of Agriculture referred to this morning. At the end of January, the total allocations were $12,100,000,000, and the obligations were $7,300,000,000.

CHANGE IN LEND-LEASE PROCEDURE

The CHAIRMAN. In your opening statement, you referred to the fact that the Army and Navy had lend-lease appropriation items in their appropriations. What is the difference between the handling of those items by the Army and the Navy and the handling of your items?

Mr. STETTINIUS. In the new Army and Navy appropriations there are items or funds for tanks and bombers, we will say, where you have appropriated the money directly to the Army or Navy, but the newly created Assignment Board will determine where these items are to go. Some of the money will go to our own forces, and some of the money will go to Russia, and some to China. We, in turn, are notified of the transfers to the various foreign countries, and we consolidate them in here.

The CHAIRMAN. They still pass through the Lend-Lease Administration?

Mr. STETTINIUS. Yes; at least so far as the transfer is concerned. We are working out procedures with the Budget, and the War, and Navy Departments on the other phases of the situation.

The CHAIRMAN. You have a careful accounting of lend-lease requirements?

Mr. STETTINIUS. Yes, sir; there is a report every 90 days of what the other countries receive.

PROPOSED SINGLE SUM APPROPRIATION

The CHAIRMAN. Why is it necessary to carry all of this in one sum? What is the necessity of that, or why should you not carry a leeway of, say, 5 percent among items?

Mr. STETTINIUS. We feel that it is an over-all situation. We are now in a crisis where the picture is changing from week to week. We find that we can do a much more satisfactory and efficient job if we have a lump-sum appropriation.

The CHAIRMAN. What has been your experience with the present interchange provision? Have you availed yourself of that?

Mr. STETTINIUSs. Yes, sir; we have had difficulty with that. We have been unable to do certain things because of that limitation on the transferability of funds.

Mr. LUDLOW. Would a 10-percent limitation be better?

Mr. STETTINIUS. It is 20 percent now.

Mr. LUDLOW. And you think that is too low?

Mr. STETTINIUS. Yes, sir.

Mr. TABER. You have not had any trouble with it, have you?
Mr. STETTINIUS. Yes, sir.

General SPALDING. Yes, sir; in getting storage depots started, for instance.

Mr. TABER. But not because you did not have the funds available? Mr. STETTINIUS. Yes, sir. Many times we have had calls for money for something that we have not been able to furnish because the surplus or the reserve was in some other category.

STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES

Mr. TABER. General Spalding, what have you been spending already for storage?

General SPALDING. I have a list of the allocations.

Mr. TABER. Have you built any storage complete?
General SPALDING. Yes, sir.

Mr. TABER. Are they full or empty?

General SPALDING. Åll that we have are full.

There is a whole lot

of railroad storage in addition which is full also. The storage situa

tion is getting tight.

Mr. TABER. How much have you spent on it?

General SPALDING. $185,000,000 here and abroad.
Mr. TABER. For storage?

General SPALDING. Yes, sir.

Mr. TABER. And you want us to give you $415,000,000?

General SPALDING. With $100,000,000 in addition for rehandling and so forth.

Mr. TABER. That means $515,000,000 to store annually approximately something less than $4,000,000,000 worth of stuff." You have spent $185,000,000 to handle $11,000,000,000 worth of stuff.

General SPALDING. We have not handled it. You must provide storage in advance. You cannot ask for it at the same time you ask for the articles. If we had had the storage at first, under the first lendlease bill, we would not be so crowded now. However, we have asked for it in this bill.

Mr. TABER. How many square feet of storage space do you have now?

General SPALDING. We have built only about 6 million square feet, 3 million square feet at Voorheesville, near Schnectady, N. Y., and 3 million square feet at Marietta, Pa. We have storage under construction on the west coast.

Mr. TABER. You have constructed 3 million square feet?

General SPALDING. In each of those places; yes, sir. We will construct 3 million square feet on the west coast and 3 million square feet on the east coast.

Mr. TABER. You will have 3 million square feet on the east coast and 3 million square feet on the west coast?

