(The then following remarks were not reported.)

Mr. VORYS. We had a new status summary of the Mutual Security program given us this morning as of March 31, 1953.

For military assistance, out of total available for obligation, of $15.9 billion, $6,041 million had been spent and $9,868.8 million was unexpended as of March 31.

Now, is it not true that out of the programs that are set up against that unexpended balance, you can take care of everything that would be required for NATO and EDC for the coming year?

General BRADLEY. No, sir.

Did you say for the coming year?

Mr. VORYS. For the coming year.

General BRADLEY. Well, probably but you must remember that this unexpended part is to pay for contracts which we have let and equipment which will come off this year, a lot of it.

Now what we are asking for this year probably would not be delivered until next year, so your question has that angle to it.

Now, you might be able to support these units that are coming along this year, but you would not have a thing to give to the units next year and the year after when this equipment that we are going to buy out of what we are asking here for, was then being delivered, you see.

Mr. VORYS. My point is that if you spent as you did in 1953, to date, $2,733,600,688 this year, and out of total expenditures of $6 billion, and you have substantially met the Lisbon goals for 1952, then there are not any conceivable goals for 1953, and for the next year, that cannot be met out of money that has already been appropriated.

My purpose in wanting to get this answer is so that, for one thing, we can assure our European friends and others, that there is plenty on hand in the executive departments already provided by Congress to take care of anything they will commit themselves to do for at least

General BRADLEY. No, sir; not completely.

Mr. VORYS. Well, what is it that you would need current appropriation for, in addition to this?

General BRADLEY. Supposing you just failed to authorize this now and we went ahead and spent the $9.8 billion which is unexpended, but which had been largely obligated, we would get the equipment and pay for it out of that $9.8 billion.

Then everything would shut off and there would be no more aid going to Europe.

Mr. VORYS. But you could carry on at the rate of expenditure for the last 9 months, for not a year, but a couple of years.

General BRADLEY. Maybe General Stewart could tell you about this more accurately, just when this $9.8 billion is going to be delivered. In other words, it is mostly obligated for, and will be delivered next year and the year after.

That is to take care of and better equip the units in being and some additional ones.

I think I should go off the record for a minute because I do not think this should be on the record.

Mr. VORYS. Our colloquy here may be off the record at any point you want, but a lot of this is stuff that can be on the record.

General BRADLEY. Well, let us put it on the record and if we do not think it should be in there, we will cut it out.

Mr. VORYS. Very well.

General BRADLEY. Supposing the Lisbon or NATO goals for this year were 50 divisions. We have supposed 50 divisions. But only some of them are effective yet because they are not completely equipped. They do not have any reserve equipment, they do not have the necessary reserves in ammunition and they are deficient in combat support units like extra artillery battalions and things like that which must be filled in.

Now this $9.8 billion, when that equipment is paid for and we are out of money, that will go a long way toward bringing those divisions up.

Mr. VORYS. Now, just let me interrupt.

We have been told by Mr. Nash and we have had a subcommittee which has been told by General Ridgway that the Lisbon goals are 80 or 90 percent met. Not only have they produced the troops but we have the equipment, and that has been done for $6 billion, in round figures.

Now, you could nearly double the Lisbon goals, which is not intended, for another $9 billion.

General BRADLEY. No, sir. I am sorry. Of course this is not all divisions. A lot of this is aircraft, too, which is a very expensive item of equipment. I am afraid I don't understand your question if my answer doesn't seem right.

What I am pointing out is that this $9.8 billion will go a long way toward filling up these divisions and buy additional aircraft but still won't be what we want.

You will remember that I said the goal was away out there, and we are not going to reach it even with the amount we are getting this year if you give it to us. We are still short of what we need for

adequate defense.

If you cut out any appropriation at all this year, you expend this and pay for it and then you have nothing left. You cut off aid completely. If you should give us an appropriation next year you would have a gap of 1 year in there in which you would get very little because any money you would give us next year, you would go and make contracts and it would be delivered a couple years after that.

So any way you work it, if you cut out an appropriation in any 1 year you will have a gap of 1 year in which you are getting very little.

I am sorry if I am not making this plain. Apparently I am not. Mr. VORYS. We will go into this possibly in further detail later. This Congress is going to be extremely reluctant to go on pouring a lopsided amount of aid into Europe if they won't do the thing that General Eisenhower and you and they have said they have to do. Now, my point is that if we go ahead and provide for separate national forces in a big program here and they read about it, then that is not any incentive to them to get together, whereas if they saw this situation, "Yes, we have plenty to take care of EDC, the European army and everything else, and the United States does not have to talk to Congress, they have plenty to take care of that." But if there is another year of this fooling around, perhaps they will think there will gap some day.

be

33064-53-17

If there is some question mark about what we are going to do forever in Europe, that might be more of an encouragement to them than this business of saying, "Well, we have tried to urge them to get together but they won't do it, but we are willing to go on and on and on." It is most difficult. An 8-year program is proposed here.

General BRADLEY. Your point is to tell them that unless they get together on this we will just quit appropriating. I believe there is some sentiment to that effect.

I believe that would be unfortunate, if I may say so, because what you are really doing then is dictating to a sovereign nation as to what they will do, and I am not too sure that it would have the effect that you outline.

They are pretty stubborn people, some of them, and I am not too sure but what it would have the opposite effect.

You must remember that the Communist conference last October announced that one of their objectives was going to be to split us from our allies.

I think this sort of an action while you attempt to take it might be playing right into that propaganda line and helping them accomplish what the Communists set out to do, in other words, break us off from our allies.

