Mr. RICHARDS. I am talking about the planes in this $300 million which is the contribution of the United States arising out of this agreement. Mr. STASSEN. There are two agreements. The one on the airplanes themselves is within our present funds and the one on the airfields is not within our present funds. Mr. RICHARDS. That is what I wanted to know. Infrastructure is not, but the planes themselves are. Mr. STASSEN. Yes. Mr. RICHARDS. You have money to do that? Mr. STASSEN. That is right. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Smith Mr. SMITH. Mr. Stassen, have we contracted for the purchase of 225 Mysteres from the French, that you know of? Mr. STASSEN. The Mystere-4's, yes. We have contracted to pay the French $86 million for Mystere-4 planes. These are the modern swept-back winged Mystere-4's. Mr. SMITH. We saw some of them several weeks ago and the General told us that we had contracted for the purchase of 225 Mystere-4's from the French. Mr. STASSEN. That undoubtedly is the number, 225. Mr. SMITH. What kind of delivery date do we have on those? Mr. STASSEN. A delivery date that the Air Force said was satisfactory. It projects out into the future. Mr. SMITH. I got the impression that it was a slow operation. Mr. STASSEN. It has been too slow. One of the reasons has been this confusion about the two different models. To some extent the French wanted to sell us the Mystere-2 which our Air Force said they did not want to buy. Now we have settled on the one General Norstad said he wants, and we have the contract settled. Mr. SMITH. When you speak of long-term contracts, what do you mean by that in terms of years? Mr. STASSEN. Three years. Mr. SMITH. Can you give us some idea of what the complete program will call for as you present it next week, or do you want to wait on that? Mr. STASSEN. I would rather we come up on the fifth of May with the complete program because some of the final decisions in the executive branch are being made right in these days. Mr. SMITH. Will we have the benefit of your study group that went abroad, here, the experts, at that time? Mr. STASSEN. You will have that before that. You will have most of those reports before this week is over. Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Merrow. Mr. MERROW. Governor, do you feel that these various countries in NATO are making progress in Europe, I should say, toward unification and integration, that is fairly satisfactory? Mr. STASSEN. I would wish that it was more rapid than it is. There has been some substantial progress like in the Coal and Steel Au thority. There is the beginning of a study of agricultural integration that might be quite important to the living standards of the people. The European Defense Community is not moving as rapidly as I would hope it would, and the European Political Community is in a stage of study of various constitutional drafts. Mr. MERROW. When we wrote the Mutual Security Act last year we stated that the MSA Director should insure that no country get funds under this act unless it takes decisive action to mobilize its resources in accordance with the plans. Do you find an acceleration of progress toward that? Mr. STASSEN. Yes. I also think you have an acceleration of the people's views. Of course there is nothing more difficult to do than to give a judgment of what the people are thinking about, whether it is in our own country or in another. But I feel that the little signs in the wind indicate that the people of Europe are moving more and more in their opinion toward the integration of Europe. One of the most significant things on that point, I feel, and giving all the discounts that you must give as to what a municipal election means, was the fact that in this recent municipal election in France, the De Gaullists, who had been very firmly against the pulling together of Europe into the EDC, lost ground very sharply. I would be the first to say that there may be other reasons for this development but to the extent to which you can interpret this election, you find the Communists with their very solid approach losing ground slightly in the rural sections and the small towns, holding their ground in the middlesized towns, and coming up with 100 percent of their former votes in Paris, and then you find the De Gaullists losing very sharply and those parties in the center, who are very much committed to European integration, gaining. These results tend to confirm a feeling you get from various European countries that the move toward integration of Europe is gaining ground both in parliaments and among the people, but very, very slowly. Mr. MERROW. You think by constant pressure from us that we can perhaps step that up? Mr. STASSEN. There is always a question of judgment as to how much it is a matter of pressure, how much a matter of persuasion, and how much a matter of their own independent conviction. That, of course, is the problem in the final instance. The Secretary of State and the President take the effective leadership, and we fit in with the policy they lay down. I believe they have handled it in these last 3 months just right. Mr. MERROW. You spoke of military conditioning of the planes. That means they must have military approval. If they do not get that, what then? Mr. STASSEN. Then they are not paid for. Mr. MERROW. If this is not approved, then we do not pay for them? Mr. STASSEN. That is right. Mr. MERROW. Thank you. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Carnahan Mr. CARNAHAN. In your second point, the 3-year program for infrastructure, you mentioned that this 3-year program included the fourth and fifth slices. Now what are we to understand is meant by a slice of the 3-year program? Mr. STASSEN. That was only to relate it back to the jargon that has been used in the past. As to this total overall program of building fields and so forth, they started in previous years to take a part, or as it was called, a "slice"-one slice at a time. Last December they dealt with a part of the fourth slice. This action will finish the infrastructure program-in other words, will complete the last "slice." I was only referring back to this term because I know that some Members recall the former use of the "slice" jargon, to indicate that this will be the final step in completing the infrastructure program. Mr. CARNAHAN. Would the 3-year program complete the so-called infrastructure setup? Mr. STASSEN. That is right. Mr. CARNAHAN. In this construction, is a particular airfield completed before another is started, or progressing with an entire number of airfields at the same time? Mr. STASSEN. It is a stage-by-stage matter where some are completed, others are started, and some are part way along. It is a stageby-stage completion. Mr. CARNAHAN. In your fourth point you make the statement that the member nations have a better understanding of United States programs. In what sense do you mean that they have a better understanding of United States programs or intentions? Mr. STASSEN. Well, they have an understanding of what the executive branch is recommending as to a reduction of economic aid and as to the different characteristics of our Mutual Security Program which will be presented to Congress next week. They also understand that the entire new approach is then subject to the approval of Congress. As you probably know, ever since last November there have been rumors that are 3 miles apart as to what would be the Mutual Security Program under the new administration. Of course the finalizing of the program cannot come until Congress completes its action. We gave them a better understanding-the Secretary of State did, with my complete backing-as to the direction in which the executive branch was moving in these policies that would be presented to Congress. Mr. CARNAHAN. That is all at this time. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Fulton Mr. FULTON. Rather than questions, with the committee's consent, I would like to make some suggestions. I gather the time may be used either for that, or to get some views across. At this time, I would like to do some recommending for the bill that comes up. I believe that what we had seen in Greece when we were there was good that is a combining of the joint administration services for everything outside of the military. Secondly, I feel that in each country we should have a committee of all United States agencies involved in that particular country so that the heads can sit down on policy with the Ambassador as the chairman of the committee. Thirdly, I think there are too many United States economic personnel going around trying to tell countries what to do. I think in many countries there were an excess amount of so-called economic people. The new Minister of Coordination in Greece is very competent and I think we can go too far in telling other peoples what to do. The next is this: On Eisenhower's program for the admitting of 240,000 people into this country in 2 years, I do believe it is hardly possible to get it through this Congress. As you know, I come from Pittsburgh and we in Pittsburgh are very short of engineers. For example, the Rockwell Manufacturing Co. there has advertised full-page ads in 6 different cities for engineers, paying young fellows $440 a month to begin with, if they will simply start in with the company as engineers. Various companies are donating to colleges, $3,000 per student if they will convince the student to come with them. (Discussion off the record.) Mr. FULTON. It would have to be private recruiting but there could be a program set up so that these companies can get the opportunity to have these people. As a matter of fact, the Rockwell people now they have heard about it, are sending one of their personnel men to see about it. They will also send personnel people to Italy. I also feel Italy was a good place to secure unemployed people who could well be used in our program. That could well be an alternative if we could not get through the general bill for 240,000 persons. On refugees generally, I was up in Berlin and saw the refugees coming in and they are a fine group of people. Many of them are upper middle class, farmers, businessmen who are coming in as you know, at the rate of 1,500 to 3,000 people a day. Now under the Kersten amendment there has been $100 million set aside. Most everybody in the Congress except a couple of us had felt that the amendment was solely for forming military units. But the purpose of that $100 million is Either to form such persons into elements of military forces supporting the North Atlantic Treaty Organization "or for other purposes when it is similarly determined by the President that such assistance will contribute to the defense of the North Atlantic area and to the security of the United States." Note under that: Or for other purposes "when the President determines that they will contribute to the security of the United States." I believe we should go further and help these refugees get integrated into the West German economy. I visited one camp where there was almost 1,000 young men. It was the first time they had been away from their families. They were previously indoctrinated into Communist ideology and now nothing was being done for them other than giving them the barest necessities of food and shelter. My recommendation is that the refugee program be expanded. It is one of the best propaganda devices that we could have. And secondly that the young people have some other services given to them-education and indoctrination which they are not now getting. Thank you. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Zablocki Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Javits—————— Mr. JAVITS. Governor, there has been a good deal of talk about the balance which the new administration will change as between Europe and the Far East in terms of military assistance and perhaps in terms of economic and technical assistance as well. Can you give us any enlightenment on the fundamental balance based upon your recent explorations in Europe? Mr. STASSEN. Yes. I would say that from the standpoint of the Mutual Security Program, operating under the foreign-policy responsibilities of the Secretary of State and the leadership of the President, that it is not a matter of shifting, but of a realization that attention must be focused on the worldwide picture as a whole. This fact has to be constantly given attention and our support administered accordingly. That approach does lead to a recognition that there is a greater need for action in the Far East. It does lead to a need for greater attention to the Near East, and that will be manifest, as we present our specific program to you next week. That does not mean that we think that Europe is any less important than it has been, but it means that you cannot solve the problems of either Europe or communism, or protect the security of the United States, if you are not successful in all major areas of the world. Mr. JAVITS. Does that mean you are going to take one set figure and divide it differently or does it mean you are just giving more attention to those areas and you are still going to give Europe what you feel it needs in order to do the job that you think needs to be done there? The impression created, Governor, was of course that-say we had $6 billion for foreign aid, and instead of dividing it, giving western Europe $4 billion, this is going to be a totally new shift, that regardless of what western Europe needs, it is just going to get $2.5 billion, and the rest will have to go to other places, especially the Far East. Mr. STASSEN. As we have seen it and as we have worked it out, I believe it is right to say this to you at this time. If you took what the generals in various parts of the world said there ought to be in terms of military requirements, and if you took what the countries said that they needed in order to meet their own economic problems to obtain a balance of payments, to carry out their development programs and to fill their needs, and if you then added those requirements all together around the world, you would get a total that, if met, would result in inflationary pressures inside the United States and a budgetary burden that would have serious internal complications. Therefore, you have to analyze back with your economic and Treasury people inside the United States as to the whole United States budget, and analyze back the defense portion to determine what can be done worldwide in the Mutual Security Program. You come out with a lower figure which you then again have to relate to your worldwide objectives and responsibilities for the national security of the United States. That very far-reaching process that has been going on during these first 3 months of the administration. The best judgment that we have as a result of that process is what will come to you next week. Mr. JAVITS. I have just one other question, Mr. Chairman. In the point 4 program, Governor, is anything being done in an active way to have American business tie right into the point 4 |