Mr. VORYS. That is certainly a good outline, Mr. Stassen.

On the first matter, the offshore participation in jet-aircraft procurement, you mentioned that the United States will own specified planes in the program.

Then, I did not know whether I understood you correctly, that as to the total delivery at 1956, that the United States could use any or all of the aircraft produced?

Was that two different statements?

Mr. STASSEN. The aircraft that are produced for our share, our $280 million total, we will own as they come off the line.

Now we have in mind a requirement for those airplanes for NATO squadrons, as I indicated, but we are not bound to deliver those aircraft to anyone until we have reached a decision to do so after they are delivered to us from the factory.

Mr. VORYS. You did not mean that the United States could use all of the aircraft produced for the $559 million?

Mr. STASSEN. No. The other countries are committed to use their share for NATO, but they are not committed to turn them over to the United States.

In other words, they turn over to the United States only that portion represented by our approximately 50 percent participation in the total.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. VORYS. I think I have taken my time.
Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Richards.

Mr. RICHARDS. The generals are not very bashful about asking for a lot of divisions, ammunition, and equipment. They like to have as much as they can get; do they not?

Mr. STASSEN. That is right. Any general that you find anywhere, if you ask what his requirements are to carry out his mission, will set you an amount of forces that would prove, in total, to be beyond the capabilities of any country that is involved. Then you have to go through a process in which you determine how far you can go toward reaching the general's wish for requirements and still keep your country from going broke.

The civilian side of the Government has to take the risks-the risks that are involved in having a force that is very substantial, but not up to the optimum that the military asks for in order to keep the civilian economy in its proper shape. That is the process that you are in now in NATO-of determining between what the military would say was the force that they could be certain would defeat the Soviet in the center of Europe, if they should attack, as compared to a force that you can reach and still have the countries with an economy behind those forces that can hold them up and sustain them.

Mr. RICHARDS. Well now, Governor, there is $700 million, plus, that you have agreed on for this 3-year plan, and there is about $100 million a year to be our contribution.

That agreement of course depended on what the different parliaments decided to do about that.

Mr. STASSEN. That is right. We put that qualification right in the agreement, that the agreement was subject to the parliaments of the countries.

Mr. RICHARDS. Do you have money now, or do you propose to get that?

Mr. STASSEN. That will be in our program that comes before you this year.

Mr. RICHARDS. Now in the program for the first year, you will have to get agreements, let contracts and all that.

When do you think you will get the use of those items, following commitment of funds?

Mr. STASSEN. Some of them, 1 year, some 2 years, and some 3 years. The construction will move forward step by step.

Mr. RICHARDS. Of course, you understand the philosophy here in Congress and you are right up against it regardless of the kind of program you bring up here.

You have money now and as long as you have money in the Treasury to carry these things out, you are all right and do not need any more money. But that is an illustration of what the pipeline really is and how long it takes to get the stuff on the line after you have ordered it. Suppose you say, "No; we will only give you 1 year here. We will give you $100 million, or half of what you ask this year to carry out this tentative agreement.'

Then you have the proposition where the top lines will be chopped off without some of that money and you will have to determine whether the investment you have over there is good.

Was this agreement made with the 100-percent endorsement of our military people?

Is this product a good product to do the job that other plans would do?

Mr. STASSEN. It was not only recommended by our military, but it was conditioned on the requirement that each specific project within the 3 years would have to have a military O. K. before it came up to us for payment. We have not only gotten military approval on the present outline of the 3-year plan, but we have a condition in it that there must be the military approval on the step-by-step implementation.

Mr. RICHARDS. Do you think it will cost the United States more money to provide the items offshore than to get them here? I am talking now about the planes.

Mr. STASSEN. It will cost us less under this transaction than it would to get them here.

Mr. MORANO. Will the gentleman yield at that point, please?
Mr. RICHARDS. Yes.

Mr. MORANO. As I understand it, the plane appropriation has already been approved and granted. We have already given them money for that, $559 million for the airplanes.

Mr. STASSEN. That is right.

Mr. RICHARDS. Not for this contribution that the Governor is talking about now.

Mr. STASSEN. Not for the infrastructure.

Mr. MORANO. Of course, those things mean airfields in other countries.

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. Battle-
Mr. BATTLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have no questions at this time.

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