In advancing such an "either/or" claim, certain facts have been withheld which make it obvious that there is no statistical basis for such a statement. For example, no military spokesman has suggested when and to what size the Armed Forces would be reduced if UMT were in effect. A Defense Department official, testifying on UMT and the Reserves before an Armed Forces subcommittee, was asked about this very problem:

Have there been studies in the Defense Department or any common agreement as to the pro ratio between active Regulars and the number of Reserves?

He replied:

I don't know that studies have addressed themselves to the problems of ratios—

From the hearings before House Armed Services Committee on Reserve Components, August 6, 1951, page 598.

In any event, until an official estimate is made and written into the UMT proposal, the idea that money will be saved or the Armed Forces reduced is meaningless except as propaganda.

COST OF RESERVE PROGRAM

The second fact that has been withheld is the cost of the Reserve program contemplated under UMT. The Defense Department, in submitting a proposed bill for a Reserve program, stated in its covering letter of July 18, 1951:

Cost and budget data: It is not possible to estimate the fiscal effect of this proposed bill.

Throughout the public hearings on the bill, members of the House committee tried at least seven times without any success to get witnesses to estimate either the cost of the whole program or the cost per reservist.

Until definite figures are available as to the cost of the proposed Reserve program under UMT, it is impossible to assert that such a program would be cheaper than would be some other program.

The Regular Military Establishment must assume certain additional expenses just because of a larger Reserve. One such expense is the keeping of Reserve records. In the House hearings on the proposed Reserve program, Representative Doyle said:

Now it is no mean job to keep the records of some 21⁄2 to 3 million reservists up to date with current physical examinations, current screening of their new skills gained in civilian occupations, and their marital status * * * [The services] have just not had the personnel nor the money to keep up such records. This is from the House Armed Services Committee hearings on Reserve component, page 127.

Another and greater expense is equipment. There is no point in having millions of Reserves but no equipment for them to use in time of emergency. The National Guard, which was better equipped than the Reserves, estimated that

in order to fully equip all Army (National Guard) units at full troop-basis strength, with complete allowances, would require additional equipment with an estimated value of $4,001,310,000.

The Army National Guard is only a small part of the Reserves, numbering before Korea 350,000 out of 2,500,000 in the Reserves.

For the Navy Reserve program alone under UMT, 30 new Reserve centers would have to be opened up and "there will probably be some additions to this list," said a Navy spokesman. The same admiral estimited that the smaller centers would cost somewhere between $400,000 and $600,000 each, large ones $750,000 each, and the very large ones "something more than a million" dollars.

The Assistant Secretary of the Army, Earl D. Johnson, knowing that the Army's Reserve expenses would far exceed the Navy's, told the House subcommittee:

The effective utilization of the personnel made available by the Universal Military Training and Service Act and the building of an over-all Reserve force commensurate with the Nation's vital need, will require adequate funds for armories, equipment, and training. It will not be sufficient to pass this legislation * *.* nor will it be sufficient for the Army to set up a perfect implementing program. It will also be essential that the Congress support from year to year the necessary building and maintenance of armories, procurement of equipment, and training of the Army Reserve forces through the regular appropriation of needed funds.

A Navy spokesman at the hearings said:

More Regular Navy and Marine Corps personnel, supplemented by additional active-duty reservists, will be required for the administration and training of Reserves. Additional Reserve training centers will be required for scheduled drills, and existing Regular Navy and Marine Corps facilities will have to be expanded to accommodate active-duty training.

A similar expansion of Army and Air Force personnel would be required.

From such a summary of additional expenses the Regular military budget would have to shoulder under a UMT program, it can be seen that publicized estimates of $434 per reservist are not only an oversimplification of the problem, they actually dodge the issue.

The figures that are available reveal a very different picture from that painted by the Pentagon for public consumption. At the request of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense James Forrestal on February 9 and 26, 1948, submitted official estimates of the cost of a Reserve program based on UMT. These estimates were based on a program of 3 to 5 years Reserve service instead of 72 years, and on 1948 prices instead of the much higher 1952 prices. Nevertheless, after the first full year of operation, the annual cost for a UMT Reserve program was more than 2 billion. His yearly estimate was $2,024,100,000 for 1951; $2,267,400,000 for 1952; and $2,259,700,000 for 1953.