General SPALDING. Yes, sir.

Mr. TABER. How many square feet do you have under construction? General SPALDING. I want to make that statement a little more carefully. We have 6 million square feet in the East that is in operation, 3 million square feet at Marietta, Pa., and 3 million square feet at Vorheesville, near Schenectady, N. Y. We have under pressure construction in the West, but not completed, 9 million square feet, 3 million in the Northwest, 3 million in the Midwest section, and 3 million in the Southwest section. Then, we have 3 million feet in the east Gulf section and 3 million feet in the west Gulf section just started. There is one additional on the south Atlantic.

Mr. LUDLOW. What is the type of construction?

General SPALDING. It is simple construction, but of a permanent type.

Mr. TABER. That cost is $185,000,000?

General SPALDING. In addition to storage, we have done a lot of other things abroad. I have the allocations right here.

Mr. TABER. There is only a part of it I can follow.

General SPALDING. Those igloos are for the storage of ordnance stuff, or explosives. You have to have them well separated.

Mr. SNYDER. You need to have good space between the buildings? General SPALDING. Yes, sir; we want them fireproof, with trackage between the buildings.

The CHAIRMAN. General, in connection with your testimony, submit a brief statement containing such information as you think it would be proper for you to give in regard to these storage facilities, justifying the estimate, but leaving out anything that you think would prejudice the situation.

General SPALDING. I will furnish that.

Mr. TABER. I am not satisfied with this amount of $415,000,000 for storage. If you are going to build storage, you will get it for $3.50 or $4 per square foot; and if so, you would have 100,000,000 square feet of storage in the United States.

General SPALDING. A large part of it will be open.

Mr. TABER. That should be cheaper than $3.50 or $4 per square foot. General SPALDING. Yes, sir; except that you have to have tracks and cranes for handling the stuff.

Mr. WOODRUM. What does your storage cost?

General SPALDING. They run about $8 per square foot for depot storage. That would be for both covered and open storage.

Mr. WOODRUM. How much does covered storage run?

General SPALDING. It would probably run to about $14, depending

on the location. A part of that would be for excavation.

Mr. WOODRUM. Does that include rail facilities?

General SPALDING. Yes, sir. In some places it will run $12.

Mr. WOODRUM. In what place would it cost $12?

General SPALDING. At Voorheesville, on the covered part of it.
Mr. TABER. At a port?

General SPALDING. In a port district. I like to have storage in the interior, but when we move stuff to the ships you must have intermediate depots close to the ports in which balanced cargoes can be held ready for ships.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Do I understand that there will be something in the nature of a break-down, either for the record or for the use of the committee, of this $60,000,000 item?

Mr. STETTINIUS. Yes, sir.

ALLOCATION, OBLIGATION, AND EXPENDITURE OF PREVIOUS FUNDS

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. You have had $12,985,000,000, and you are now asking for $5,430,000,000. In order to get the total picture, there should be added whatever may come to you under the military title of the bill and the Maritime Commission part of it?

Mr. STETTINIUS. Not in funds-in items of material, but not in funds. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. How much of the $12,985,000,000 have you allocated?

Mr. STETTINIUS. $12.225,000,000.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. As of what date?

Mr. STETTINIUS. As of the 12th. Today is the 13th.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. As of February 12?

Mr. STETTINIUS. As of February 12. Of the total appropriation of $12,985,000,000, $12,225,000,000 has been allocated.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. What are the obligations?

Mr. STETTINIUS. The obligations are $7,925,000,000 as of February 8. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. How much of that has been expended? Mr. STETTINIUS. The expenditures, as of January 31, were $1,811,000,000.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. How much have you actually shipped?

Mr. STETTINIUS. The total covers $2,001,000,000, made up of articles transferred, $1,148,000,000; articles awaiting transfer, $313,000,000; articles in process of manufacture, $122,000,000; servicing and repair of ships, $113,000,000. The rest are miscellaneous items, making up the $2,001,000,000.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. In connection with allocations and obligations, you spoke of a set-up in your office.

