MINUTES TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1953 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee on overseas information, met at 4:30 p.m. in the committee room. Present: Chairman Hickenlooper, Senators Wiley, Green, and Fulbright. For record of proceedings, see official transcript. (580) MUTUAL SECURITY ACT-Continued 1 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 1953 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:00 a.m., in the Foreign Relations Committee Room, U.S. Capitol, Senator Alexander Wiley (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Wiley (chairman), Smith of New Jersey, Hickenlooper, Tobey, George, Green, Fulbright, Sparkman, Humphrey, and Mansfield. Also present: C. Tyler Wood, Associate Deputy Director, Mutual Security Agency; Robert B. Eichholz, Mutual Security Agency; Dr. Wilcox; Dr. Kalijarvi; Mr. Holt; Mr. Marcy; and Mr. O'Day of the committee staff. [The Committee first considered and postponed approval of the nomination of Amos J. Peaslee to be Ambassador to Australia. It then resumed consideration of the mutual security bill. The form of the bill was further discussed, it having been learned that the House Foreign Affairs Committee was marking up its version of the bill in the functional format. It was decided to continue as before with the preferred geographic breakdown. Private investment guarantees and a technical amendment relating to the use of local currencies were then taken up, after which discussion turned to the matter of a termination date for the program.] The CHAIRMAN. All right; page 16. FOUR-YEAR EXTENSION OF MSA OPPOSED Senator MANSFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that we strike "1958." The CHAIRMAN. What was that? Senator SMITH. Strike what? Senator MANSFIELD. Strike "1958" on line 4, which has been substituted for June 30, 1954, which I think should remain, and my amendment would strike out what amounts to a 4-year extension of MSA. Senator HUMPHREY. Are you not going to be involved, though, in this offshore procurement program if you do that because you are contracting for a lot of planes and stuff over in Britain which cannot be produced by 1954, and this is, as I understand it, a limitation on the expenditure of funds when this act runs out and, therefore, the man who pays the bill is apt to go to jail? 1 See notes, p. 407. Senator MANSFIELD. But subsections (1) and (2), Senator, I think take care of that. Mr. WOOD. That is correct. This does not so much, Senator Humphrey, relate to that problem. Senator HUMPHREY. I see. JUSTIFICATION OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION Mr. Wood. If you passed section (1) and section (2) you would be able actually to pay for deliveries of the Hawker Hunters which took place after June 30, 1955. This first of the extensions is an extension of 4 years pursuant to the principles that have been stated by President Eisenhower and others that we want to get on to the basis of a longer sustainable program chiefly in connection with our military assistance. Senator SPARKMAN. It is to take care of the stretchout, is it not? Mr. Wood. It is to take care of this somewhat reduced longer range program and to indicate that we are not going to shut off all our association with and support, for example, of NATO and the Formosan military effort and others at the end of fiscal year 1954. It was thought most desirable from the standpoint of an orderly program, and from the standpoint of the psychological effect which it would have on our position of leadership in the world now to take action to put into effect these intentions, if the Congress agrees. That is why the request is made that the terminal date be now extended from 1954, which it is in the present act, to 1958. Then, in addition, this permission to pay for items for which obligations have been made prior to the termination date for a period longer than 12 months therafter, is also requested. Senator MANSFIELD. Question? The CHAIRMAN. The question-the motion now by Senator Mansfield is to strike "1958" and leave "1954” in. Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Chairman, let me ask this question: As a matter of fact, has not the program that was originally intended been stretched out for at least 2 additional years, and if we left the "1954" in there, is that not a little unrealistic in view of the program that is planned now? Mr. Wood. I do not know that you could put it quite that way, Senator. Certainly, we have not achieved, for various reasons, the military buildup which it had originally been planned to achieve, notably in Western Eunrope, by the end of 1954. In that sense it has been stretched out. The real point here is that it does seem unrealistic and unwise to continue to assume that in connection with building up the strength of the free world the United States will not find it in its own interest to continue to assist with military and, in certain cases, other aid to our allies all over the world after June 30, 1954, and if that date is now left in the legislation and is not extended, we will not, unless subsequent action were taken by the Congress, be able to enter into any obligations or obligate any funds after June 30, 1954, and in the real