We maintain that the teeming millions in the Far East and Africa who are in revolution against their oppressors might be directed toward democratic ideals and given more hope for survival by this kind of a positive program, than they now have under the present risk of a general war.

This will call for an imaginative, creative undertaking and we, as responsible citizens, ought to insist that the moral leadership of the United States be expressed in this way.

Just last week on February 26, 1951, 23 Members of Congress, 14 Senators and 9 Representatives led by Senator Ralph E. Flanders, sent a letter to the President requesting that he follow up his plea to the United Nations General Assembly with some definite proposals for a world disarmament conference to be presented to the United Nations. It would be especially appropriate if during the Big Four foreign ministers meeting beginning today in Paris, the United States would request a place on the agenda to present a concrete plan based on the principles President Truman set forth in his United Nations address.

This we believe would bring genuine hope to the people, not only of our country but of the world.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Stewart.

Now, let me make one statement-two statements.

You made a statement with reference to the apprehension by using the word "person" in the bill, it might include women.

The bill specifically says "except as otherwise provided in this title, every male citizen of the United States."

And it specifically states "male." So there can be no apprehension that any woman can be drafted under any provision of this law. Mrs. STEWART. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, in regard to your observations in reference to disarmament let me briefly say this:

I remember quite well when a great many witnesses of that same thought appeared before the old Naval Affairs Committee and the old Military Affairs Committee and advocated disarmament. As a result, there was a disarmament conference here in Washington City, known as the Washington Limitation of Armaments Conference.

I remember going down to the Continental Hall and sitting in the gallery and seeing Lord Balfour, the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Senator Lodge, Senator Underwood, and the other leaders of the Government at that time, and witnessed them strike from the Navy list 24 great ships, the largest at that time every built in the history of the world.

England scrapped some blueprints and Japan scrapped some ships. We even went one step further. We said nothing could be fortified beyond Pearl Harbor or the Hawaiian Islands in the Pacific.

You can see what all that disarmament got us into, don't you? It got us into the Second World War, because nothing invites war quicker than one nation being unprepared and other nations not living up to their commitments.

Of course, nobody wants an armament race, but when we disarm we disarm.

We took ourselves out of the line of battle. We sunk them. We spent $240,000,000 on building them, and we spent fifteen, twenty, or

thirty million dollars of appropriation to cut them up into scrap and we saw other nations doing the same thing.

Another nation at the same time was building.

So all that was out of balance.

The best way for us to keep peace in the world is for this country to be well armed. If we are well armed we will maintain peace. We are all working for peace. You will never get peace if you come out here and disarm. Other people who do not have the same concept about these matters as we do will begin to take advantage of the situation. That is what happened before World War II broke out. Mrs. STEWART. May I make a comment on that?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, ma'am.

Mrs. STEWART. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your bringing that up because I think that is of great concern to the people.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mrs. STEWART. Of course what I was advocating and our organization was advocating was world disarmament.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. We advocated world disarmament at that time. There were not but five nations that had any force: England, Germany, Japan, and France, and we wrote a ratio, a ratio of 5-5-3.

We woke up here one day and found out what was going on. We were just at a terribly disadvantageous position.

We have to be realistic about this thing. If we come along here now and disarm, do you think Russia is going to disarm?

We can't see what goes on in Russia, and you are asking us to give all our methods that might bring about peace, and you will never get peace unless you know what another nation is doing and that nation is actuated by the same desire and hope that we are.

Mrs. STEWART. Well, I didn't finish my comment, Mr. Chairman: I think between World War I and World War II there was never really world disarmament. It was limitation of arms, as you suggested.

The CHAIRMAN. That was the first step. We were trying to say, "We will scrap our stuff. We don't want any Navy, we don't want any Army. We will let our Army go." And we did that a few years ago. We demobilized and got rid of our Army and left our tanks and planes all over the world and said we want to live in peace back here. We wanted peace all over the world.

There is nothing inviting us to get into more trouble than the fact that you can't defend yourself. It will get you in trouble individually and it will get you in trouble as a nation.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Stewart. It is always a pleasure to have your observations. You have helped us a great deal ever since we started the Draft Act hearings in 1940, you have been with us. It is always a pleasure to have you.

Mrs. STEWART. But, Mr. Chairman, would you permit

The CHAIRMAN. We wouldn't have a good hearing unless we had the benefit of your testimony.

Mrs. STEWART. Would you permit me to make a further comment on the situation between World Wars I and II? I had not finished my comment.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mrs. STEWART. I think my point-that we never really worked for world disarmament has some validity because it seems to me between World Wars I and II we did not try such a thing as the President has suggested.

Instead we had limitation of arms.

If we examine the budget between World Wars I and II, with the exception of 1 or 2 years when those conferences were held, our military budget did increase and we actually came out stronger in naval power, I think

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mrs. STEWART. After some of those conferences.

The CHAIRMAN. You are mistaken about that.

