In fact, most of them are the best, or they would not be there; they would not be matriculated. They seldom go back to the poor States.

I could take you to the wealthy communities of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut and illustrate my point. It is the rich community which can pay high salaries. Men come from Arkansas or from Kansas or from North Dakota. They stay in the New York area, or else go to California or some other such State. They come from the Middle West and from the Southern States, they train at Columbia, and then get jobs in States that can afford good leadership and good schools.

I don't know how you interpret that trend, but it seems to me to be a very unfortunate one. These States that are not so well off economically probably need leaders, and good leaders, even more than the States that happen to be wealthy.

Yet in every area of our life this process is going on, with the result that I am afraid it will create and perpetuate sectional and class differences. That is, if a child is born in one place, he gets a good educational opportunity, but if he is born in another, he does not. And we will begin to build up social differences or cultural differences which in the long run may be of extreme and serious moment to a country such as ours, which we hope can continue to remain united and strong.

Senator ELLENDER. But, Doctor, hasn't that been going on for generations?

Dr. NORTON. Yes, sir.

Senator ELLENDER. The South has remained poor.

Dr. NORTON. Yes.

Senator ELLENDER. In the South we produced the raw materials from which the North and East manufactured wearing apparel, such as shoes, hats, and clothing of different kinds and sold them back to us.

Dr. NORTON. Of course, I am tempted to tell that well-known story about the man who fell out of the 50-story building, and as he passed the tenth floor yelled out, "All right so far."

I

I am just wondering how long we can continue that process. Frankly, I am a New Yorker, or at least I have been for 10 years. am making this argument not only because of my humane desire to see all children in the United States get an educational opportunity, but I also think it is good business for New York State to make it possible to give children throughout the United States the best of educational opportunities.

You

Why do I say that? I say it because we manufacture and create in New York State a lot of things that we would like to sell. can sell things only to other people who are good earners and who also have things to sell.

To put it in another way, our chance of selling our goods depends upon the per capita income throughout the States of the United States.

I think it would be pretty good business, even though I pay a pretty high State income tax and I pay pretty high Federal tax, and I guess I am going to pay higher Federal income taxes; I still think it is good business for us as New Yorkers, who happen to be so lucky as to live in a wealthy section, to see that other localities do not continue this process of losing their best people. If children in other

sections do not have a chance to get an educational opportunity, do not have a chance for vocational training; where are we going to sell our goods?

We make a good deal over the fact that we should develop foreign trade with South America. The market that might be developed in the 50 percent of the States that are the poorest in economic ability is much greater than we will ever get in foreign trade. If we can lift per capita income in poor States up to the average by giving them educational opportunity and vocational training, we would create a far better market than we will ever get from developing the South American market. Foreign trade is measured in terms of hundreds of millions, whereas if you would lift the per capita income of the poor States up to the present average you would be dealing with billions of dollars of purchasing power.

Senator ELLENDER. To carry out your theory to its ultimate conclusion, should we reach that Utopia and have all of them educated, then what would be the effect?

Dr. NORTON. I am not afraid of reaching that stage with any extreme suddenness. But taking your proposition, I would say that we would all be very much better off.

Senator ELLENDER. You think they would eat more and live. better?

Dr. NORTON. I think that education creates wants for the right kind of things. The people might not eat more in quantity, but they would want more attractive clothing; they would want more healthful homes; they would want every child to have good health service. And they would not go into the Army and be rejected for poor teeth, for poor eyesight, or what not. They would want a lot of things.

Senator ELLENDER. In that connection, Doctor, did you make a study of the percentage, let us say, of those who failed to pass in the recent draft who came from rich communities in contrast to those who came from poor communities?

Dr. NORTON. I do not have the figures for this draft. I did make a study of that in the preceding draft.

Senator ELLENDER. Was it carried on to the extent that you can connect it up with educational facilities?

Dr. NORTON. In a general way. I was stationed for over a year at Camp Taylor, where we got large drafts of men from Breathitt County, Ky., and from other counties that are, so to speak, back in the hills. The percentage of rejections was much higher among men from poorer sections. For example, when they came from those sections we would say "we will have plenty of work to do." I was working with the doctors as a psychologist at that time, making psychological studies and working with the doctors and psychiatrists. When we would get men from the poor areas we would say "We will be worked hard to take care of this detail of men.”

When they came from Ohio we would sit there smoking a good part of the time. The work involved in examining was greatly reduced. For example the special tests for illiterates would not have to be given. There is a definite relationship, I think it will be demonstrated, in this draft as it was in the last, between general cultural and educational opportunity provided and the number of men who are available for effective military service.

Senator ELLENDER. How can you tell that? Is it simply by looking at the men?

Dr. NORTON. They were being examined physically and psychologically and by psychiatrists who were examining them for mental defects.

Senator ELLENDER. Is it your view that you might find more insanity where there is less education than where there is lot of education?

Dr. NORTON. Not necessarily more insanity; but we found far greater illiteracy, and found far greater physical defects and that type of thing.

Senator ELLENDER. And you would attribute that to what?

Dr. NORTON. I would say that one of the important factors is lack of education. It is easy to justify the direct relationship between lack of education and illiteracy. I have stood up before a company of men-and I have done this repeatedly-native-born American white citizens. I say "white" to show that it was not merely Negroes-and I would say "all men who cannot read a newspaper or write a letter home, step forward one pace." And 80 percent of those companies have stepped forward.

Senator ELLENDER. I can understand that situation when it comes to a matter of education, but when it comes to

Dr. NORTON. The physical?

Senator ELLENDER. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. What about malnutrition?

Dr. NORTON. Yes, and also there is high correlation between the level of education achieved and the percentage of venereal diseases. The CHAIRMAN. Do you mean among educated people or not?

