Senator WHEELER. 736,000, and training 1,131,000; defense of the United States, 112,000; internal ferry, 42,000; miscellaneous, 180,000; and supply, 190,000, making a total of 2,391,000.

Now, the plans for 1943, to be completed December 31, 1943, are for a grand total of 10,824,000.

Senator AUSTIN. What is that for?

Senator WHEELER. That is the total, as I understand it, of the estimated forces for December 31, 1943. The Navy, 2,040,000; Marine Corps, 388,000; Coast Guard, 196,000, and the Air Force, 2,391,000. Senator AUSTIN. That is intended to be an over-all figure for our forces?

Senator WHEELER. Yes; as of December 31, 1943. The Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard and Air Force subtracted from the grand total, would leave 5,809,000 ground troops. The total number that can be shipped abroad during the year 1943 is 1,964,000, leaving 3,845,000 as the number of land troops of the United States on December 31, 1943. Now, 2,700,000 is the total number of troops that our shipping will permit to be transported across the ocean to the war fronts; 736,000 of this number will be air forces and 1,964,000 ground forces.

Now, it is estimated, as I understand it, that there are 2,050,000 additional troops to be shipped by December 31, 1944, which will still leave in the United States, if not another man taken, 1,795,000 troops.

Now, according to the latest estimates by Army experts, each soldier shipped abroad must be accompanied by 8 tons of equipment and supplies, and must receive 1.2 tons per month thereafter, making a total of 22.4 tons per man for the year.

According to the newspaper reports which I had on April 15, we had approximately 6,500,000 troops in the Army-men and officersat that time. We can get to the battle fronts by December 31, 1943, 2,700,000, leaving in the United States total troops of 3,800,000, if we did not induct another man in the Army from this day forward.

Now, according to the estimate-and I think this was given by General Hershey, if I am not mistaken-there are 100,000 boys coming to the age of 18 each month. Is that correct?

Colonel KEESLING. That would be the gross.

Senator WHEELER. 73 percent of that number, or 73,000, are firstclass fighting material, sufficient for all replacement purposes.

Colonel KEESLING. I would say that 73 percent of the 100,000 reaching 18 years of age each month would pass the physical examination. But we have estimated that after allowing for those enlisted at 17, occupational deferments, hardship and so forth, there would be only about 45,000 of those reaching 18 each month, who would be available for immediate induction.

Senator WHEELER. The 73 percent is the figure that was given me. I am awfully sorry that I do not have the report of Mr. Hoover here, because he has made a check-up on the effect the induction of fathers has had on the youth of our country.

The CHAIRMAN. I saw a digest of it in the newspapers.

Senator WHEELER. Yes. I have the complete report on it, which shows a complete breaking down of the morale and the morals of the boys and girls in this country, increasing 53 percent in certain

crimes, and it ran as high as 70 percent, is my recollection of his statement, of girls and boys under the age 18 committing burglary and everything else, and he contributed it to the fact that these boys and girls were running around the streets, and so forth.

Now, I have a couple of boys in my office, each one of them has got two children. If these boys are taken, their wives are going to have to go to work, and I do not know what in the name of God they are going to do, because they are not trained stenographers, or anything else they have to go to work in some war plant, or something of that kind.

Now, the suggestion I was going to make is this, with reference to this bill of mine: To exempt them, say, until December 31, 1943, or January 1, 1944, and then if we need to take them at that time; if something changes that we have to take them at that time, if conditions change, then I would say, of course, we have to take them, but why in the name of God should we start taking married men with children, when you are going to have on December 31, 1943, 3,800,000 men in the armed forces of this country, in the United States of America?

Now, I get reports from these Army camps, I get them from Montana, I get them from California-I get them from all over the country. You have these boys; you are shipping them from one place to another. I got it from the railroad officials the other day that they are shipping them from one place to another, and that is one of the things that is causing trouble with your railroads.

Now, it is all right to say that the Army experts know better than what the average person knows, but I am saying to you, that, as a matter of fact, you do not need any Army expert to tell you that when you have 3,800,000 men still in the United States of America by December 31, 1943, you need to start taking married men with children and break up the homes.