I think you would have to give that serious consideration as to how you did it because the effect might be the opposite of what you think it ought to be.

Mr. VORYS. I was low man on the totem pole at my own request, so I have overstayed my welcome.

Mr. GORDON. I am happy to see you, General, and I want to congratulate you on the fine work you are doing in your assignment.

I note in your statement that the military aid in the Mutual Security Program is most important to the collective security of all the free world and countries. I certainly agree with you that our security is dependent upon the security of all NATO countries.

I have no questions, but I certainly agree with the General on that

statement.

Mr. VORYS. My deep apologies to you Mr. Gordon. I thought I was last.

Mr. GORDON. It was most interesting, so I listened.

Mr. VORYS (presiding). Are there any questions on a second round? Mr. PROUTY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to just ask one question. Is somebody from the Defense Department going to discuss these various recommendations made by these evaluation teams?

General STEWART. We had not planned in the Defense Department to discuss those recommendations.

Mr. PROUTY. There are a lot of questions that I think some of us would like to have answered by you people, but there is no time now, sir.

Mr. VORYS. Are there other questions?

If not, the meeting is adjourned until tomorrow at 10:30.

At 3 o'clock Ambassador Dunn will be here before the European subcommittee, and any who care to attend are welcome.

(Whereupon, at 2:10 p. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene at 10:30 a. m., Friday, May 8, 1953.)

MUTUAL SECURITY ACT EXTENSION

FRIDAY, MAY 8, 1953

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met in executive session, pursuant to call, in room G-3, United States Capitol, at 10:40 a. m., Hon. Robert B. Chiperfield, chairman, presiding.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. WILSON, SECRETARY OF

DEFENSE

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. The committee will come to order. We are glad to have you here, Mr. Secretary. You may proceed in any way that you desire. If you want to talk to us a few moments and then answer questions, or if you wish to tell us a little about what you have been doing, or if you have a statement, you may do so.

Secretary WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I have no special statement for this meeting. I did have a statement, as you will recall, for the joint meeting of the Senate and House committees.

I might say, as you all know, I have just returned from 3 busy weeks in Europe where I made a great effort to cover as many of our bases and depots and headquarters as I could and get acquainted with our American military people and the Secretaries of Defense of the different countries with which we were dealing.

I did come back encouraged to know that there was a great effort being made by men of all nations to cooperate in the common defense of the free world.

As you all know, there are a good many past sources of friction and past conflicts between nations in the whole NATO area, and the men were obviously trying to bury the past and look ahead toward the future.

I think it is our American leadership that is making that possible. In spite of all the difficulties and the big money expenditures, I think we can all feel that progress is being made. I think I might also say that our military people think that progress has been made. We have estimated that roughly there has been a 30 percent improvement in combat effectiveness in this last survey of the NATO meetings as compared to a year ago.

It is also a common opinion that there is no real evidence as yet that the danger has been removed or appreciably lessened. It is also true that the military men of all nations would like to have a stronger defense posture than exists, but the critical weakness that existed 2 or 3 years ago has largely been overcome. It seems fair to say now.

that we can give proper weight to the ability of the NATO nations, including our own, to contribute to our military preparedness and defense, and our economic ability to do it.

With those few remarks, I think I would like to try to answer any questions that any of you have to ask me.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mr. Vorys, you just came in. The Secretary has informally reviewed what he had said before at the joint session and referred to the general situation. I am sure you would have some questions that you would like to ask him, even though he has not made an elaborate statement.

Mr. Vorys

Mr. VoRYS. Mr. Secretary, how much do you intend to spend this year on this program?

Secretary WILSON. Do you mean actual money paid out?

Mr. VORYS. Yes.

Secretary WILSON. Roughly, $5 billion. You are talking about fiscal year 1954, now?

Mr. VORYS. I was thinking first of fiscal year 1953.

Secretary WILSON. About $3.8 billion. It might be a little more than that, depending on how much we can step up our deliveries in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year.

Mr. VORYS. We have been supplied with figures for the first three quarters. We find that there has been spent $2.2 billion, and you feel that that will go up?

Secretary WILSON. I thought it was about $2.7 billion.

Mr. VORYS. Your part of it, according to this, is $2,165 million up to March 31.

We do not have a separate figure here for the Department of Defense. I find what I was giving you was simply the figure for military assistance to Europe, in title I.

Secretary WILSON. Military assistance is shown as $2.7 billion.
Mr. VORYS. Is that all spent by the Department of Defense?
Secretary WILSON. Under our general supervision.

Mr. VORYS. The $2,737 million, then, is all spent by the Department of Defense?

Secretary WILSON. That is right, under our supervision.

Mr. VORYS. And you expect to spend $1.1 billion in the quarter remaining?

Secretary WILSON. That is right.

Mr. VORYS. Just looking for a minute at that same column, we find $3,367 million unobligated at present.

What is your expectation as to obligations of that between now and the end of the fiscal year?

Secretary WILSON. We think we might obligate somewhere between $1.8 billion and $2.8 billion, in the fourth quarter.

My figure on the unobligated amount is $2.7 billion.

Mr. VORYS. Our figures were prepared by the committee staff. Mr. BULLOCK. That is Mr. Stassen's figure. We just copied his table.

Mr. VORYS. This is the table submitted by Governor Stassen, on May 6.

Secretary WILSON. What figure is that? We talk about military assistance only and none of the other things that are in the mutual aid program because this is our part that we are responsible for.