MUTUAL SECURITY ACT EXTENSION

AFTERNOON SESSION

The committee met in executive session, pursuant to call, in room G-3, United States Capitol, at 3: 10 p. m., Hon. Robert B. Chiperfield (chairman) presiding.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Stassen has indicated that he has no further statement, but he would be glad to answer questions.

Mr. Vorys, do you want to start in?

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD E. STASSEN, DIRECTOR FOR

MUTUAL SECURITY

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Stassen, we were interested in your statement of yesterday.

When you were up here informally last week we were told we would receive the reports of the evaluation teams and we have not gotten them.

I understood we were to get them by last Friday. I have seen three of them and I haven't seen any more and I haven't seen any overall report.

How soon are we to get those?

Mr. STASSEN. I believe there are more of them coming up today, and my teams will all be in here tomorrow to go over the report and to learn about what we have done about the reports; so you ought to get them all quite promptly.

I think you have, as of last Friday, France, Germany, and Greece. Mr. VORYS. By "quite promptly," what would you have in mind? Mr. STASSEN. I would think that you ought to have them all by Monday.

Mr. VORYS. Now, as I understand, you have no recommendations with reference to the organization or administration of the Mutual Security Program involved in this legislation at all, with one possible slight exception. Isn't that correct?

Mr. STASSEN. That is correct.

Mr. VORYS. On January 31, 1953, I understand that you had a total of 52,199—you didn't, but your agency had 52,199 personnel, and on January 31, 1952, you had 46,078. That is about 6,121 more this year. On the other hand, as I understand it, we have received information that reductions in certain categories added up to 1,046, a 9.4 percent reduction in certain strength in certain categories, in compliance with the so-called Ribicoff amendment. So during a period which was not identified by the report I have here, 1,046 went off, but there was a total gain of 6,121.

Under the proposals that you have before us here—well, there is $36 million, I think, for administration-what do you expect your employees to be, say, January 1, 1954?

33064-53- -13

187

Mr. STASSEN. It will be considerably less. I would hesitate to put an exact figure on it.

The situation has been this: The Paris, France, MSA office is now in the process of carrying out an order to come down to less than half of its previous size, that is, the size when I took office, in personnel.

The Special Representative, Europe, office, is in the process of a reorganization that will, I feel, bring that down to half the size.

Nearly every European country mission is on its way down in size, but it is not possible right now to say what that total will be because it will also be affected by such things as what the Congress decides to do in the Benton-Moody program, which affects part of our personnel, and what it is decided in the case of information services.

It would be anticipated from some of the discussions that certain informational responsibilities would leave MSA and be placed elsewhere for more effective handling.

However, I would say this, that it is our established policy, which my entire staff knows, that we will administer this program with the smallest possible number of the most competent attainable employees overseas, because of our conviction that large numbers tend to defeat our very objectives in this matter of Americans overseas.

Mr. VORYS. Now, one more question. While you are away, who will be speaking for you?

Mr. STASSEN. The Acting Director will be Mr. William Rand, who is the former president of Monsanto Chemical Co., a former overseer at Harvard, and a man who I checked up on very exhaustively before I appointed him.

I am convinced that he has an exceptional grasp of world economic and defense problems and has extraordinary executive ability to follow through in the kind of administration that I feel we should have in President Eisenhower's Mutual Security Program.

He will further be supported. My other deputies and major assistants are these:

Mr. C. Tyler Wood, who has been in the program a number of years. He is the deputy in charge of congressional liaison.

Dr. D. A. FitzGerald, who is a man of many years experience as an economist and who served extensively with President Hoover in his special food surveys and who has had experience in MSA. I have made him deputy in charge of operations.

Mr. Robert Matteson, who is exceptionally good, I feel, in research and analysis and who was with me at the university, is my assistant in charge of research assistance and reports.

Mr. John Ohly, who had experience in the Department of Defense under Mr. Forrestal and in other departments, is my deputy in charge of programing.

Then, of course, there will be officials from the Department of Defense who are concerned, and the Department of State, who will further be involved.

Mr. VORYS. But the ones who will be speaking for you, as I understand, will be Mr. Wood and Dr. FitzGerald. Will we have Mr. Matteson and Mr. Ohly here?

Mr. STASSEN. They are available, as are any of our staff if you get into particular countries or statistical situations.

Mr. VORYS. Thank you very much.

Mr. STASSEN. Mr. Rand will be in charge in any question of responsibility.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Richards.

Mr. RICHARDS. Has Mr. Rand been to Europe to look over this thing firsthand, as you have been?

