until 8 a. m. in a plant where the working conditions are grimy and dirty, to say the least. Senator O'MAHONEY. Which situation describes the condition Secretary PATTERSON. I simply say that these people are the salt of the earth, and a great credit to the Nation. Senator O'MAHONEY. Sure. Secretary PATTERSON. And they do not loaf, they do not come to that plant because they want to loaf. You ask them if they are interested in a post-war job and they say, "I want to bring my boy back." Senator O'MAHONEY. So we have the two classes of people, the salt of the earth, and those you have just described, those who have done this tremendous job of production and we talk of the loafers, we talk of the shysters. Secretary PATTERSON. The people in nonessential industry or less essential industry are not loafters, the war is too remote, it has not been brought home to them. Senator O'MAHONEY. You understand, we are talking about two classes in a plant. First, the salt of the earth whom you spoke of, and second, those who have contributed to the turn-over. Now are we to understand that the great majority of these workers are to be regarded as people who belong to the first category, the people who are nobly working to bring their boys back and the boys of their neighbors, or that the majority of them belong in the other category, who have no concern? Secretary PATTERSON. The majority of them are of the first class. that you mentioned, people who work there steadily. Senator O'MAHONEY. Isn't that the overwhelming majority? Secretary PATTERSON. Well, it is a good majority, all right. The high turn-over rate shows that the other class form a substantial element, however. These turn-over people, the ones who loaf and quit voluntarily, they are not criminals. Senator O'MAHONEY. No; of course not. I agree with you upon that. Secretary PATTERSON. They are not unpatriotic, but the war is too far away from them. Senator O'MAHONEY. Surely. Secretary PATTERSON. And they think that they want to exercise a little self-reliance in looking out for themselves with a post-war job. Senator O'MAHONEY. That is what impresses me, and I agree with you thoroughly. Now I have in my hands here the testimony of Judge Charles M. Hay before the House Military Affairs Committee on this bill. I think it is so significant that I am going to read a sentence from it. Senator HILL. What page, if I may ask? Senator O'MAHONEY. Page 59 of the House hearings on H. R. 1119: I think all of us last year were more optimistic than we are now with respect to the war. I must confess, speaking personally, that during the summer of last year and up until the middle of October I thought--and I am sure I was not alone in the thinking that the war's end in Europe was not far distant, and we felt, I am sure Mr. McNutt felt, and we all felt, that our programs had accomplished a tremendous job in the mobilization of manpower of the country, and we could see the job through without legislation. Now we all know that it was not over. We know the statements of General Eisenhower, which were widely publicized all over this country by his appeal to the soldiers, that if everybody did his part the war in Europe would be over in 1944. We had similar expressions from the very highest military authorities. Now can we wonder that people in war plants are persuaded by what persons of such qualifications stated, and nothing was done at that time to change their opinion? Secretary PATTERSON. Oh, yes; we did our best. We urged them to stay on war work, that the soldiers still needed supplies and that the soldiers could not leave, that they had to stay and fight it out, but they saw fit to disregard that advice. In any event, however, Senator, the turn-over rate or the number of quits did not suddenly jump. It had been high in all of 1943, and has continued in 1944. Senator O'MAHONEY. I have seen many statements, apparently on good authority, that after the Von Rundstedt drive the turn-over dropped and voluntary hiring increased very rapidly. Secretary PATTERSON. That is true, the Von Rundstedt drive, and also the work-or-fight order of Selective Service from Justice Byrnes, and also the announcement of hearings on this legislation, all combined to bring a large number of new applicants for work into war industries; that is right. Senator O'MAHONEY. Isn't it a fact that at the time, just before the hearings on this bill began, at the time of General Marshall's and Admiral King's letters to the President, that the Chiefs of Staff greatly increased the schedules of production and the materials that were to be needed. You have listed them here on page 5. Secretary PATTERSON. Those increases were directed in October, November, and December, that is right, for 1945 production. Senator O'MAHONEY. The increases began when? Secretary PATTERSON. October, November, and December. Senator O'MAHONEY. You state here the schedules for bombs and mines are up 49 percent, tanks up 64 percent, air-borne radar 59 percent, clothing 29 percent Secretary PATTERSON. You are just inquiring, as I understand it, when those schedules were so radically