The moral conditions in this country at the present time around these Army camps are frightful. There is no gainsaying that, and anybody who knows anything about it will agree with it. You can call Mr. Hoover, and he can tell you, or you can call anybody else that knows anything about it. Go to Los Angeles or to any other place, go to these large cities, where you have camps, and see what your conditions are. You take the married men away from their families, and it is breaking down the morale.

I read an editorial in the Chicago Times, which certainly has become a New Deal paper 100 percent. It called attention to the fact that a married man out there who was in business and who had a family with children started buying a home because some statement was made that they were not going to take married men. He went to buy a home, and then he saw the change that they were going to take married men with children, so he gave up buying the home, and finally he sold out his business.

I am getting letters from men who say they are married with children; they do not know where they are; they do not know whether they must continue in business, they do not know what plans they can make, they do not know anything, and consequently they are upset. It seems to me it is perfectly useless, perfectly senseless.

The Army officials have said they wanted to take the 18-year-old boys because they made the best soldiers. One of the reasons, as I

recall, they said they wanted the 18-year-old boys was that they would not have to take married men with children. At that time, they said, according to the testimony I have here, that they wanted an Army of something like 7,000,000.

Now, as a result of these things you are completely breaking down the morale of the people of this country. One day an order is issued to this effect, the next day an order is issued to that effect, and the next day an order is issued to another effect. Just who are you going to take?

In addition to that, let me point this out: The Government has said that they are not going to take men from 38 years to 45, and the reason they were not going to take them was because of the fact that they were breaking down, they could not stand the training. I do not know how many thousands of men, or hundreds of thousands men, boys-boys that are under 38-are guarding buildings, guarding bridges, and guarding everything else. Well, I got a letter the other day from a man in Great Falls, from one of the union people up there, and he said to me: "Why should you have all of these young fellows out here guarding these bridges, guarding this and guarding that, when single men above 38 years of age could do that just as well You do not have to take those men between 38 and 45 and put them through this strenuous training.

as not?"

The CHAIRMAN. Will you excuse me a minute?

Senator WHEELER. Yes.

(Discussion was had outside the record.)

Senator AUSTIN. I do not think when you add them all up they will equal the number that you have in your Army.

Senator WHEELER. You mean I have in my Army?

Senator AUSTIN. The men in the Army. I wonder how you arrive at that number?

Senator WHEELER. The number in the Army?

Senator AUSTIN. Yes.

Senator WHEELER. Senator Johnson gave me these figures. These are not my figures. He said you can bank on these figures, that they are correct. Overseas, 736,000; training, 1,131,000; defense of the United States, 112,000; internal ferry, 42,000; miscellaneous, 180,000, and supply, 190,000, or a total air force of 2,391,000. Is that correct? Colonel KEESLING. I think Senator Austin has the correct figures on that chart he has before him.

Senator WHEELER. We will have in December 1943 a grand total of 10,824,000; the Navy, 2,040,000.

Colonel KEESLING. Senator, you are talking about the over-all figures and where they are going to be at certain times, as distinguished from what they are going to be ultimately.

Senator WHEELER. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator, in fact, you are going to introduce this as an amendment on the floor of the Senate. Do you have to have the subcommittee go into this? It will have to go from the subcommittee to the full committee.

Senator WHEELER. That is immaterial, frankly, to me. Here is what Mr. Hoover says:

As a nation we have failed to realize the seriousness of the increase in youthful crimes since the outbreak of war. Here is a problem that is approaching a national scandal.

Last year arrests of girls under 21 years of age increased 55 percent. In the first 3 months of 1943 arrests of girls under 21 for crimes against common decency increased 93 percent.

The age of the offenders is a tragedy that cannot be overlooked. Eighteenyear-olds led in the number of persons arrested last year. But the causes are not new-they are merely aggravated by the spirit of wartime abandon, general restlessness, a don't-care attitude, and changed conditions brought on by the war. Consider the case of two youths, age 15 and 17, who sought to wreck a fast passenger train. Their home existed in name only; they were left to shift for themselves.

In other cases two 9-year-olds burned down a defense factory, causing over a million dollars in damage. A 16-year-old boy pushed two younger boys over a cliff to their death. Practically every community in the land has been shocked by the revelation of tarnished lives of young girls.

