ple will use. Anything that is ascribable to a nation's forces, they have to finance for themselves.

But because General Ridgway would fight his planes off all the fields-you cannot say that the fields in France should all be financed by France, because we have a lot of United States forces on those fields, now in peacetime deployment-if you can call these perilous times, peacetimes but in times of war he will have to fight those planes on and off the fields no matter who may be on them in noncombat status. He has to push them around as operational requirements call for.

The same thing is true with regard to communications, obviously. That belongs to the whole NATO force and not just to that country where they happen to be located.

Mr. VORYS. For instance, on infrastructure, I have in mind a story an Air Force officer told me about a field in Bordeaux where the United States Air Force was encamped on one side of the field and there were empty French barracks on the other side of the field.

Mr. NASH. I saw that. I think we got those boys out of there before the cold weather came.

Mr. VORYS. Why were they not in that empty French barrack? Mr. NASH. Because they were supposed to be moved out of there very fast.

Some of those French barracks go back to the days of Napoleon. They used to be stables in those days, and I think some of our boys would prefer to sleep in a tent than some of those smelly, unsanitary places.

I would much prefer some of the winterized tents to some of these old, middle-aged barracks.

Mr. SMITH. Are there any further questions?

Mr. CARNAHAN. I have no further questions.

Mr. PROUTY. I would like to ask one question, Mr. Chairman. (Discussion off the record.)

Mr. VORYS. If nobody has a question, I want to make an observation. When you start off your history of this thing with March 17, 1948, in the future you might add this, as to who started this concept. In this committee an additional title for foreign assistance was prepared by our staff and by the State Department providing military aid to Europe on the basis that there was very little security to be accomplished with the Marshall plan. Some of us thought there was no sense in having an economic buildup to create a richer prize for the Communists to take.

On the morning of March 17, 1948, word came to this committee that President Truman was coming to the committee room immediately after his speech on the floor, we understood to discuss this proposed title which was drafted and copies of it are here available. And so the committee rushed up here to the committee room immediately after the President finished his speech and we were sitting here waiting for the President and some newspaperman came by and said, "Is the committee having a meeting now?" Somebody leaked it to him and said, "Yes, the President is coming up here right now." This newspaperman said, "Well, that's a funny thing, I saw him go out the back door of the Capitol 20 minutes ago.'

Now that is the end of the story. Those are facts that can all be corroborated by committee records and staff records.

I have repeatedly called the attention of the House to these facts that I have just mentioned.

So, on the general concept, it did not start with the Vandenberg resolution as far as Congress is concerned. It started with a proposed title to be placed in the Marshall plan and communicated to the executive branch and with that much of a communication back.

I did not know whether you knew that.

Mr. NASH. No, sir, I never knew that.

Mr. VORYS. Your story about NATO starts in 1950 or 1951. With this committee, NATO starts in the fall of 1949, when we were told what NATO was going to do and what our part of it was going to be. Now it has changed so very much since then-the statements as to what we were to do and what others were to do has changed so much and so often since then that some of us wonder. We do not think we are confused. We think those who have been talking to us are confused.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. NASH. No, sir, that is not the answer to that and I am not going to give you the answer to that. I am going to let General Ridgway come before you and this committee and tell you what he can do with the force he has and expects to have by the end of 1953; how much of a job he thinks he can do with all of the things at his command.

Now please, in comparing the relative strengths of air power, do not forget the air power that the United States has in the event a conflict in Europe comes into play. Do not forget the accomplishment of atomic power that is possible now, in an area that we feel quite confident at the present time the United States has a substantial margin of superiority.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. NASH. I tried to be a little more subtle about it in kicking this. statement off when I ascribed it in large part to Senator Vandenberg. The fact of the matter is that Senator Vandenberg-and on the basis of the additional history you have given us today-this committee is in large measure the father of the program and General Eisenhower in his capacity as the first Supreme Commander in Europe, gave it the strength to get up off the ground and begin.

I say in conclusion that in terms of 2 years-which is all that it is in the time when he went to Europe-only 2 years-is something that we do not have to be pessimistic about.

Mr. VORYS. Is it your purpose to go into offshore procurement?
Mr. SMITH. We had not planned to today, no.

Mr. NASH. I will be glad to come back and talk to you about it. Mr. VORYS. Are there any contracts now in force for procurement of ammunition in Europe?

Mr. NASH. Yes, sir. $750 million. I should qualify that this way: $200 million were placed in the way of ammunition contracts in Europe last year, 1952. Approximately $550 million of contracts have been, and are now being placed in Europe.

Mr. VORYS. Not "are now being."

Mr. NASH. Let me tell you what that means.

Mr. VORYS. I am allergic to "obligations."

Mr. NASH. $300 million of authorization was placed in the hands of our Army procurement officers in December. They put out com

petitive bids for all the NATO countries over there. It took 60 days for those bids to come in and be analyzed. General MacMorland came back here with the results of those bids about 3 weeks ago and we approved his going back to Europe to place contracts and we hope he has those contracts pretty well placed by now.

Mr.VORYS. Does that include the 200 that you have already placed? Mr. NASH. No, it would be in addition, making a total of $750 million. $200 million has been in process from 6 to 8 months.

Mr. VORYS. When you say, "in process" does that indicate there has been any money spent?

Mr. NASH. There has been some money spent.

Mr. VORYS. In other words, you have a firm contract with a known person?

Mr. NASH. We have gotten deliveries. We have, therefore, spent money. But I want to say on that-because you will probably want a lot more details on it when I come back to give you the whole offshore procurement program-it takes some time for these countries abroad to get into production and the amount of actual deliveries to date, I would not say were enormous.

Mr. SMITH. I might say to the committee that that problem that Mr. Vorys has just mentioned is one of our four points that we are considering.

We have had NATO objectives, the offshore procurement, and also the question of what they are doing in Europe to produce for the program. We can have that information at a later date.

I think that is all then, thank you, Mr. Secretary.

(Whereupon, at 12: 10 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned to reconvene at the call of the chairman.)

MUTUAL SECURITY ACT EXTENSION

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 1953

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to call, in room G-3, United States Capitol, at 2:30 p. m., Hon. Robert B. Chiperfield, chairman, presiding.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. The committee will come to order.

We have before us this afternoon, the Honorable Harold E. Stassen, Director for Mutual Security and the Honorable Livingston T. Merchant, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs.

Mr. Stassen, we will be glad to have you proceed in any way you wish. We are glad to have you back.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD E. STASSEN, DIRECTOR, MUTUAL SECURITY

Mr. STASSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity of meeting with you and I would like to consult with you and discuss with you a bit this afternoon, the questions of European organizations, European economic integration, and I am pleased that the chairman agreed that Mr. Livingston T. Merchant, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, who has been the Deputy for Political Affairs in General Draper's office in Paris, could be here and he will follow through on certain aspects of the EDC situation and certain things on the political side as related to the economic side.

We are emphasizing through the Mutual Security organization that we are the operating agency in the economic field taking our foreign policy guidance from the Secretary of State and our defense policy guidance from the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff and are operating in a coordinated way to implement those policies.

It is in both that spirit as well as in our actual conduct of our offices that we appear before you here jointly.

I am pleased to report in the first instance to the committee, that there has just been concluded in Paris what I would consider to be a highly successful meeting of the Organization for European Economic Cooperation. This OEEC session has resulted in what we consider to be very constructive results for the overall objectives of our country and of the free nations.

We are aware that the combined economic strength of the free nations is both the underpinning for the progress of the peoples and the military defensive strength.