Dr. NORTON. I say that to the degree that a man is educated he tends to avoid venereal disease. Again, you can prove that by the Army statistics. As you know, one of the important factors for rejection for military service now is venereal disease.

To the extent that a man has an education he tends to avoid that type of disability. And to the extent that he is ignorant and has very little knowledge as to how to protect himself, he does not protect himself.

I am merely offering you one type of illustration. When we multiply this over a whole range the effect on his teeth, the success with which he takes care of his eyes, and putting them altogether, you have the generalization that I make. There is a relationship between educational opportunity offered and availability for effective military service.

Now, I would like to go just a little bit further. One of the areas to which I have been giving particular attention in recent years is the relationship between education and economic well-being. This Education and Economic Well-Being is a publication that I referred to earlier that deals with that problem.

As a result of the work that has been done we can say with considerably greater confidence now than ever before that there is a close relationship between economic efficiency, or call it earning capacity, or whatever you want to call it, and the amount of education provided. By that I do not mean that just any kind of education will always make a person economically efficient; but I mean the right kind of education will tend to do so.

I would like to develop that point and then relate it to the present defense situation.

Why do we know that there is a relationship between the economic strength of a State or of a community and the type and amount of education provided?

We know it for several reasons. We know it first from research. Bowyer, for example, has very carefully studied the relationship between what is spent in one generation in a State and the economic productivity of that State in the next generation. And after attempting to take out all of the irrelevant variables he comes to the conclusion that there is a direct and important and positive relationship between amounts spent for education and what children will later be able to earn, and what their economic efficiency will be.

Or we can approach it from another point of view-through the method of sociological analysis. I am going to cite one illustration of that technique the studies of Prof. Howard Odum, of the University of North Carolina, who is recognized as one of the outstanding sociologists of the country, who has specialized in the economic problems of the South. I am going to read a sentence or two from one of his analyses. He says:

The South excels in the two primary resources: Namely, natural wealth and human wealth, while it lags in the secondary resources of technology, artificial wealth, and institutional services.

One of the institutional services, of course, is the school or education. He goes on further to say that—

The outstanding fact seems to be that of "undeveloped possibilities and human waste"

He is attempting to get at why it is that the per capita income in the South is a half or a fourth of that in other States. He goes on further to describe the situation as one of

youth undeveloped and untrained, born, living, and moving through life without ever gaining knowledge of their powers and possibilities

*

Speaking of the low levels of income and wages in the South, he

says:

This differential corresponds to some extent to a similar differential in skill and training of workers.

I have mentioned the South; but you can also talk about rural communities versus city communities sociologically.

A little while ago I mentioned statistical correlation research. Sociological research comes to the same conclusion, that we can trace right back to its origin-low earning capacity.

It is youth undeveloped and untrained, born, living, and moving through life without ever gaining knowledge of their powers and possibilities.

There are literally millions of youths in certain rural areas who get little educational opportunity. Now that we are in a time when we need them as trained citizens they are not ready.

Or we can take the testimony of general economists who have studied at some length this relationship between education and economic well being.

I will illustrate by a statement from Richard T. Ely, who, you will recognize, is a well-known authority in the field of economics. He says:

It is doubtful whether any other agency of civilization has a greater influence than does the school in fitting the young of all classes for the industrial struggle that lies before them.

Perhaps he should have said the school that has any kind of a vocational or occupational program. It is obvious that a school that gives no vocational training does not do much. But he is speaking in terms of schools who give training.

So much for that. I would like to relate all of those in a few minutes, if I may, to the immediate emergency, this period in which we are attempting to build up our national defense.

What is the relationship of all this--not to the relatively long-term considerations that I have been mentioning, but to the immediate situation of these next few years or the decade ahead?

I would like to suggest to you the proposition that it is literally unsafe for any Nation not to be economically strong, economically strong in terms of literacy, economically strong in terms of health, economically strong in terms of vocational skills, and professional skills. To be safe a Nation must possess all of those things that add up to ability to produce at a high level. I would like to offer to you the proposition that it is not just a matter of choice, but that a Nation is in actual physical danger, in the world in which we are living today, if it is economically weak. I say that for several reasons. I say it, first, because the ability to operate effectively on a battle line is, to a large degree, one that involves skill-the ability to direct and use technical machines-airplanes, and so on. I do not need to develop this point; just look at the instrument board of any airplane. Also tanks, and the range finders that are coming in, that involve mathematics, and all of the other engineering and technical processes that enter into warfare on the front lines.

The nation that does not have men capable of operating these highly technical machines cannot compete in modern warfare, it doesn't make much difference how brave they are.

I recently heard an interesting talk by one of our Army observers who had recently returned from Europe 2 or 3 months ago. He said that under modern warfare unless men are equipped with these highly technical tools and can operate them, the braver they are the worse off they are, because they will make a stand, and if they make a stand against these instruments, if they do not have similar instruments with which to oppose them, they are simply wiped out. And, of course, we have seen that happen two or three times already in recent years.

Now, I want to go a step further. Not only does modern warfare require technology and skill on the battle line, but we are finding out in this country that it involves skill and technology behind the battle line. I need not tell you gentlemen the difficulties that we are encountering, even though we do have a relatively large supply of skilled labor; the difficulty that we are encountering in our defense program. And you know what the principal bottleneck is, the bottleneck that is most difficult in terms of removing it. It is not lack of men but lack of skilled men.

I make the prediction, and I think I am taking no dangerous chance in predicting, that in the next year or two we are going to encounter a far more serious bottleneck than at the present time, due to lack of trained men.

Winston Churchill has said that this war will be won on the assembly lines. But let me suggest that it is far more than just the assembly lines. It will be lost or won in the chemical laboratories by chemists