Mr. STASSEN. Not since he has been appointed, but he has traveled a great deal in past years and knows a great deal about it.

Mr. RICHARDS. Has he made a study of this particular setup over there or has he come in to just help you administer the thing, no matter what it is? Does he know anything about the mechanics of the operation?

Mr. STASSEN. I have found that he is learning very rapidly and that his judgment appears to be very good.

Of course, as you realize, in a change of administration and as sometimes by the decision of our people, it is then necessary for new men to become familiar with the program. That is the process that we are in right now.

Mr. RICHARDS. The thing that is worrying me more than anything else is that right here at the inception of these hearings you are going to be away and you know more about this thing-the administration angle of it-than anyone else. Your absence during the next few weeks will be felt.

Mr. STASSEN. That is a very good point, and I have thought of it. very carefully.

The Near East and south Asia picture is of tremendous significance in what we are trying to accomplish in the Mutual Security Program. I wish we could have that age-old wish of being in two places at one time because I would like to be with the committee during these next weeks, and yet it is also clear that the Near East and south Asia picture insofar as the objectives of mutual security are concerned, needs conferences there.

I believe that I could have such confidence in the background of the experience of this committee and of the Senate committee that I would be certain that they will use good judgment in my absence, along with my able staff, and that I can better depend on that than I can leave uncovered my responsibility right now in the Near East and in south Asia.

It is a matter of judgment as to where it is most important for the mutual security objectives of the country that I should be at that particular time.

Mr. RICHARDS. And you don't carry Aladdin's lamp around with you to allow you to be in two places at one time?

Mr. STASSEN. Unfortunately not.

Mr. RICHARDS. I am sorry you can't be here. You will probably be back in a month?

Mr. STASSEN. In 20 days.

Mr. RICHARDS. Now, I want to ask you about this bill, about the form of this bill.

We have been trying around here for a good many years-I know we did last year and the year before-to get a composite foreign-aid bill and to stop the custom of each year writing important foreign-aid legislation by just amending preexisting legislation. The result has been that when the bill reached the floor it was very confusing to Members.

Now, we have here another amendment to the amendment to the amendment, and so forth.

It was my understanding last year that this year we would have a composite, clean bill but it's just the same old story-"we haven't got time."

I happen to know that the committee staff began a study of this thing last fall and earlier this year conferred with State Department specialists and also with the Mutual Security Administration, and came up with a good, clean bill satisfactory to all, I thought. The bill was complete in everything but figures as to money needed. That was to be left to the new administration. I thought it would be presented to the committee in that form this year. That has not been done and confusion has been added to the amendment approach by arranging the titles on a category basis rather than on a regional basis as heretofore.

Mr. STASSEN. That is correct.

Mr. RICHARDS. That confuses the thing still further. All the time we are getting farther and farther away from a clean-cut, composite mutual security program bill.

It would have taken a Philadelphia lawyer to fully understand the bill last year. This year, it will take a New York lawyer such as Mr. Roosevelt or Mr. Javits to figure it out.

Mr. STASSEN. I think that it was not possible in the first months of the new administration to have an entirely new bill. I feel that the best prospect of an entirely new approach would be during the next session of the present Congress.

In other words, you now have an entire congressional group that are elected for 2 years, and you have a new administration, so that I feel that the next year presents the best prospect of doing what you have correctly stated is a desirable step.

Mr. RICHARDS. You think that the job should be done?

Mr. STASSEN. I feel that it is preferable that you should, at a stage such as this, bring forward an entirely new piece of legislation that builds upon all the experience that you have had.

Mr. RICHARDS. Then don't you think it would be better to simplify the process when we come to it by leaving this legislation on a regional basis this year like it was last year, instead of a category basis?

Mr. STASSEN. The main reason is that this category approach really reflects President Eisenhower's new policy in that respect.

In other words, it places emphasis, to a greater degree than ever before, on the worldwide interrelationships involved in our security problems versus the Soviet Union.

In other words, the events occurring right now in the Far East are recognized to have, as they do have, such an intimate effect on the national security of the United States and on the European affairs that it is felt that this approach better reflects President Eisenhower's policies and new program.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, I don't think this is a new program. This is the same old program.

Mr. STASSEN. Something new and something old, and combined into something we feel is very desirable and essential to the security of the United States. That is what it really is.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well, you put some more clothes on the baby, a petticoat and things like that, but it looks to me like the same old baby. Mr. STASSEN. I think I should show you these two charts here. We have them on the functional and geographic breakdown.

(A chart was shown entitled "The 1954 Mutual Security Program," as follows:)