Mrs. STEWART. May I use the illustration of Mr. William Shearer, who sued the Bethlehem Steel Co. for $152,000?

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mrs. STEWART. He said they owed him this sum for his effective work as a lobbyist to break up the World Disarmament Conference. The CHAIRMAN. I know that quite well, but nevertheless they said you could not defend the Philippines. We abandoned fortifications in the Philippines. We abandoned fortifications in the Pacific. We said, "We will just leave the Pacific wide open."

What happened?

We found out in World War II what happened. Every one of those islands had been seized by Japan and fortified and it took hundreds and thousands of American lives to get them back.

Thank you very much, Mrs. Stewart.

Mrs. STEWART. Thank you.

(Statement of Mrs. Alexander Stewart regarding financial records is as follows:)

This information has been filed with the Clerk of the House in our regular lobbying reports. A more detailed statement cannot be provided because of the shortage of time before these hearings are printed. However, the organization is financed by dues and individual contributions.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, members of the committee, that finishes our work this afternoon. We will take a recess until tomorrow morning. (Thereupon, at 3 p. m., a recess was taken until 10 a. m. tomorrow, Tuesday, March 6, 1951.)

UNIVERSAL MILITARY TRAINING

TUESDAY, MARCH 6, 1951

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES,
Washington, D. C.

The committee met at 10 a. m., the Honorable Carl Vinson, chairman, presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the committee come to order.

Congressman Barden, the committee will be delighted to have your comments in regard to H. R. 2811.

STATEMENT OF HON. GRAHAM A..BARDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA

Mr. BARDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to say at the outset that we have a provision in this bill which we hope will stay in it until it finally becomes a law, that the standards used by the Department shall be the same standards that were in use in January 1945, which means that not more than 22 percent of all those drafted can be deferred; 78 percent will have to go in, and approximately 22 percent will be rejected. That is what the figures worked out when they used the standard of January 1945, which is the very lowest standard that has ever been used. That will have the effect of stopping the induction centers from sending back home the large percentage that has been occurring in the past.

We have already put that in the bill for the time being.

Mr. BARDEN. Is that a change, Mr. Chairman, in the bill from its original draft?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BARDEN. Is that in line with the discussion which we had-The CHAIRMAN. That is a result, absolutely, of the figures of what happened down in North Carolina, that was laid before the committee by Mr. Durham, which you gave him the information about how they are failing that were sent up to the induction center, graduates of high school.

Mr. BARDEN. I believe I had a conference with you about the same matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BARDEN. Well, I am delighted to know that that change has been made or is suggested, Mr. Chairman. At a little later point, I will offer just a few more words that might probably be used in support of your position, if it should arise or be necessary on the floor of the House.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. BARDEN. Mr. Chairman, I would not like to be classed as an intruder or one who simply has a pet peeve to present to your committee, but as you know I have served here in this body for many years with you and many of the Members, and I have served for many years as chairman of the Committee on Education, during which time we have made many, many surveys and investigations and inquiries into the educational systems of this country.

I am constrained to believe at this particular point-and the case has been for the last several months-that we might be reminded of one very potent statement made by President Roosevelt. I believe his statement was, "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." I sometimes get rather depressed in reading the newspapers and listening to the talks which indicate that we are already licked and it is just a matter of time when you read some of the reports.

Now, where those reports come from I do not know, but we are not licked and I am not a defeatist and I don't believe in a defeatist attitude. If we are confronting an emergency, my attitude and my position is to face it head-on and deal with it firmly and as positively and quickly as possible.

Now, as chairman of the Committee on Education, as I said a minute ago, I made some investigations. Some of the information that we gathered through those investigations I am afraid has not been taken into consideration in the formulation of this bill.

In the first place, I happen to be one of those that certainly do not believe it is practical to consolidate a draft bill and a universal military training bill at the same time. In past years I have discussed that matter with many members of your committee and with many who were definitely interested in and concerned over the universal military training bill and the draft bill, and only in recent months have I ever heard anyone advocate the consolidation of a draft bill and a universal military training bill. The two in my opinion cannot be welded together without losing some of the valuable things that you would want to put into a universal military training bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you: What would you lose?

What is the purpose of universal military training? It is military training, isn't it? What is the purpose, the objective of universal military training? Even if you had it in a separate bill like we had out before?

Mr. BARDEN. As I understand the purpose of a universal military training bill, it is a long-range preparedness program.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it is

Mr. BARDEN. That is built into and made a part of the American way of life and the American economy.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the objective of it is military training, to teach a man how to perform a military duty.

Mr. BARDEN. Well, for the defense of the country.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right, exactly.

Mr. BARDEN. All right. Then, Mr. Chairman, my idea of your draft bill is as it has always been, an emergency measure, to meet an emergency condition, and emergencies can never be dealt with in a cool, calm, long-range method that you would if you were dealing with something that you were fitting into the American way of life,