stepped up? Senator O'MAHONEY. That is right. Secretary PATTERSON. My impression is that was done in October, November, and December of this last year. Senator O'MAHONEY. Well, was that done with the thought that the war in Europe was not over or was not about to be over? Secretary PATTERSON. They were directed by me with the thought that we have to keep up the Army supply, or supply the Army requirements, no matter how long the war in Europe lasted, and that we would not take any chance at all. Senator O'MAHONEY. Of course, I think everybody agrees with that. Secretary PATTERSON. Since it would call for even greater employment than we had in 1944, provided it continued on a two-front basis, that meant our requirements for 1945 had to be considerably larger than for 1944. Senator CHANDLER. Off the record. (Discussion off the record.) Senator CHANDLER. Back on the record. Secretary PATTERSON. Still another objection is the talk about hardships. Under this bill no one would be directed to go to war work except on the decision of his own neighbors, the men on the local selective service board. But, after all, what hardship here at home is worthy of mention, when we think of the hardships endured by our brave men overseas? There is a great gap between life on the fighting front and for us here at home. The soldiers are keenly aware of it. This bill, by declaring that we at home have an obligation to help win the war too, is an effort to narrow that gap. SUMMARY By way of conclusion, I submit that the moral basis for passage of this bill is plain. That basis is the principle that in this war, a total war, every citizen is bound to do his part in carrying the burden. It is unfair and un-American to impose on 12,000,000 citizens the duty to fight and not to impose on the rest of us the duty to work in support of those who fight. Is it necessary? The President and his military advisers who are responsible for carrying on the war say that it is. They are in the best position to know the needs that the future conduct of the war will present. Passage will speed the prosecution of the war, in these vital particulars: First, it will enable us to reinforce the Army and Navy with the men they need, and at the same time to step up the output of munitions for the fighting forces. Second, it will hearten the men on the fighting fronts-the men in Europe who are leaving their frozen fox holes to carry the assault against the "master race"--the men in the steaming jungles of the Pacific who are fighting the "sons of heaven" to a finish. It will give them the assurance that their supplies for those battles will be abundant. Third, it will serve notice on the Axis that they have no chance of a respite, that the momentum against them will be maintained until their final defeat is an accomplished fact. When I mentioned a moment ago that it would enable us to reinforce the Army and Navy with men they needed, of course the Selective Service Act itself now enables them to do that, but you cannot do it and give them the men they need at the particular time with safety to the war supply, because those men must come out of critical industry. We have now no mechanism or means of replacing them in critical industry if we take them away-if they are taken out of their places in industry it would gain us nothing to take them out, because we would not be able to supply them after they were in the armed forces. Senator JOHNSON. May I say something, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator JOHNSON. First, I want to congratulate you upon your very splendid statement, it is a powerful statement, that it would be pretty hard to argue against, but I want to clear up one point that has been of some confusion in this committee. Today, your very first line starts out, "I am in support of the May bill, H. R. 1752." On January 29, in a statement signed by you and addressed to the chairman of the committee, among other things, you state: The War Department joins the other agencies in recommending that the Director of War Mobilization and Reconversion be given the power of making the basic determinations under H. R. 1752, with appropriate powers of delegation to insure flexibility. Is there a conflict in that statement of January 29 and in your statement today, "I am in support of the May bill, H. R. 1752"? Secretary PATTERSON. There is no conflict. The letter of January 29 represents the War Department's position with reference to the measure under discussion. I stated in that letter that we strongly supported the bill and gave reasons for our vigorous support. I stated in the same letter that we joined the other agencies in recommending the amendment, the effect of which you have just read, and that is still our position. Senator BURTON. That is, you support the May bill, H. R. 1752, as it is, but you would like it still better if it were amended. Some Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, of course, our support of the amendment does not in any way condition our support of the bill. times we support bills provided they are amended, or something like that. That is not this case; we support the hill, but we also would like to see it amended. Senator MAYBANK. In other words, the amendment improves it? Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir. Senator CHANDLER. But you would support the bill, even though it is not amended. Secretary PATTERSON. We would support the May bill, as I have made the statement today, but we would like to see the bill cover the suggested amendment which we have endorsed, which is an improvement that has to do with the mechanism, and not with what we regard the main principle, or the essentials of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. You still stand by your statement with regard to this amendment; do you not? Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir; I stand by that letter and by the endorsement of the amendment that is contained in the letter. The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions? Senator HILL. Judge, I want to join with the Senator from Colorado in his commendation of your very strong statement that you made here to this committee. It is a very excellent and persuasive statement, the kind of a statement that I think we ought to have for a bill of this character. I want to ask one question here, when you speak of mobilization of industry. You make the statement that the power to compel industry and plants to produce war goods for the Army and Navy at fair compensation was given. What particular power did you have in mind when you made that statement? Secretary PATTERSON. The power to place mandatory orders with industry, and to direct them to give those orders precedence over their ordinary business. It was contained, I think, first, in section 9 of the selective-service law, and I think it was repeated in the First War Powers Act. Senator HILL. At one time if those orders were not filled, the Government had the power and right to take over the plant; is that it? Secretary PATTERSON. That is one of the penalties, I think, also Senator HILL. Any other penalties? Secretary PATTERSON. I think there is criminal prosecution too. Senator AUSTIN. Very heavy penalties. Senator HILL. Have you those penalties at hand? Secretary PATTERSON. Section 9 of the act of September 1940, I think. Senator HILL. Now, in the consideration of this bill, as we are going to do, since the individual is going to work in an industry, it is well to have somewhere in this record what the powers that we have with reference to industry are. If you can furnish that, will you do it? Secretary PATTERSON. Yes, sir; I will be glad to do that. Senator HILL. The powers with reference to what we can do to make sure that industry does its full part in war production and in providing the things necessary for carrying on the war. Secretary PATTERSON. I take it, Senator, you mean a more detailed reference. Senator HILL. A more detailed reference. Secretary PATTERSON. Than this list that is mentioned here on page 3. Senator HILL. Yes. You have a splendid summary here, but what I would like to have would be a detailed statement of these powers. (The statement furnished by Under Secretary Patterson and letters of transmittal follow:) Hon. ELBERT D. THOMAS, WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, D. C., February 9, 1945. Chairman, Senate Military Affairs Committee, DEAR SENATOR: For your information I am enclosing a copy of a letter which I have written to Senator Hill, together with its enclosure. Sincerely yours, ROBERT P. PATTERSON, WAR DEPARTMENT, Hon. LISTER HILL, OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY, United States Senate, Washington, D. C. DEAR LISTER: When I appeared before the Senate Military Affairs Committee last Tuesday you asked me to furnish additional information about the authority granted by Congress to mobilize industry for war. I am enclosing a memorandum containing such information. Sincerely yours, ROBERT P. PATTERSON, CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORIZATION TO MOBILIZE INDUSTRY FOR WAR Congress has given the Government authority to seize equipment and supplies for war use, to compel industrial plants to produce war goods for the Army and Navy at a specified price, and to take over industrial plants and operate them. It has granted controls over the use of materials. Through price ceilings, the renegotiation of contracts and war taxes, it has limited profits. Principal points in this mobilization of industry follow: Mandatory orders.-The Secretary of War or Navy may place an order for war supplies with any manufacturer, at a price determined by the Secretary to be fair and reasonable. These orders have priority over all other orders in the plant. Compliance may be enforced by seizure of the plant and by heavy criminal penalties (sec. 9, Selective Training and Service Act). More than a score of mandatory orders have been issued to obtain production of boned beef, battle jackets, fire extinguishers, rubber heels, aircraft instruments, aircraft engine mounts, combat air trainers and other war supplies or equipment. In some instances, the orders grew out of the manufacturers' refusal to produce |