Chairman RUSSELL. You know its purpose is domination of the world?

Reverend ZIEGLER. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. Declared and repeated time and again.

Senator Inouye?

Senator INOUYE. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Thank you very much, Doctor.

Reverend ZIEGLER. Thank you, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. The next presentation will be the representative of the Division of Peace and World Order of the Methodist Church. These views will be presented by Mr. Jack E. Corbett, who is a staff member of this organization. You may proceed, Mr. Corbett.

STATEMENT OF JACK E. CORBETT, STAFF MEMBER OF THE METHODIST DIVISION OF PEACE AND WORLD ORDER

Mr. CORBETT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am, as you have mentioned, Jack Corbett, staff member of the Methodist Division of Peace and World Order. I am testifying on behalf of the Division of Peace and World Order, General Board of Christian Social Concerns of the Methodist Church, the official agency charged by our denomination with a consideration of U.S. military and foreign policy matters.

In 1960, the general conference of the Methodist Church, our highest authoritative body, registered its concern about military conscription in three ways. First, the general conference noted that the United States has had conscription legislation on its statute books for two decades and that, in the course of time, "many persons have come to regard this as an established and permanent policy."

The easy acceptance of this sort of military policy which, at one time, was almost universally regarded as repugnant to the principles of individual freedom and democracy, is ground for grave concern. Here I quote the exact words of the Methodist general conference: We are deeply troubled by the general indifference to the infringement of individual rights and freedom involved in compulsory military service. We urge that voluntary methods of recruiting military manpower be developed that accord the individual the freedom of choice which should characterize peacetime civilian life.

Let me add that in our judgment this is not just a matter of preference. The values and advantages of a voluntary system are so great that a determined effort should be made by the Armed Services Committees of the Congress and the Department of Defense to develop an alternative course to the all too easy one of renewing the present draft legislation.

The importance of strengthening the free aspects of our own society needs to be stressed. That portion of Soviet society with which we are most apt to disagree is its various expressions of compulsion. Americans pride themselves on their free political system and reasonably free economic system. The more elements of freedom in our society that we can provide for, the more confident we are of that society's future. Therefore, if there is any possibility of our moving from a compulsory enlistment system to a voluntary system, this should be given the fullest consideration by those who would seek to preserve American traditions and values.

The second concern of the general conference of the Methodist Church is for strenuous efforts to abolish military conscription throughout the world. The delegates expressed themselves in the following language:

We appeal to the United States to give bold leadership looking toward the universal abolition of peacetime conscription by or through the United Nations. This position is closely related to another statement in which the conference commended the President, the Congress, and the State Department on their attention to disarmament and called for all governments to declare complete, universal, and enforcible disarmament to be their goals and to exert imaginative and dedicated leadership toward that goal.

The third point made by the 1960 General Conference of the Methodist Church deals with the provision for conscientious objectors under the existing draft legislation. As presently written and interpreted, the law requires that a person conscientiously opposed to participation in war must be an objector "by reason of religious training and belief" and must subscribe to a belief in a "Supreme Being.'

Here is an instance where the official leadership of the Methodist Church clearly feels compelled to speak out, not in the interest of its own members or even that small minority which are conscientious objectors.

The words of the general conference should strike a responsive note in the minds and hearts of all religious people. Let me quote them for you:

Christians cannot complacently accept rights or privileges accorded to them because of their religious views but denied to others equally sincere who do not meet a religious test. So long as draft legislation remains in effect, we believe that all sincere conscientious objectors should be granted recognition and assigned to appropriate service, regardless of whether or not they profess religious grounds as the basis of their stand.

This concern is expressed with an awareness of the special relevance of the provision of our Constitution disallowing the "establishment of religion."

Some may raise the question of difficulty in determining sincerity. It should be noted that the present law and regulations do not automatically grant noncombatant duty or alternate civilian service to all religious men who claim conscientious objection. Draft boards and appeal officials are required to judge sincerity by objective evidence in the form of words, conduct, and general character. Why then should it be any more difficult to determine the sincerity of a nonreligious objector motivated by a deeply humanitarian philosophy of life than that of a religious objector?