This would mean, assuming present prices and the accuracy of the military estimate for the UMT camp training of 6 months, that the total recurring costs of UMT and its related Reserve program would be approximately $5 billion a year.

Among the indirect costs is the estimate by a Government economist, Rainer Schickele in the September 1945 Annals of American Academy of Political Science, made on the basis of 1940 census employment figures and 1939 prices, of the loss of production if 770,000 18-year-old boys are withdrawn from the labor force. According to the 1940 census, 68 percent of the young men 18 to 19 years of age were gainfully employed in the labor force, while 32 percent were pursuing apprenticeships or higher education. Six months' withdrawal of almost 800,000 boys would cost about $7 billion in goods and services lost, and this would be more at present prices.

Another indirect cost is the expense to which the taxpayer would be put in his role of businessman and consumer. Businessmen have been under pressure during a Voluntary Reserve program to grant 2 weeks' or 15 days' leave for employees who are reservists. A chamber of commerce survey revealed that of 1,256 major companies reporting, 720 have Reserve leave policies and another 132 are in the process of adopting such policies:

There are 590 companies which give such leave in addition to vacations, as compared to 74 which grant military leave but not in addition to regular vacations.

From the United States Chamber of Commerce, November 1947 report, Company Leave Policies for Employees in the Reserves.

With an expanded Reserve, one can imagine how much time is lost to industry and how many millions this indirectly costs the taxpayer. Assuming 5,600,000 reservists taking 15-day refresher training each year at a cost of $10 a day for 12 working days, the loss of production would be about $672,000,000.

On the basis of a 40-hour week for 25 weeks a year, the time in UMT camps for 800,000 trainees would mean a loss of 800,000,000 manhours, or about 100,000,000 man-days. Compare this with the number of man-days lost by strikes in the United States in 1945, 38,025,000-or in 1944, 8,721,000. The total loss of man-days due to strikes from December 8, 1941, to August 14, 1945-Pearl Harbor to VJday-totaled 36,301,000. This comes from the Bulletin, Labor Management Disputes of Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor, January 11, 1947.

The loss in man-days each year because of UMT would be almost three times the total man-days lost by strikes in the United States during the whole participation in the war.

If we add to this the 12 working days out of 15 days refresher training each year for 5,600,000 Reserves, it means 67,200,000 more mandays lost, or a total of 167,200,000 each year.

General MacArthur pointed out in declaring his own opposition to passing UMT now:

There are other demands upon our manpower. Whether the total effort to train these great masses of millions of men, whether in actual combat those men would go into the niches for which they have trained, I don't know * * * Whether the program of universal military training of all youths along practically the same line * * * will reduce or produce the greatest military effectiveness, I would not attempt to say until I had studied the problem very, very thoroughly * I believe the fitting in the manpower, of the expert efficiency of the country, is a very intricate problem that can't be settled in such a broad general way as that. I believe the greatest possible consideration has got to be given to the demands of industry. I believe that if you are going to prepare the youth, that you have got to understand that modern warfare has as its basis industry.

*

Chairman RUSSELL. Well, I must say, Mr. Swomley, that I do not know how accurate your figures are but at least you have presented your views as to the effect of this legislation in more detail than they have been presented before this committee in certain aspects. I must commend you in your reading over the past several years and if you have overlooked anything before any committee of Congress, it is not evident from you statement.

Mr. SWOMLEY. Thank you, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Saltonstall, any questions?

GENERAL MAC ARTHUR ON UMT

Senator SALTONSTALL. I would like to say that I was with General MacArthur when he made this statement. It is my recollection that he felt he did not know enough to express an opinion on universal military training. Then he went on to point out the different problems that were involved.

However, I question whether he should be used as a witness in the connection you did, if my memory of his comment is correct.

Mr. SWOMLEY, May I say that the Senator is quite correct, that he did not come out with an absolute opposition to UMT.

Chairman RUSSELL. He expressed doubt.

