Paris, and the SRE, who had been working up to that time on the Schumann plan and EDC.

Mr. VORYS. You say this man is not to displace Bruce, and Bruce is not to displace him. Bruce is doing something of a multilateral job there as an observer. He has an operational function; isn't that correct?

Mr. MERCHANT. Yes.

Mr. VORYS. It has been my observation, not having followed it closely, that the Council of Ministers is more or less of a team of observers. Is it presumed that Bruce or his post would be a somewhat permanent one?

Mr. MERCHANT. The decision on his appointment was made before I got back, so I haven't firsthand knowledge of it. My impression was that the underlying reason for it was, first, in light of our very great interest in the early achievement of the EDC, the coming into force of the EDC treaty, and in light of David Bruce's unique position, experience, and influence on the other side of the ocean, that it was felt that probably the greatest practical contribution he could make to a speeding up of that process, ratification, would be to have Mr. Bruce spending full time on it.

There was, I believe, the further thought that if the EPC, the European political community, actually developed into a treaty and came into force, and provided an umbrella for both the Schuman plan and for the European defense community, that you would then, at that point, have a new sovereign organism; in other words, it would be different from a multilateral council such as NATO; it would more closely resemble a country, and would require diplomatic representation directly comparable to diplomatic representation to a particular country, a sovereign entity. I think it was a combination of employing Mr. Bruce's great assets in the months ahead in relation to the EDC, and looking to the possibibility of a development of a new sovereign organism.

Mr. VORYS. His function is multilateral, that is, while he is an observer to an organization to which we do not belong, yet I would think the Schuman plan operation would have an awful lot of relations with NATO, and particularly with OEEC. Has it been thought it would be better to have two people doing it?

Mr. MERCHANT. Yes, at this time, Mr. Chairman, when there is so much concentration on our part in connection with EDC. I can't say what Secretary Dulles' feeling might be when EDC goes into effect. He might feel that the responsibility most logically could be transferred to this Ambassador we are talking about. I don't know what his thought on that would be.

Mrs. BOLTON. Could I ask a question at this point? What is Bruce's relation to Dillon?

Mr. MERCHANT. There is, obviously, no command relationship. If I were describing him, I would say he was a guest in Ambassador Dillon's domain.

Mrs. KELLY. Ambassador Dillon is new at the job. The French are devoted to Mr. Bruce. I think this appointment, as far as that possibility in the future is concerned, is excellent. To have a man who has no organizational relationship would be very embarrassing for Mr. Dillon.

672

Mr. MERCHANT. Of course, Mr. Bruce's responsibility is not exclusively in Paris. The EDC Interim Commission is sitting there. He is going to the other capitals. He is up in Luxembourg a lot, where the seat of the Schuman plan high authority is, and in Strasbourg, where the Assembly is.

If I were speaking frankly, I would say it is the sort of relationship that could work out badly if you have the wrong personalities, but produces no difficulties if you have the right personalities, as I think you have now. It would be much more logical if the seat of the EDC were in a city like Geneva, Lake Como, or something like that. I think there is a good chance, if the EPC comes into being, that the seat of all three of those communities of the six countries might well go elsewhere. There has been some talk of that.

Mrs. BOLTON. What reports are made to Washington, or could be made to Washington, of possible embarrassment to the Ambassador, Ambassador Dillon, and what track can be kept of the actual working business?

Mr. MERCHANT. Mr. Bruce has been Ambassador to France and is aware of the difficulties. He reports through a special cable service, which is sent through the Embassy. He has been extremely careful, in all his important conferences with, say, René Mayer to keep Ambassador Dillion informed. When he goes to Bonn to see Mr. Adenauer, and so on, he is aware of the situation. All his messages back and forth are seen by the Ambassador. So, he is completely aware of everything that Mr. Bruce is doing.

Mr. VORYS. We want to thank you for coming. I find it is 10:30. We appreciate your statement.

Mrs. KELLY. This isn't the beginning of the Federation of Europe, is it?

Mr. MERCHANT. No, I was speaking of the EDC and related communities.

Mrs. KELLY. There is no chance of that?

Mr. MERCHANT. No, this is the six-country movement.

Mrs. KELLY. That came into being under Bruce

Mr. VORYS. If there is any such plan afoot, it would be Bruce who would be the contact man.

Mrs. KELLY. This man would be the representative, and all his powers would be tied into it. Who was the English representative on this?

Mr. MERCHANT. Sir Frederick Hoyer-Miller, who was Minister here in 1947, 1948, and 1949.

Mr. VORYS. Mr. Tomlinson is working with Mr. Bruce on the Schuman plan. Would he fit into this, or would you know?

Mr. MERCHANT. I do not know. The Treasury hasn't decided who they will appoint. Tommy is working almost full time with Dave Bruce now.

Mr. VORYS. If there is nothing further, we thank you very much. It is 10:30.

(Whereupon, at 10:30 a. m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

MUTUAL SECURITY ACT EXTENSION

TUESDAY, MAY 26, 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.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Wood, you have witnesses here. You may proceed in any order you wish.

that

STATEMENT OF HON. C. TYLER WOOD, DEPUTY TO THE DIRECTOR FOR MUTUAL SECURITY

Mr. WOOD. Having covered in our preceding session, Mr. Chairman, our proposals for military end-item assistance and defense financing in the United Kingdom and France, it is our suggestion that we go on now to Italy. General Stewart would present the military end-item and training program in Italy, to be followed by Dr. FitzGerald who would deal with defense support and defense financing for Italy.

