively a good thing. My reservation would come only in connection with the question of how much we can rely on it in connection with the one of the points which Assistant Secretary Morris talked about yesterday. We don't know yet how much civilian value the military training has, as far as occupations are concerned.

I would not be ready to rely on it very extensively, but I think your question was in terms of concern about a military cast to some of this training, and that does not concern me.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Senator Prouty.

Senator PROUTY. Mr. Secretary, my recollection is that Assistant Secretary Morris indicated that they were only seeking to train the young men whom they thought could be rehabilitated. It seems to me, particularly in the field of physical training, that building up some of these people to the physical standards which would make it possible for them to serve in the armed services is something that could be relatively easily done by the armed services.

If a man has a mental problem, or some other handicap which is not readily correctable, that's entirely different. I think that if you bring a lot of these kids in who are not up to par physically, there is no better training than the armed services in that respect.

Secretary WIRTZ. I have no difficulty with that.

Senator PROUTY. Along with the occupational training.

Secretary WIRTZ. I have no difficulty with that, again. I only suggest that I thought that that lesson would be clearer when we have a little more experience with it; but it seems to be emerging along those lines, and with the general approach, no difficulty.

Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Secretary, once again. thank you very much for your appearance here. You have commented on some matters which are of tremendous importance and significance to the whole draft system. I think your statement has been provocative; and you have been extremely intelligent, reasonable, and I am in

great sympathy with so many of the attitudes which you have expressed here today. I think that you can see from the line of the questioning the great interest that members of this subcommittee and the other Members of the Senate have in this problem; and you have certainly, in the 2 hours that you have appeared here this morning, given us a good deal of light on a very difficult subject, and a good deal of food for thought. I want to thank you and commend you for your testimony, and express my appreciation for it.

(The information requested previously follows:)


Washington, April 5, 1967.

Subcommittee on Employment, Manpower and Poverty, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, United States Senate, Washington, D.C.

DEAR SENATOR KENNEDY: I would like to take this opportunity to discuss further with the Committee one aspect of my testimony before the Subcommittee on March 21, in the hearings on the manpower and poverty implications of the Selective Service system.

During the course of my testimony I made the point that of some 616,000 young men rejected by the military services, from February 1964 through July 1, 1966, for failure to meet mental qualifications, only some 16,000 took advantage of remedial services such as training and counseling offered to them by the public employment service representatives.

There is one additional fact which should be added concerning these rejectees. Of the some 451,000 mental rejectees between February 1964 and July 1, 1966 who did not take advantage of the employment service offer of services, a fairly large percentage returned to jobs in the civilian economy. As I stated in my testimony, men called up for service from a permanent job have reemployment rights. The "One-Third of a Nation" Report to which I referred in my testimony indicates that a sampling of some 2,500 rejectees in November 1963 showed about 69 percent as working. Figures for fiscal year 1966 show that even among the applicants for employment services (about 80.000 out of some 220,000 rejectees) some 50 percent had jobs. These latter figures were compiled by the State employment security services in connection with their program of offering services to rejectees. Thus, it seems clear that a fairly large percentage of the young men rejected by the military service for failure to meet mental qualifications probably do not accept employment service offers because they have jobs to which they can return.

The "One-Third of a Nation" Report also indicate, however, that the jobs to which these young men returned in 1963 were relatively low paid with average weekly earnings of about $56. Rejectees, particularly the younger they are, will presumably be subject to a higher rate of unemployment than young men with higher educational qualifications. Furthermore, the fact that a large percentage of the rejectees return to jobs does not militate against the inequality of a draf system which subjects the better educated to a military service and returns the rejectee to civilian life.


Secretary of Labor.

Senator JAVITS. May we join in that, Mr. Chairman.

Secretary WIRTZ. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the members of the subcommittee not only as the Secretary of Labor, but as a father. Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Our second witness this morning is the executive director of the National Service Secretariat, Mr. Donald J. Eberly. Mr. Eberly is a graduate of MIT and holds a master's degree in education from Harvard University. He has taught at colleges in Nigeria and Turkey, and was also drafted into the Army after he graduated from MIT. He is, then, well versed in both the

idealism required for nonmilitary service to humanity, as well as the commitment to serve in the defense of the country.

Mr. Eberly, I am sure you will give us a sketch of what the National Service Secretariat is. As you discuss it, and the concept of national service itself, I am going to ask you a semantic favor: I hope we can use the term universal national service to refer to compulsory service for all young men, one component of which is military service, and the term national service alternative to refer to the plan whereby young men are given an alternative to military service by serving in some other form of service to the country.

I will declare a 2-minute recess while the people leave the room here, so they will not interfere with your testimony.


Senator KENNEDY of Massachusetts. Mr. Eberly, we have your testimony here. You can either read it or you can summarize it, whichever is the most convenient to you.

Mr. EBERLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You asked, first of all, to indicate briefly the nature of the National Service Secretariat. It is a private nonprofit organization founded last summer and devoted to research, information, and consultation on the subject of national service. It is a topic in which I personally have been interested for about 20 years, but have only recently received the funding to enable me to go full time into the subject.

I am grateful for the opportunity to explore with the subcommittee the manpower effects of the draft and the projected manpower implications of a large-scale program of voluntary national service.

The subject of manpower relates essentially to the provision and training of workers and their identification with jobs available. I am sure that the committee has received, or will receive, testimony regarding the transferability of tasks learned in the military service as well as the effects of the shortages in the civilian sector which result from the drafting of employees.