We commend these three concerns of the Methodist Church to your careful attention. We believe they should also be the concerns of every earnest and thoughtful citizen.

To these statements regarding the official positions taken by our Methodist leadership, I wish to add the following observations:

I. Effect on young men: At the present time, relatively few men are drafted. Of those who reach the age of 26, 58 percent enter some form of Active or Reserve military service. Out of the total manpower pool, fewer than 12 percent perform military duty through the draft. Furthermore, the young man may find many ways to avoid the draft.

&

He can choose to study science or attend graduate school, or get married-various devices which may be used to "beat the System," as he calls it. Consequently, these factors erode his sense of patriotism. Serving in the Armed Forces through the draft rates low on the scale of popular respect among young Americans. They think of the draftee as "the fellow who got caught," and he thinks of himself as unlucky. This makes for a low sense of patriotic duty.

II. Uncertainties over extended period: Further, it does not seem fair to keep our young men under the strain of 71⁄2 years of uncertainty. During this extended period there are special anxieties with respect to finding employment, making plans educationally, and establishing a stable marriage and home. Certainly, if through a voluntary enlistment system such insecurities could be partially overcome, such a system should be considered very seriously.

III. Thorough review of means of manpower procurement: In the light of the above, we sincerely hope that a thorough review will be made of the means of manpower procurement for the armed services and that it will be possible for the Senate Armed Services Committee to initiate such studies.

These studies might deal with the following type of questions:

(1) What has been the experience of the ROTC during the last year on those campuses around the country where the compulsory ROTC program has been changed to a voluntary system of enlistment? Have the quotas been fulfilled? What effect has the change had on the morale of participants? Has the change in means of enlistment represented an improvement or a worsening of the situation-in the opinion of the students, professors, and administration? Such answers might provide a clue as to whether or not the Armed Forces would benefit from a voluntary enlistment system.

(2) Are there other means of making the voluntary system more attractive which have not yet been fully explored, such as increases in pay, more attractive training opportunities, a permanent bill providing for GI educational, housing, and other benefits?

(3) In the modern era, when conventional forces are most likely to be trained in effective guerrilla warfare or for limited war, is the draftee apt to be a type best suited for this kind of combat, either by his psychological inclination or by the rugged and highly specialized training requirements?

(4) Within the next few years, with the substantial increase in the manpower pool due to the addition of those young men born in the prolific post-World War II period, would voluntary enlistments be sufficient provided other inducements were offered?

We would hope that these questions will be considered through a study conducted by the committee or through some research organization contracted by the committee.

Thank you for the opportunity of presenting this testimony before the subcommittee.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Inouye?

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Corbett, am I correct to assume from your testimony that the Methodist Church feels that at the present time there is a need to maintain manpower in the military services?

Mr. CORBETT. I quoted the 1960 statement, and we would not have really any statement with respect to that, but I am sure that the

Methodist Church feels the need for manpower in the armed services; yes, sir.

Senator INOUYE. Mr. Corbett, would you like to comment on the Assistant Secretary of Defense's, Mr. Paul's, statement, that many of the enlistees enlisted because of a certain influence exerted by the existence of the draft liability? In fact, he quoted 40 percent, 40 percent of the enlistees were influenced by the draft liability.

Mr. CORBETT. Yes, I recall that statement. Certainly that is quite possible that that is true, now, under the present arrangements. However, certainly the possibilities of other inducements being offered, the increase in potential manpower pool within the next few years could change the picture, it would seem to me.

Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Corbett.

Chairman RUSSELL. The next witness is Mr. Edward Wugalter of Brooklyn, N.Y., who represents the End the Draft Committee. You may proceed, Mr. Wugalter.

STATEMENT OF EDWARD WUGALTER, ON BEHALF OF THE END THE DRAFT COMMITTEE

Mr. WUGALTER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I welcome the opportunity to testify here on behalf of the End the Draft Committee in Brooklyn. Our group, End the Draft Committee, strongly opposes the bill before this committee and seeks to end the draft.