Then, depending upon the wishes of the committee, we can go on with other countries, or use what we have presented as examples for Europe and proceed to the next area.

Mrs. KELLY. Prior to going into this, Mr. Chairman, could I make a request of the committee at this time?

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. You may.

Mrs. KELLY. That if we have not received the status and the questions that Mr. Fulton asked with regard to offshore procurement, it be secured by this committee as quickly as possible because I read this past weekend of contracts of offshore procurement of $5 million to Yugoslavia and to several other countries and I would like a verification of those contracts for the record.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Mrs. Kelly, you will be glad to know that the counselor to Yugoslavia wants to talk to me at 11: 15.

Mrs. KELLY. I have heard of several other contracts that have already been given out, offshore procurement contracts, and I have also learned the subcontractor and it was the understanding of this committee that we could not find out the subcontractor.

Chairman CHIPERFIELD. Will you try to furnish that information for the committee?

Mr. WOOD. We are working on all those questions, and the answers to them will be put into the record, Mrs. Kelly.

Mrs. KELLY. Could we have them prior to the release of these hearings and before we take action on this bill?

Mr. Wood. Certainly. They will go into the record of these hearings at the point where the question was asked. If you are interested, an additional copy can be made available to you directly.

Mrs. KELLY. I think several members of the committee requested that. I think we would like to study them before we take action on this program.

Mr. WOOD. Our usual course, Mrs. Kelly, is to insert in the record at the point where the question was asked, the paper which gives the

answer.

Now, at that time when we do so, we could call attention to the fact and ask that you be notified, if you like.

Would that be satisfactory?

Mrs. KELLY. I think all the questions asked by the committee should be answered prior to the study of the bill.

Mrs. BOLTON. May I, too, say that we have been all too accustomed to having answers to our questions so delayed that they are of practically no use in our study of the bill.

I understand Mrs. Kelly's point so well because there were questions asked the other day by Mrs. Church in which we were all deeply interested. If we wait until the hearings are printed which is usually on the morning the bill goes on the floor; such delay is perfectly stupid and gets us no place.

Mr. WOOD. I raised that point, Mrs. Bolton, for the purpose of finding out whether there is some other method that would be more satisfactory to the committee.

Mrs. BOLTON. Perhaps the clerk of the committee will find ways. We never know whether our questions are answered or not. Then, we come onto the floor and find the things we have been trying to find out that were supposed to be there, are not there. Then where are we? We then face the ridicule on the floor.

Mr. Wood. Why don't Mr. Crawford and I see what better system can be arranged?

Mr. CRAWFORD. Mrs. Bolton, anticipating that, I have instructed the staff assistant who is editing the hearings to give me copies of these inserts as fast as they come in and I have a few here which I will bring personally to the attention of the members who ask for them as they come in.

Mrs. BOLTON. That is excellent.

Mr. WOOD. I think that is a very good plan.

Mrs. BOLTON. We have thought that for years.

STATEMENT OF MAJ. GEN. GEORGE C. STEWART, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE, OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

General STEWART. Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen, I refer to charts 18 and 19, which have been provided to each member of the committee.

I refer to chart 19, first. This shows what we have shipped, the value of what we have shipped out of programs already approved and funded.

(Discussion off the record.)

General STEWART. The next section of the chart, this middle section, shows the same information in terms of certain major items. The first column shows what we have shipped out of approved programs and what remains to be shipped out of programs approved for fiscal years 1950 through 1953.

The last part, the last column of the center part of the chart shows what we propose to include in the fiscal year 1954 program, using the same items we used to show what has been shipped and remains to be shipped.

The lower part of the chart shows the number of spaces allocated to the MAAGS for training.

We have here the number of training courses completed by individuals as of the 31st of March, and the proposed training spaces that we have for fiscal year 1954.

In chart 18, we show the forces concerned. Answering the committee's questions posed in the memorandum to us, we have NATO force commitments in being as of December 1952.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. MORANO. They are in addition to the naval aircraft?
General STEWART. Yes, sir.

Mr. MORANO. Any jets?

General STEWART. Yes, sir; these are jets.

Mr. MORANO. Those will be British Navy or French Navy?
General STEWART. I would like to call on the Air Force.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. MORANO. How about the training of pilots program, is that proceeding as rapidly as you want it to?

Mr. WOOD. Is the training of pilots program proceeding as rapidly as we would wish? I presume also, under those circumstances, you want to know if the pilots will be available when the aircraft are ready.

Mr. MORANO. Yes.

General STEWART. May I ask the Air Force that question?

STATEMENT OF LT. COL. DANIEL D. DUFF, OFFICE OF ASSISTANT FOR MUTUAL SECURITY, UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

Colonel DUFF. We are not training too many Italians in the United States. The Italians are training their own pilots and along with the ones they have on hand they are doing very well. We have no pilot problems in Italy.

Mr. MORANO. They will be able to fly the type of plane they are going to be provided with that is in manufacture.

Colonel DUFF. Yes, sir.

Mr. MORANO. How many are we training in the United States, do you know?

Colonel DUFF. For the Italians I do not know, sir, but very few. Italian airmen being trained in the United States are generally specialists, other than pilots. They have a going pilot training program in Italy.

(Discussion off the record.)

General STEWART. That completes the presentation of the Italian military program.