of initiating the production of specified weapons of this type, and second, the desirability of any physical transfer of equipment, after production, or the provision to provide training.

With such safeguards, I am convinced that this $250 million will, in the course of the next 4 or 5 years, prove to be the most important $250 million in the defense portion of the Mutual Security Act.

One of our greatest assets in defense is and has been the productive and scientific genius of the free peoples. The objective of NATO defense planning, as of American defense planning, has not been one of matching man for man a potential army of aggression, but rather of making our forces as effective as possible through a combination of training and modern weapons. The special new weapons that are now beginning to enter production or are nearing the completion of development must be a part of that planning if we are to create, with a minimum cost, the most effective defensive shield. We are thus proposing to take at this time those steps that are appropriate that will make possible the sharing with our allies of the industrial and scientific advances that can make our people more safe from attack and our collective armed forces more secure and effective in combat.

Smaller amounts are involved in the mutual development and technical progress programs, approximately $315 million for economic aid directed toward development and about $140 million for technical cooperation. Of the $315 million, $30 million represents a request for an authorization, but not at this time for an appropriation, to cover anticipated contributions to UNWRA, the United Nations agency for the relief and resettlement of Arab refugess. These several amounts, totaling $455 million, are predominantly for India and Pakistan, for Southeast Asia, for the Near East, and for Latin America and Africa. These amounts are much less than the direct defense portions contained in the proposal, but the programs which they cover may well prove to be the most important of all in their ultimate long-term effect.

India has a well-conceived plan for long-term development now under way. I know some Members of Congress have recently been there. Moderate assistance for 3 years should be anticipated, but only 1 year is included in the 1954 fiscal-year program.

The multilateral organizations whose work advances the broad security and humanitarian objectives of the mutual security program together require a little more than $100 million. This amount includes funds for our proposed contributions to the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, commonly called UNICEF, United Nations Technical Assistance (UNTA), the Organization of the American States (OAS), the United Nations Korean Reconstruction agency (UNKRA), and the Intergovernmental Committee for European Migration (ICEM). Our support of these programs is in furtherance of President Eisenhower's inaugural statement that "respecting the United Nations as the living sign of all people's hope for peace, we shall strive to make it not merely an eloquent symbol but an effective force." Because of the great humanitarian and economic importance of these international programs to the free world, we must continue to assume leadership in making them succeed.

Of these 5 multilateral undertakings, 3 are integral parts of the U. N. system, 1 is solely inter-American, and 1 is organizationally outside of the U. N. framework. The total effort and accomplishments

of all of these, however, have come to be regarded by less fortunate people everywhere, as concrete evidence that the leading free nations are willing to back expressions of concern and interest with tangible deeds.

I realize that some will sincerely feel that this proposed program cuts too deeply and too sharply into the amount of the previously planned program. I realize that others will sincerely feel that even more drastic reductions should now be made.

It is our considered conclusion after careful study that the vital objectives of our country in the mutual security program can be attained through this reduced amount if wisely used in the new program. It is also our considered conclusion that these recommended amounts are urgently needed in the interests of the safety and security of our country.

It is our pledge that these funds will be administered with extreme care and that throughout the year every opportunity will be seized for further savings when they can be made without prejudice to our country's objectives. As I have also stated we expect to make moderate but important savings in the 1953 program which is now in the last months of its fiscal year. These savings will be reported to the committees later, and can be credited against the amount now requested for the new program.

This new mutual security program in President Eisenhower's administration will have these characteristics:

1. Longer range planning and programing with open discussion of future requirements, subject always to the annual decisions and reviews of Congress.

2. Earlier attainment of strong defense capabilities through more rapid deliveries of critical items and more thorough training of forces in being.

3. Constant insistence on the importance of economic stability and an expanding gross national product among the free nations as the essential foundations for sound defense.

4. Accelerated planning for the use of new weapons for the defense of the free nations against threatening totalitarian thrusts.

5. Full enlistment of the cooperating defensive strength of all nations who oppose the Soviet Communist power.

6. Expanded use of the production capacity of Europe through a combination of United States and multination orders which will permit efficient mass production of NATO arms and the consequent establishment of a better production base in Europe.

7. Steady development of the natural resources and the people's capabilities in the less advanced areas of the free nations.

8. Gradual expansion of fair and profitable trade between the free countries.

9. Broader cooperation with voluntary organizations engaged in similar activities with emphasis on the people-to-people relationship. 10. Increased reliance upon private capital for all phases of economic accomplishment.

11. Alertness and willingness to adjust to any new conditions, in accordance with the President's April 16 address.

In other words, we seek a rapid, surefooted climb with our partners to a high plateau of secure preparedness, and then, shoulder-to

shoulder, an advance along that plateau toward peace and better living for ourselves and for others.

Mr. Chairman, without minimizing the difficulties and obstacles we face, I do have confidence that this mutual security program can be carried through successfully.

This confidence is rooted in my deep and abiding faith in the freedom and the inherent dignity of men.

It is strengthened by my regard and appreciation for the superb abilities and excellent teamwork of the officials of the administration upon whom so much of this program depends. I refer to the Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles; the Secretary of Defense, Charles Wilson; the Secretary of the Treasury, George Humphrey; and the Director of the Bureau of the Budget, Joseph Dodge.

My confidence is fortified further by my knowledge of the high caliber and the devotion to duty of the members of the uniformed services of our country, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines, upon whom so much of our mutual security work depends.

It is fed by my conviction of the truly great qualities of the people, and of the leadership, of the other countries with whom we work in the mutual security program.

Regardless of the cynics, the defeatists, the timid souls, and the shortsighted ones, let us move forward with faith and determination, with realism and sound planning. Thus will we, in the United States of America, be worthy of our national power and responsibility, and of our opportunity in 1953, under the leadership of President Eisenhower.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

Chairman WILEY. Thank you, Mr. Harold E. Stassen, Director for Mutual Security.

