missions are instructed to report all instances of unessential use which they are able to discover, and this Board is guided by dispatches received from the missions. * ** The foreign governments are requested to cooperate from time to time with respect to conservation of scarce materials, supervision of materials shipped under allocation, and to cooperate in preventing materials from reaching unsatisfactory consignees. It is expected that foreign governments will be requested to establish rationing plans similar to those to be adopted in this country. In summary, the controls mentioned are exercised most carefully with the determination to conserve scarce materials for defense requirements. With respect to the second question, there are some instances where it is necessary to deal more or less favorably than with our own civilian requirements. There instances are pointed out in the individual studies which are submitted as a basis for allocations and also in the individual clearance cases according to circumstances. The Board has not established an over-all policy for this situation which is extremely variable. The effort is made to recommend the minimum needed for the maintenance of essential industry and where the minimum requirements in this country cannot be met, to recommend equivalent treatment for the friendly foreign countries. We hope that with this explanation of the efforts being carried out by this office, the Supply Priorities and Allocations Board will be in full accord with the policy which this Board declared in its meeting of December 26. Sincerely yours, MILO PERKINS, Executive Director. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. I want to ask two more questions. First, are you in a position to tell us what progress, if any, has been made with respect to an agreement with Great Britain primarily, or any other countries, as to the repayment for any of these supplies that are being made available? The Assistant Secretary of State testified the last rime he was up here that negotiations were in process, but I do not know what the status is now. (Discussion off the record.) ESTIMATED DOLLAR BALANCES AND RECEIPTS OF BRITISH EMPIRE Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. The other question is this: Could someone furnish for the record similar information to what we had before, which would cover the monthly expenditure of the United Kingdom, or, say, Great Britain, Canada, and Australia, and also as to the status of the United Kingdom securities and balances in this country? Mr. STETTINIUS. The Undersecretary of the Treasury, Mr. Bell, I am sure, would be delighted to supply you with a statement on that matter. (The statement requested was furnished the committee.) Mr. JOHNSON of West Virginia. Mr. Stettinius, if the Allies win, what do you think about the chances of getting a substantial return for the services that we are now rendering the United Kingdom and the other countries associated with us? Mr. STETTINIUS. I think there are excellent chances of working out a very satisfactory economic agreement. Mr. JOHNSON of West Virginia. And if we do not win, it does not make much difference whether we get anything back or not? Mr. STETTINIUS. That is right. But with the conferences that are taking place now between our Government and the British, I am hopeful that a very satisfactory agreement will be reached. Mr. JOHNSON of West Virginia. Following that up and speaking of these storage houses and the goods that we manufacture under the Lend-Lease Act and that are stored in this country, we retain title. to them, and as long as they remain here they are ours? Mr. STETTINIUS. Yes, sir. Mr. JOHNSON of West Virginia. They will not be shipped? Mr. JOHNSON of West Virginia. And they will be turned back to us when the war is over? Mr. STETTINIUS. That is right. Mr. JOHNSON of West Virginia. Now, in connection with these storage houses you do not want to have a bottleneck, but you want the thing to proceed along systematic lines? Mr. STETTINIUS. Yes, sir. More than that, it is a most discouraging thing to a workman, and he cannot see why it is that they have to work three shifts when he sees 3 acres full of material. Mr. JOHNSON of West Virginia. Now, across the water, how do you propose to procure locations beyond our shores for all these goods? Mr. YOUNG. We have men over there who are looking after that. Mr. JOHNSON of West Virginia. Then you will build the warehouses, and the material that we ship under the Lend-Lease Act, that is manufactured here, goes to those warehouses, and title to that material still remains in us as long as it is in storage there, until it is allocated? Mr. STETTINIUS. That is right. Mr. YOUNG. That is the way we would like to have all of it, but that is not so now. Mr. JOHNSON of West Virginia. So that if the war should come to an end, and this material should be stored over there, it would still be under our jurisriction and not distributed to Tom, Dick, and Harry to claim and own after this war is over? Mr. STETTINIUS. That is right. Mr. JOHNSON of West Virginia. And we would have a better opportunity to make a settlement by having the goods in our name, undistributed? Mr. STETTINIUS. That is right. Mr. LUDLOW. Mr. Stettinius, how many countries have applied for lend-lease aid? Mr. STETTINIUS. There are 36 countries that have officially declared, sir. Mr. LUDLOW. Could you put their names in the record? Mr. STETTINIUS. They are already here, sir, made available to you in our last report. Mr. LUDLOW. I wanted to ask you if you could give us an estimate of what percentage of the British requisitions have been met or are in process of being met. Mr. STETTINIUS. That is, of their requests? Mr. LUDLOW. Yes. Mr. STETTINIUS. Of course that is divided between military, naval, and maritime items. I think it would be difficult to put that in percentage. (Discussion off the record.) The CHAIRMAN. If there are no further questions, we thank you, Mr. Stettinius. APPENDIX A (Information and data furnished by the Department of Agriculture in response to the inquiry on pp. 137 and 146 of the hearings:) NOTE. It is extremely difficult to compute the amount of increase in the proposed $1,300,000,000 Budget which would be made necessary if parity prices were paid on all products. First of all, there are no parity prices for many of the products purchased, as for example processed commodities, fish products, naval stores, and vitamins. Most of the commodities purchased are not raw agricultural commodities but are processed materials for which there are no parity prices. For example, we buy evaporated milk, cheese, and dry-skim milk from processing plants; we do not purchase raw milk from the farmer. Similarly, we buy cured pork, canned pork, and lard from packing plants; we do not buy hogs. For dairy, poultry, and pork products, the payment of parity prices was assumed in the proposed Budget, as on January 15, 1942, prices on milk, eggs, and pork were all above parity. For the same reason, the Budget contemplates payment of parity prices on tobacco. For cotton, wheat, some fruits, and some vegetables, the January 15 price was somewhat below parity. If the Budget were based on parity prices, this would increase the amount for cotton from $90,670,000 to about $96,457,000. A similar increase might be required in the case of wheat and flour if parity prices were assumed. For fruits and vegetables it would be impossible to determine the exact amount of increase in the Budget in view of the processing charges entering into the prices paid. The fundamental fact is, however, that any budgetary figure based on payment of parity prices would be very misleading. If parity prices were paid for commodities which at any moment were below parity, this would involve either (1) payment of subsidy to a selected group who would be paid above the market price, or (2) extremely large purchases by the Government in order to support the entire market at the parity level. The amount which would be necessary under the latter alternative is not known, but it would probably be very large. Comparative maximum acceptance prices of lend-lease commodities (purchased by Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation) Comparative maximum acceptance prices of lend-lease commodities (purchased by Federal Surplus Commodities Corporation)-Continued |