JOINT BOARD TO COORDINATE MUNITIONS ASSIGNMENTS, RAW MATERIALS,
AND SHIPPING ADJUSTMENT

Mr. STETTINIUS. That is the Munitions Assignment Board.
Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Who composes it?

Mr. STETTINIUS. Mr. Hopkins is chairman of it, and General Burns is the executive director.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. What are the duties of that set-up, and what is their relation to your office?

Mr. STETTINIUS. There was an Executive order creating it, under the agreement between the President and the Prime Minister. It consists of American Army and Navy representatives and British Army and Navy representatives.

The function of the Munitions Assignment Board is to allocate the munitions in accordance with the strategic needs and the war plans, so that in any particular case they decide how the plants and the tanks are to be allocated or assigned.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Do they have anything to say as to the amount that is to be provided?

Mr. Cox. Well, they do in quantities, but they are not concerned with the dollar amount.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Suppose the British people want so many tanks from us; who passes on whether that number of tanks is justified and whether we can afford to provide them?

Mr. STETTINIUS. The Munitions Assignment Board, based upon a military strategy consideration.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. That is the Board we are talking about now?
Mr. STETTINIUS. That is right.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. And that is wholly outside of your office?
Mr. STETTINIUS. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Cox. With the exception that in some cases representing these 36 lend-lease countries, lend-lease may sponsor their claim or present the claim, because in practical effect the Board sits somewhat like a court in dividing the munitions production of both the United Kingdom and the United States in terms of the united nations.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. But I am talking about before we get to that point-who determines whether we will make a given quantity of tanks or airplanes for Great Britain or China or Russia?

Mr. Cox. Most of the things which are made are made in terms of fully utilizing the productive capacity of the country, with an attempt to make them as standard as possible for all uses.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. When a requisition comes from Great Britain, to whom does that requisition go for approval?

Mr. Cox. It goes to the War Department in the first instance, under the new procedure, with a copy to Lend-Lease. There probably will not be any requisitions for the so-called common items. In other words, on a standard item the first job is to put it into production. When the thing is close to being produced the Munitions Assignment Board assigns it for distribution. If it is a noncommon item, such as a special engine to go in a tank being made in England, in the first instance that request will be made to the Army. The Army may, for example, turn it down because it thinks the production of it would interfere with our production in meeting the President's program. At that point we would get a copy of the request, and if it seemed to be a case of enough importance to take up with the Assignment Board, Lend Lease would take it up on appeal to the Assignment Board.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. Is there any reason why the committee should not have a copy of that memorandum, or is that highly confidential? Mr. Cox. No; it has been released to the press. The War Department less than 10 days ago issued a statement about the Combined Chiefs of Staff.

Mr. TABER. Does that show the personnel of the Board?

Mr. Cox. I am not sure that the Munitions Assignment Board is shown in detail.

Mr. STETTINIUS. Colonel Franks can perhaps give us a statement on that.

Mr. TABER. We ought to have that personnel in the record; at least the American representatives and the fact that there are three British representatives.

(The statement referred to is as follows:)

To further coordination of the United Nations war effort, the President and Prime Minister Churchill have set up three boards to deal with munition assignments, shipping adjustment, and raw materials. The functions of these boards are outlined in the following statements.

Members of the boards will confer with representatives of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, China, and such other of the United Nations as are necessary to attain common purposes and provide for the most effective utilization of the joint resources of the United Nations.

COMBINED RAW MATERIALS BOARD

A planned and expeditious utilization of the raw material resources of the United Nations is necessary in the prosecution of the war. To obtain such a utilization of our raw material resources in the most efficient and speediest possible manner, we hereby create the Combined Raw Materials Board.

This Board will:

(a) Be composed of a representative of the British Government and a representative of the United States Government. The British member will represent and act under the instruction of the Minister of Supply. The Board shall have power to appoint the staff necessary to carry out its responsibilities.

(b) Plan the best and speediest development, expansion, and use of the raw material resources, under the jurisdiction or control of the two Governments, and make the recommendations necessary to execute such plans. Such recommendations shall be carried out by all parts of the respective Governments.