of 1944. In other words, in about 6 months we have to boost that part of the program up 65 percent.

Now, it is true that about 35 percent is going down hill.

Senator O'MAHONEY. What is that part of the program that is being boosted up?

Mr. KRUG. Well, it cuts across all of them. In aircraft it represents about two-thirds of the total program. New planes: The B-29, for example, the big bomber, is one of the important factors in that. The new jet-propelled planes, which are just starting production, is one of the important factors. Heavy ammunition, in particular, is a very important factor. The heavy tank that is just coming into production is an important factor.

Senator AUSTIN. What about the rockets?

Mr. KRUG. They are very important, but in terms of total dollars in the total program they do not bulk up as important as some of the others.

Senator O'MAHONEY. You have been speaking in terms of dollars. The bill deals in terms of labor.

Mr. KRUG. I am coming to that, but I thought it might be helpful if you had a picture of the developments so far.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Yes; it is helpful.

Mr. KRUG. Thirty-five percent of the programs are going down hill but unfortunately the programs that are going down very seldom match the programs that are going up, either geographically or in terms of skills and the type of workers available.

An example of that is the maritime program. In the Navy the construction program in terms of manpower needs is going down in 1945. The ship-repair program is going up. And in most cases it is in the same area that the ship construction is going on. But even there they do not match. Ship repair is different from building Victory ships. A fellow who might be a pretty good worker doing routine work in ship construction is not always the type of fellow you can use immediately in a ship-repair yard.

To give you some idea on that the total shipbuilding program for 1945 is probably $4,000,000,000 lower than what we actually did in 1944. The ammunition program, the airplane program, the tanks and combat vehicles, those programs go up not only to take care of that reduction but an extra billion dollars on top of it. But there is very little comparison between the fellows released in a shipyard and the men needed to man the machines that will produce heavy artillery and ammunition, for example. That is why we need something more flexible in 1945 than we had before.

To get around to your question, Senator, which is manpower needs. The best figures we have been able to get on these expanding programs, the added load on the war production machine and the war-supporting industries, are that we will be required to get into war industry about 700,000 people. That is as of the time this program was definitely crystallized about a month ago. We have already about 100,000 of those people. For the first time since November 1943, the trend of employment in war industry has turned back up. No small part of that has been the discussion of this legislation in Congress.

Senator O'MAHONEY. What month was that that it started up? Mr. KRUG. It started up in December.

Senator O'MAHONNY. Started up in December.

Mr. KRUG. We gained about 50,000 in December and 50,000 in the first part of January.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Now, then, you said that for the first time since November 1943, it started up.

Mr. KRUG. Yes. Starting in November 1943, Senator, the trend started down. At that point we were, I believe, at 10,400,000 men in munition industries, war industries. We dropped to a low of about 9,200,000 men in November of 1944, and the curve has started up. Senator O'MAHONEY. That was 9,000,000?

Mr. KRUG. 9,200,000. I would like to check that last figure. I am not so sure of the low point it got to.

Senator O'MAHONEY. As I recall your release in December, of the War Production Board, said that the labor force employed on war production dropped at the rate of about 100,000 a month.

Mr. KRUG. That is right.

Senator O'MAHONEY. And that would be precisely this.
Mr. KRUG. That is right.

Senator O'MAHONEY. 1,200,000 in a year.

Mr. KRUG. That is right. It was dropping almost a steady 100,000 a month right straight through that period.

Senator O'MAHONEY. So, with an increase of 50,000 a month for December and January, we now have 9,300,000 employed, as against 10,400,000 employed a year ago?

Mr. KRUG. That is right, sir.

Now, I feel very sincerely that if Congress does not act on this bill we are going to lose the benefit of that upturn, we are going to experience again a decline, and you cannot blame the average worker for saying, "All this talk about the ermegency of war production can't be serious if our representatives in Congress have decided that this legislation is not necessary.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Well, isn't that based upon an assumption that this increase of 50,000 men in December and January was promoted by fear among the workers and not by the same reaction that changed the estimates among the high leaders of the war effort? Mr. KRUG. No; I do not think it is fair to say that any large part of it was promoted by fear. I think a fair conclusion is that it was promoted by a real conviction on the part of a lot of men that people really were needed in war industry.