world, as it exists, with our NATO alliance running for many years, and the situation we find in the world, it seems entirely unrealistic to continue to assume that we will not be engaging in these mutual programs with our allies after June 30, 1954. Senator SPARKMAN. How would it do to make it 1956 rather than 1958? It would certainly be better than leaving it 1954. Senator SMITH. Wouldn't that give you time if you had to extend it further by conditions, time to review it then? Senator SPARKMAN. We could review it next year. Senator SMITH. Why don't you make it 1956, Senator? Senator MANSFIELD. Under the ECA we had a terminal date of 1952. Mr. WOOD. 1952. Senator MANSFIELD. I was one of those who felt that ECA had accomplished its purpose, by and large, in many countries before that date, but that by June 30, 1952, it should go out. Senator SMITH. We put it out. FOREIGN AID PROGRAMS SHOULD BE UNDER STATE Senator MANSFIELD. Then, before ECA expires we have this Korean imbroglio, and we come in with MSA. I put the date 1952 in the House because I did not want to see these things mushroom, and I do not want to see independent agencies created, and I do not want to see this bureaucracy abroad keep on existing year after year like a mushroom. Senator SMITH. I agree with you. Senator MANSFIELD. So, in the House I offered the motion to put the expiration date of 1952. Now, I have no pride in that, but the thing is this: I do not think that an agency like this should be allowed to continue, and while reorganization plan No. 7 goes part of the way toward putting it where I think it should be, in the State Department, it is a long cry from going all the way. I think foreign aid is a part of the foreign policy of this country, and that it should be taken over by the State Department, and that the appropriations and the legislation should go through the Congress year by year, and in that way you will have a centralization of the direction of your foreign policy which I think will be economical and feasible, logical, and will do away with duplication, overlapping, and excess expenses. Senator SMITH. You are not advocating cutting out aid to NATO? Senator MANSFIELD. No. Senator SMITH. You are simply advocating turning that program over to the State Department? Senator MANSFIELD. Yes. Senator GREEN. May I suggest the advisability of two corrections? At the beginning of the first word on line 5, it seems to me it ought to be "a" instead of "the" that is the first one. The second one is in line 6 after the word "resolution" you should add the word "passed", is that right? Mr. WOOD. I see no objection to that, sir. It would then read "after June 30"-Whatever date you decided Senator GREEN. "A date." Mr. WooD [continuing]. "Or after a date specified in a concurrent resolution passed by the two Houses of Congress." Senator GREEN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection the amendment is made. A NEW START ON LEGISLATION Senator FULBRIGHT. I want to ask Mr. Mansfield a question about what his proposal is, if I understand it, and I have also heard that-or perhaps I might make a preliminary statement. In the House they have the idea that this whole legislation dealing with this sort of thing should be redrafted with a new start as to whatever may be done between now and next year. I believe Mr. Ford is interested in such a bill, and Mr. Richards. Mr. WOOD. That is correct; I know that. Senator FULBRIGHT. That is correct. In other words, we have proceeded on these as temporary, and we keep on amending and amending the act. If this type of activity is to be continued, which it probably will, a completely new bill should be drafted, and a new start taken. The CHAIRMAN. We do not hear you there. Senator FULBRIGHT. If we accept your amendment that would be a way sort of to bring about a completely new draft of a bill, and a new look at it before this time next year. Senator MANSFIELD. Yes. Senator FULBRIGHT. That aspect of it has some appeal to me. It does not decide that we are going to wipe this all out, everything by this particular date, but it does mean the Congress is going to take a new look at it, and probably if it is not extended a new bill drafted; is that not correct? Senator MANSFIELD. That is right, and no one has stuck his neck out more for MSA than I have. I am not against it; I am for it. I think it has got to be centralized and made a part of the foreign policy. I get sick when I see the new Ambassadors. You cannot bring in new Ambassador unless the jobs are there, and if they are there, they take them. That is not right. REORGANIZATION PLAN NO. 7 DOES NOT GO FAR ENOUGH Senator FULBRIGHT. I mean, you would say you do not approve of Reorganization Plan No. 7, I take it? it. Senator MANSFIELD. Yes, I do. Senator FULBRIGHT. That is another way. Senator MANSFIELD. But it does not go far enough, but I approve Senator FULBRIGHT. You do approve it? Senator MANSFIELD. Yes. Senator FULBRIGHT. Which does take it out of the State Department. Senator MANSFIELD. No. The reorganization puts this more under the State Department, but it creates a foreign operations agency. Mr. WOOD. That is correct. Senator MANSFIELD. Under the technical direction, at least, of the Secretary of State. |