The figure in Denver, Colo., of the young girls that were pregnant went into the thousands. Now, he also said:

Last year young people under 21 accounted for 15 percent of all arrests for murder, 50 percent of all arrests for burglary, 34 percent of all arrests for robbery and larceny.

He said:

Why, we should ask, does this condition exist? Many parents are working irregular hours and consequently neglect their children. The American home is not the place of learning that it once was. The overwhelming majority of youthful offenders come from homes that have been broken-where mothers and fathers have forgotten their obligations to their children.

Families by the hundreds have migrated to defense centers where there are inadequate housing and recreational facilities. Many young people with no appreciation of economic responsibility have left schools to take well-paying defense jobs. Seeking new thrills and excitement, they have been able to buy pleasures that are morally depressing.

Law enforcement is understaffed. Juvenile courts and probation officers are overworked. The constructive programs of youth-serving agencies have not been adequately supported. There is too much theory in crime prevention and not enough constructive effort.

The time has come when all Americans must lend their hands to preserving the home front. Our youth must be reared in an atmosphere of wholesomeness and their leisure time put to constructive use. The mothers, fathers, and all adults must share the responsibility of the present rise of youthful crimes. Each must do his bit to prevent further increases and lend every aid to the rehabilitation of those who have strayed from the American way of law and

order.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all of his report? Senator WHEELER. That is Mr. Hoover's report. from his fingerprint files, and so forth.

That is taken.

Now, I say when you do not need these boys you cannot give me any figures that show to me that common sense demands that you take the young men away from their families and break up the homes, turn their children out into the street or put them into institutions, when you cannot use the men that you have, and you are going to have 3,800,000 men.

Now, you can philosophize all you want to, you can talk all you want to, but you cannot answer the question.

We talk a great deal about inflation. Well, what causes your inflation? The thing that is causing your inflation today is the fact that people have the money, they want the food, they want meat. We have had evidence before the Agricultural Committee and other committees to that effect. It takes more meat for the men in the Army, and by increasing your Army that you cannot use, and having a shortage of food, meat, and those things, you are going to create

86147-43

-2

black markets in this country from one end to the other, and in addition to that you are going to have inflation, and all your price controls cannot possibly stop it. We ought to have some common sense in the thing and not be carried away by the statement that you have to win the war and it is necessary.

Now, everybody wants to win the war, but if these figures that Senator Johnson has given me are correct, and he tells me he can verify everyone of them, I think it is high time that we do something

about it.

Colonel KEESLING. Do those figures include men who are in the process of being trained?

Senator WHEELER. Yes.

Colonel KEESLING. In other words, a large number of those men are men who are in training and not necessarily doing guard duty. Senator WHEELER. That is right.

Colonel KEESLING. There was some misunderstanding about it.
Senator WHEELER, No.

Colonel KEESLING. In other words, these men are in the process of being trained. They are getting their training prior to being sent to the battle lines.

Senator WHEELER. That is right, they are in the process of being trained. A lot of them are on guard duty here, a lot of them are on guard duty some place else and a lot of them are on guard duty some other place. Now, the people they could have for guard duty may not be able to stand up and take the rigid training that you need for combat service, but certainly any man between 38 and 45 can go out here and guard these plants.

Colonel KEESLING. It is my understanding, Senator, from the figures that Senator Austin read, that ultimately there are only going to be a few men doing guard duty; that a number of men are in the process of training not for guard duty but for combat service, and one of the reasons they cannot ship them now is they are not trained enough yet.

Senator WHEELER. You are not training them when you have them guarding the railroad, when you have them guarding a bridge somewhere, there certainly is not much training in that.

Colonel KEESLING. I do not believe they are putting the untrained men on that duty. The figures that Senator Austin read show that relatively few men would be on that duty.

Senator WHEELER. That may be. I am just calling attention to the fact that is one thing the people do see. They see the young men out here guarding these places, doing the various things, and they say, "Why in the name of God should you take married men when you could use the older men?"

Colonel KEESLING. Everybody, of course, agrees that there should be proper utilization of manpower in the Army and the Navy, the same as in any other place.

Senator WHEELER. That is right, and it certainly is not being done. in my judgment. If you cannot send abroad and use more than 1,964,000 by December 31, 1943, and you still have 3,845,000 here in the United States, why take them? Now, I would like to say something off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)