Senator O'MAHONEY. That is the whole argument, Mr. Krug.

You ask us to support this bill upon the ground that if it is not supported employment will fall off.

Mr. KRUG. Right.

Senator O'MAHONEY. And compulsion must be applied. But yet you say on the other hand that it would not be fair to accuse these men who have gone back in the last 2 months of having gone back out of fear that they would fight if they didn't work.

Mr. KRUG. Compulsion may be needed in a very limited number of cases, but I think what we need most is a real feeling on the part of the fellow who has to make a sacrifice that the sacrifice is a necessary one. If he thinks that the Congress of the United States believes that the situation is sufficiently serious to give power to the Government to put a man in war industry or in the Army, he is going to feel that his job is in the war industry.

Senator O'MAHONEY. I know, but on the other hand we had testimony yesterday showing that if this legislation were enacted the way it passed the House it would produce chaos within 6 months. This will be off the record, Mr. Reporter.

(Discussion was had outside the record.)

Senator O'MAHONEY. On the record.

What I am saying to you, Mr. Krug, is that the same argument that you are making here, for immediate pressure, pass this bill without change or amendment, was urged in the House, and many Members of Congress who doubted the wisdom of the provisions in this bill swallowed their convictions and voted for the bill, but when it comes over here and we subject it to a little scrutiny, immediately every member of this committee, without exception has agreed upon some very important amendment.

Mr. KRUG. Well, I want to make clear that I am not urging the passage of this bill without proper considertaion, without those amendments that will make it the best possible tool for the job. I trust that this committee will give it that kind of scrutiny. I don't want to be interpreted as hammering for something that will be ill considered and which will not serve the purpose.

On the other hand, we need it so desperately that I hope that we do not spend weeks quibbling about detailed mechanics when the whole structure of war production is coming down. I have had to do jobs before without perfect tools, and I would rather have some tool than to wait around for 2 or 3 months for a beautitul piece of legislation.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Would you call it quibbling about detailed mechanics if I told you that some members of the committee do not feel that it is necessary from the point of view of you and every other advocate of this bill to give to any administrative agency the discretion to compel men to go to work in any activity which that administrative agency may decide and which might be in support of the national health, safety or interest?

Mr. KRUG. I thought the bill as drafted provided an exception for the man who is in war industry.

Senator O'MAHONEY. The bill provides for two things. It provides for compulsion to put men in war industry, the thing you are talking about, but it also provides for compulsion to put me into activities which the administrative agency may determine to be in support of the national health, safety or interest. Now, you are not arguing for that, are you?

Mr. KRUG. I certainly do not pretend to be an expert on the construction of the bill that will do the best job.

Senator O'MAHONEY. But you have said "I hope that members will not quibble about details." Now, I want to know what you mean by "quibble." Would you regard that as quibbling?

Mr. KRUG. No; I would not.

Senator O'MAHONEY. Of course not.

Mr. KRUG. Of course not. I do want to make it clear though that we not only have to do the war production job but we have to keep the economy rolling, too. If we do not, we will not be able to keep war production going, if we don't keep our transportation system running, our utilities running.

If we do not keep our economy running in the long run we can't get production even if we have men in the plants.

The CHAIRMAN. You have not this morning in your oral testimony testified one way or another on any amendments; isn't that true?

Mr. KRUG. That is right. I was coming to that. We might cover it right now.

I do feel that the amendment that has been proposed would make it a more workable piece of legislation, and I would like to see this committee act favorably upon it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is, put the administration in the Director of War Mobilization and Reconversion?

Mr. KRUG. Yes; Mr. Chairman.

The other point I want to stress this morning is this, that during this period when the war load is up and when our labor pool in war industry is down, we are faced with the further program of finding 900,000 additional men for the Army and the Navy.

The CHAIRMAN. May I at this point read this telegram. I think it fits in at this point.

This is a telegram from the Steamfitters Local 590, San Francisco, Calif.

Secretary of Navy Forrestal statement as published in San Francisco News this date regarding delay in ship construction at Bethlehem yards, San Francisco, in direct conflict to existing facts. Men are today being laid off by Bethlehem yard, San Francisco. No orders for journeymen pipe fitters on record at our office. We feel work-or-fight bill is a direct slap to labor's production in war effort. Generally speaking, shipyards in this area are laying off men.”