The committee which I represent goes beyond conscientious objection. It goes beyond the plight of the individual and his conscience caught in the draft; it is concerned with the basic warlike purpose of the draft itself. More than liberating an individual category from the draft, we are interested in liberating the Nation as a whole from an "un-American" threat technique which has been countenanced only since World War II. This aspect of the draft was described during the 1959 hearings by Representative Byron Johnson:

It is a continued invasion of the rights of privacy of American citizens. It is alien to our historical tradition; indeed, many of America's settlers were people who came here to escape the militarization of European countries.

The blackmail aspects of the draft were bluntly admitted during the 1959 House Armed Services Committee hearings by Assistant Secretary of Defense Charles C. Finucane, who stressed the value of the draft as a threat in encouraging enlistments. I would also like to add the fact that Mr. Paul makes this same statement in his testimony. To a certain extent, the Government has recognized that the draft is repugnant to certain religious principles. Why the special consideration for religious ethics as against ethics generally? And if the draft is repugnant to ethics generally, let us get rid of it, not simply in specific cases, but altogether.

Those people who wave the flag and talk of defense, who call for increased military spending, who force military life on our young men and who reap the short-lived economic and political advantages of war preparations, are either cold war parasites or ignorant of the truth of nuclear war. War preparations cannot settle national or international problems; they only intensify them. And after the cold wartotal destruction.

We are dangerously ignorant when we talk of limited wars, when we talk of protecting ourselves during a nuclear war, when we talk of recovery from a nuclear war. There can be no victors and no spoils for nuclear war means total destruction.

We are criminal when we dominate or threaten to dominate small nations, both in terms of the people's right to self-determination (e.g., Cuba, South Vietnam) and in terms of the possibility of guerrilla aggression escalating into nuclear war.

The draft is a basic support for such criminality. It forces our country's people to accept war as a sane, normal function of world relations by making national policy of the military subjugation of our young men and by conditioning them, in the services, to the cold war. It allows Government manipulation of world tensions by the arbitrary interruption of civilian lives and arbitrary increases in the size of the draft (e.g., President Kennedy's sudden draft increase during the Berlin crisis). It is used to give our economy the easy warpreparations way out by turning unemployed youth into soldiers, selecting, equipping, feeding, training, housing them-treating youth as so much grist for the war-preparations mill. Where is the sense? Where is the right? There is no sense. There is no right. Yet, millions find it easier to accept the draft, easier to accept nuclear war and even easier to accept death than to get into "political trouble." We do not understand those who propagate the draft under the guise of "patriotism." In the world today any action that places humanity at the brink is an action unpatriotic to civilization. If opposing the draft brings with it the onus of being called "unpatriotic" to the United States, then we accept that label in accepting our obligation to a higher, more meaningful patriotism.

In the tradition of Thoreau and the principles of individual guilt and individual responsibility established in the Nuremberg trials and in the first session of the United Nations, we assert the right and obligation of the individual to protest and dissociate himself from these criminal preparations.

We urge this committee to recommend that the draft-extension bill be defeated and, thereby, to accept its responsibility in approaching world peace and the survival of the human race.

Chairman RUSSELL. Mr. Wugalter, who is the chairman of the committee?

Mr. WUGALTER. As yet, we have no chairman, sir. We have been meeting on a very informal basis.

Chairman RUSSELL. I notice you had another witness here, apparently representing substantially the same group.

Mr. WUGALTER. No, that is not true. That is a different group. Chairman RUSSELL. A different group?

Mr. WUGALTER. Yes, sir.

Chairman RUSSELL. They are the End the Draft in 1963, and you are the End the Draft?

Mr WUGALTER. Yes. End the Draft in 1963 has its headquarters in Washington. We are people from Brooklyn.

Chairman RUSSELL. Is this a national organization? Do you have any branches?

Mr. ŴUGALTER. We have supporters in different parts of the country, although we have not yet set up. We are a fairly new organization. We started in November of 1962.