We shall now hear from the Honorable Charles E. Wilson, Secretary of Defense. We are glad to see you, sir. If you will, you may carry on in your own way.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. WILSON, SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE

Secretary WILSON. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, late yesterday afternoon I returned from 3 weeks in Europe. Both before and after the NATO meeting in Paris, I visited many of our Army, Navy, and Air Force units and installations in England, France, Germany (including Berlin), Austria, Italy, and North Africa. During various parts of the trip I was accompanied by Secretary of the Army Stevens, Secretary of the Navy Anderson, Assistant Secretary of Defense Nash, and General Bradley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

We have had the benefit of extensive discussions with the commanders of our United States forces in the European theater and with most of the United States military officers who are holding top NATO commands, including General Ridgway, General Gruenther, General Norstad, and Admiral Carney. We visited some of our Air Force bases in England and North Africa, as well as several of the bases in France and Germany where United States Air Force units are presently deployed. We went to a number of our headquarters and

command posts in Western Germany, Berlin, and Austria. We spent the better part of 2 days with the Sixth Fleet in their regular operations in the Mediterranean.

I was favorably impressed with the morale of our forces in all three services, and by the leadership of their commanders. It was a matter of real pride and satisfaction for me to see the ways in which our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen are conducting themselves in the performance of a task which is without precedent in world history-the presence of the military forces of one friendly country in the territory of another in times of peace-peace at least in those countries. Our military men abroad must be, each one of them, salesmen of American policy and good will. They recognize this and progress is being made in establishing and maintaining confidence, cooperation and good will between our country and our allies.

Here in Washington we get immersed in the details of administration and of planning what we are going to do. To measure the progress we are making, and what we are getting for the money we are spending is difficult so far away from the scene of activity. That is why it is good to get out in the field and see there the results of our efforts here at home. It is essential that we physically audit the results of our policies, planning, and expenditures. This is what we have been doing. It cannot be done by more paperwork in the Pentagon.

The principal mission of our forces in Europe is to directly and indirectly support the efforts of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in maintaining our mutual freedom. While there is much still to be done, progress has been made not only in a military sense but in an economic and political sense as well.

There was not time to visit the forces of any of our NATO allies, but I did have the advantage of meeting a number of their defense ministers and enjoyed the benefit of having fairly extensive discussions with them, notably the Defense Ministers of the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Belgium, and the Netherlands. Their understanding of the problems that lie before them and their determination to find solutions for these problems was impressive and encouraging. It was especially interesting to see the unanimity of their conviction that nothing could be derived from the developments of recent months in the U. S. S. R. which would justify any lessening of our common NATO effort to build the strength and security of the North Atlantic Community. This, as a matter of fact, was the view not of the defense ministers alone, but was the conviction of the entire NATO Council, including the foreign ministers and the finance ministers as well

The review of the military situation in the NATO meeting in Paris, the informal discussions which I had with defense ministers and military leaders of other nations, and my conversations with our own United States commanders, and inspection of the installations on which United States forces are presently deployed, have all led me to the following conclusions:

(a) We have come quite a long way toward the goal of attaining security for the North Atlantic Community;

(b) We still have a long way to go, measured in terms of military, economic, and political strength;

33064-53-11

(c) To date no justification has yet appeared to warrant any belief that the danger has disappeared or even appreciably lessened; (d) We have now reached a posture of defense in NATO where we can determine the rate of further improvement in our military forces in the light of the economic capabilities of NATO nations to sustain a continued defense effort and state of preparedness over an indefinite period of years;

(e) Problems outside the NATO area, particularly in the Pacific where two hot wars are now going on, require individual treatment although they are essentially an important part of the defense of the free world.

When we think our current rate of progress leaves much to be desired, it is useful to look back and see how far we have come. This was my first visit to Europe since 1948 when I went over as a member of the Humphrey committee, headed by the present Secretary of the Treasury. The committee was set up, as required by Congress in connection with the Economic Recovery Act, with duties to appraise whether the plants in Germany which had been listed for reparations, would contribute more to the recovery of Western Europe if allowed to remain where they were instead of being dismantled and shipped elsewhere. The effective work of this committee at that time gave me insight into the military and economic problems then existing in Western Europe.

The situation in the countries I visited then was quite different from what I found it to be on my present trip. Then the efforts of the United States to develop a postwar policy that would lift a war-torn and discouraged Western Europe from her knees, lest Europe fall an easy prey to the westward sweep of Soviet communism, were just getting under way. Today, even the most casual visitor to Europe can see that progress is being made. Perhaps it is too much to say that Western Europe has been permanently rescued from communism. But I will say that the danger in which she stood in 1948-49 has now been reduced to a comforting degree.

Everywhere I went on my recent trip, there were striking evidences of people well fed, well clothed, and with work to do. The degree of intensity of effort varied, of course, from country to country, but everywhere one saw new construction and industrial and agricultural activity on all sides.

On the side of military strength, the picture of progress in the last 3 years, since NATO first got really under way, gives cause for satisfaction. In 1950, Western Europe's military forces were desperately inadequate. Moreover, the actual strength of these forces, in terms of real combat effectiveness, was much less than the figures themselves would indicate. Much of the existing equipment was worn out and obsolete; training of the troops was inadequate; and there was no organization of the several national contingents into a balanced and coordinated partnership effort.

Today, through the combined efforts of all member nations, we now have an integrated, effective combat structure. In those units which were in existence when NATO first began, critical equipment deficiencies have been eliminated and the effectiveness of the training has been greatly improved. A substantial number of additional units have been raised and are being continually strengthened and improved. Just over a year ago at Lisbon the member nations set