We can disregard the part of the telegram in regard to "slap to labor's production in war effort." It is the last sentence that is the important one, "Generally speaking, shipyards in this area are laying off men."

We had a report yesterday that up in the northern section of the Pacific coast the same thing is happening.

Mr. KRUG. Well, the situation on that is briefly as follows. I referred earlier in my statement to ship construction. It is one of the declining programs, and it will release some men in the shipyards, and that release starts now. The best figures I have been able to get, with the rescheduling operations that are still under way by the Maritime Commission and the Navy, the total release from all the shipyards in the country during the next 6 or 7 months will be about 100,000 men. I estimate that is substantially less than the added workers we need in ship repairing. Unfortunately the ship-repair facilities are not always at exactly the same locality where the ship construction yards are. Wherever possible the Navy and the Maritime Commission are working out arrangements where ship repair will be done in the ship-construction yards. Unfortunately that can't always be done. We need certain special facilities for ship repair, particularly for underwater damage and the ship construction yards usually do not have those facilities. The navy yards do.

So, at San Francisco, as an example, there are two or three very important ship repair facilities there already operated by the Navy, the big one is at Hunters Point, south of San Francisco, and another one at Mare Island. Those yards need more men for their ship repair. In past months we have found it desperately difficult to get them, but the ship construction facilities in that same area will be releasing men in 1945. We have planned it that way, because there is no other way in the world to get men in those ship-repair yards.

Senator BURTON. Judge Patterson pointed out that about 500,000 of the 900,000 men for the Army will come from essential industry. So I take it you would be without enforcing machinery not only for 700,000 but without enforcing machinery for 1,200,000 men in essential industry.

Mr. KRUG. It is 700,000 plus whatever what is taken from essential industry. I hope they will not take 500,000 from essential industry because if they do I do not see how we can take the shock. We have been taking a beating in the classes below 26. We recognize the need of the Army and the Navy for young men, but when you go into the category above 26, if you take anything like all of them, you cut the very heart out of some of the key war industries. I have in mind particularly aircraft and radio and radar where some of the most experienced men, the top foremen, and so forth, are young fellows. Those men are veterans in the industry. Many of them have been in it since they got out of high school. That is particularly true out in the west coast, in California. Those young fellows started early in the war. All kinds of youngsters got into very important positions and they have been there since back in 1940 or 1941 when we started boosting up the aircraft program. It is amazing what they are doing. And we are very much worried about losing 500,000 men from that group. I think Judge Patterson had in mind a little longer pull, perhaps, than the 6 months I have referred to.

Senator BURTON. They are sure to get their 900,000 under the Draft Act.

Mr. KRUG. Yes.

Senator BURTON. Some of those will come from essential industry and therefore, you are going to need in essential industry something more than 700,000.

Mr. KRUG. We will need 700,000 plus whatever number the Army or Navy take out, plus the quits.

Senator BURTON. So it will be a million that you will need for essential industry.

Mr. KRUG. Yes. There is another factor. If the experience of the past year is any indication we will have to replace about 600,000 or 800,000 men involved in turn-overs every month in war industry. You not only have to get the net of 700,000 but you have to replace the men who quit, and on the basis of our past experience that is 600,000 to 700,000 every month.

Senator BURTON. But, of course, you will get some veteran soldiers and sailors back from the armed forces, and you will get some men from other industries and will also get youngsters coming into the field. Mr. KRUG. Yes, sir. It takes a lot of people to fill the gap when you have a turn-over of 600,000 or 700,000 plus the increase.

Senator O'MAHONEY. How many experts do you suppose are among those who contribute to the big turn-over?

Mr. KRUG. Well, it is a comparatively small percentage of the total. It is a larger percentage in the new plants. Take the Chrysler plant at Chicago, which is building the big engine for the superbomber. Their turn-over in a working force of about 30,000 ran about, the time I was there about 750 to 800 every week. That seems inconceivable, but that is a new plant. As soon as that plant is conditioned, they will hold men, they will hold more and more of their workers. In all of these new plants you will find that the turn-over is usually confined to the people who have only been there less than a year.