Some of the more sophisticated manpower issues that have to be examined in relationship to national service are being considered by Prof. Eli Ginzberg in a paper he is preparing for next month's National Service Conference.

Then we also look forward at that time to hearing the concluding address from Senator Javits. However, it is first necessary to examine the two most fundamental questions; namely, those of demand and supply. I am prepared to discuss these questions on the basis of studies made in recent years.

It is clear that national service would respond to many of the unmet needs in such fields as education, health, conservation, community service, and overseas assistance. A survey prepared in 1965 for the Office of Economic Opportunity by Greenleigh Associates found over 4 million employment opportunities in these fields which could be undertaken by persons with a minimum of education and training. The report of the National Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress issued in 1966 lists over 5 million such jobs. A survey conducted by Senator Gaylord Nelson in 1964 for your parent

committee found over 400,000 openings in the field of conservation alone. A survey conducted last autumn by the National Service Secretariat with the cooperation of the Health and Welfare Council of the National Capital area identified more than 1,000 openings for potential national service participants in some 100 community service agencies in the District of Columbia.

Each one of these surveys supports the thesis that a person does not have to be highly trained and educated to do a competent and useful job in the field of social service. For example, the Washington survey revealed that approximately one-quarter the number of persons needed would be college graduates, one-half high school graduates, and one-quarter high school dropouts. One reason for this spread is that the jobs done in the social sector are being examined more rigorously than heretofore and are being broken down by the level of schooling required.

This approach permits greater efficiency of human resource allocation and greater job opportunities for persons at all levels of experience and education. Thus, it seems clear that there are enough useful tasks to justify serious consideration of a program to meet these needs.

Significant steps have already been taken by Federal programs under the Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare, and the Office of Economic Opportunity, as well as a multitude of others supported by State and local governments, industries such as NAM'S MIND program-labor unions, schools, and hospitals. Still, it is evident that the gap between available manpower and unmet jobs has not been sufficiently narrowed to conclude that a significant demand does exist for the kinds of tasks that could be filled by participants in a program of national service.

Now, let us look at the supply side of the equation. Figures clearly show that the manpower is available for a large-scale program of national service. Of the 1,800,000 18-year-old males, the Defense Department estimates they will need about 650,000. Of the remainder, some 600,000 are not qualified for military service, although among these we estimate national service could effectively utilize some 300,000.

Of the remaining 550,000 men qualified but not expected to be called for military service, about 90 percent are high school graduates, and virtually all would qualify for national service. Thus, the total availability is 850,000 males plus the 1.8 million 18-year-old women. It is very difficult to estimate the number of young women who would volunteer on the basis of those who now are married, employed, or are in college by the age of 18, since a number of the 18-year-olds would choose national service over marriage, employment, or higher education. In the long run, however, I see little reason to fear a reduction in the percentage of women getting married, working or pursuing higher education. There are much better prospects that a period of national service would lead both young men and young women to more meaningful avenues of higher education and employment.

We must not, in a consideration of national manpower requirements, overlook the potential value of national service to the individual participant. I do not have to remind this committee of the increasing ghettoization of American life, be it the ghetto of the inner city or the ghetto of suburbia. I do not have to tell this committee of the decreasing opportunities for youth to engage in real, physical work,

the way they did one or two generations ago when they were hewers of wood and drawers of water

A program of national service would be designed to give young people a sense of confidence in their ability to do jobs on a sustained basis, to undertake new assignments with assurance and to provide without fear and frustration the kind of career and geographic mobility that will be necessary in the coming decades.

Now, I have listed next the eight primary objectives that grew out of the 1966 National Service Conference, and which are given in a Profile of National Service.

One, opportunities for development, training, and education in the broadest sense of the word.

Two, satisfaction of national manpower needs in areas of short supply.

Three, fulfillment of the service obligation to the Nation, State, and community which accompanies citizenship in those bodies.

Four, a sense of self-worth and civic pride to participants.

Five, cross-cultural knowledge and experiences.

Six, a substantial reduction of draft inequities.

Seven, an extension of the scope of the private sector's participation in activities beneficial to human welfare; and,

Eighth, an outlet for the energies of youth.

In addition to these positive goals, the National Service Conference sharpened the imagine of national service by declaring that national service should not become: A crash program; a hierarchical overly centralized monster; a draft-dodging mechanism; a program of direct political action.

To achieve the basic goals of national service and to maintain all factors in their proper perspective, the following additional guidelines are recommended as part of the basic framework of any program of national service:

National security must always be the first consideration; therefore, military manpower needs must have top priority.

Citizens can be compelled to serve only in the Armed Forces and firefighting brigades, and a fairly strong case can be made for the volunteer spirit approach to nonmilitary activities; therefore, no one should be compelled to serve except in the Armed Forces.

Accomplishment of needed tasks in nonmilitary service would be in the national interest; therefore, recognition should be given to persons who serve satisfactorily in approved nonmilitary programs as well as in military activities.

Legitimate objections have been raised by young men to the limited range of choices open for serving his country; therefore, any program of national service should be structured so that the social, economic, and educational backgrounds of the young men in approved nonmilitary activities would correspond to the backgrounds of young men in society.

Tax money would be used to finance a sizable portion of the nonmilitary activities, and the national service must not degenerate into a make-work program; therefore, the tasks undertaken in nonmilitary service must serve the human and natural resources of the Nation and nonmilitary service must grow no faster than useful jobs are available.

« PreviousContinue »