Mr. SWOMLEY. Yes. What he said was if he was considering the problem he would wait until after the present emergency is over and then he would consider it in the light of the postemergency world. Chairman RUSSELL. Well, thank you very much for your informa

tion.

We have had a representative of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, who testified here earlier in the week. We will now hear from a representative of the Massachusetts Branch of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, Mrs. Paul Johnson, legislative chairman.

STATEMENT OF MRS. PAUL JOHNSON, LEGISLATIVE CHAIRMAN, MASSACHUSETTS BRANCH, WOMEN'S INTERNATIONAL LEAGUE FOR PEACE AND FREEDOM

Mrs. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce these two ladies who have come with me, Dorothy Billings from Newton Center and Mrs. Margaret Bennett, Wellesley.

Chairman RUSSELL. We are glad to have those ladies appear with

you.

Mrs. JOHNSON. It is very disappointing to come this afternoon and find only two members of the Armed Services Committee here. (Present: Senators Russell and Saltonstall.)

Mrs. JOHNSON. When I received the special delivery letter on Sunday evening, that we might have this appointment, we, of course, supposed that they would be here for the hearing. We spent 3 days' time and went to considerable expense, and to find only two here is very disappointing. However, we are very glad that Senator Saltonstall, who is from own State of Massachusetts, is here.

Representing the Massachusetts branch of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, we have come today to express the hope that Congress will not at this time nor at any future time vote universal military training into our laws.

This is not a new issue. From the beginning Congresses have debated it and have found it incompatible to democracy. We have seen what it has done to citizens of other countries and do not want it for ourselves. When Congress debates this legislation it is not merely considering a crisis in world affairs but a crisis in democracy itself. Our Constitution is based on the principle that the military power shall always be subordnate to the civil law and administration. Democracy possesses one privilege which must constantly be considered. That is the privilege of voting itself out of existence. We be

lieve we are now facing an issue which opens wide roads to that possibility.

NATURE OF OPPOSITION

Because of the limited time alloted to us we would bring five points to your attention.

We have been led to believe that the things we are fighting are totalitarianism and conscription, basic concepts of our enemies. Every time we take over their techniques it is a moral victory for them in making us in their image. Democracy to us means equality and freedom to all people to choose one's leaders, to criticize and make changes, to have a voice in the rules under which one lives, and to go on strike against injustice. The armed services represent the opposite of these. Democracies have been willing to sacrifice temporarily their constitutional freedom in times of international emergencies but it is not the pattern we desire for our permanent peacetime philosophy.

In a democracy the purpose of the Government is to serve the people rather than to dominate them. The point at which service turns to domination is the slender thread that changes democracy to totalitarianism. We believe that universal military training would put us on the dominating side of the ledger

Our Government has long resisted the control of socialism which, in its essence, is a civilian control; yet those same leaders now promote techniques that lead us to military control. We believe it is the superconcentration of controls in Government, whether socialist, capitalist, or military that decides the issue between democracy and totalitarianism.

Though on the surface conscription might look like an equality of opportunity for every youth, it remains undemocratic. Equality is only one element of democracy. Freedom is another. Coercion does not become democratic simply because it is applied to everyone. Under such a standard Rusia, Germany, and Italy would be our guiding stars of democracy.

We would like to give testimony to our faith in educational institutions as they have been evolved throughout our history. We stand on a basic faith that the family, the church, school, and community is a good combination and has done a remarkable job training citizenship capable of meeting daily demands and national crises. It is the inalienable right of every youth to decide his own vocation, his own education, and where these are to be. To relinquish these freedoms to military administration should be avoided. The very heart of democracy rests in the right of every man and woman to find his own way toward the goals he seeks.

We are aware of the weaknesses in education. This is the time to give nourishing support rather than leave it starved because of shortages of material and personnel. A nation bled for militarism is rich. soil for totalitarism.

No study has yet given support to the claims that universal military training will be of advantage to the health, morals, or the religion of young men. The recounting of experiences of men in the armed services too often reveals that if they retained their moral, spiritual, and health values it was in spite of rather than because of military training. When one's discipline is planned toward the goals of suspicion, destruction, and killing, moral values as they have been honored