HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS EIGHTY-SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON H.R. 12619 AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR MUTUAL SECURITY 53708 Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations UNITED STATES WASHINGTON: 1960 J60 Ав 86 DOCUMENTS MUTUAL SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS FOR 1961 FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1960 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m., in room F-37, the Capitol, Hon. Carl Hayden (chairman) presiding. Present: Chairman Hayden, Senators Chavez, Ellender, Robertson, Stennis, Kefauver, Bridges, Saltonstall, Mundt, Smith, Dworshak, and Allott. Also present: Senator Thurmond. MUTUAL SECURITY PROGRAM MILITARY ASSISTANCE-NATO STATEMENT OF GEN. LAURIS NORSTAD, SUPREME ALLIED COMMANDER, EUROPE; ACCOMPANIED BY MAJ. GEN. A. P. O'MEARA, EUCOM; LT. COL. R. H. SIMPSON, EUCOM; BRIG. GEN. FREDERIC H. MILLER, USAF, DIRECTOR, EUROPEAN REGION, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS; ADM. E. B. GRANTHAM, U.S. NAVY, DIRECTOR, NEAR EAST, SOUTH ASIA, AND AFRICA REGION, INTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRS; COL. VICTOR H. KING, USAF, DEFENSE COORDINATOR OF CONGRESSIONAL PRESENTATION, OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE, ISA; JOHN E. MURPHY, INSPECTOR GENERAL AND COMPTROLLER, MUTUAL SECURITY; AND M. RICHARD BARNEBEY, PRESENTATIONS OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COORDINATOR FOR MUTUAL SECURITY GENERAL STATEMENT Chairman HAYDEN. The committee will be in order. The committee is pleased to have as its witness this morning Gen. Lauris Norstad, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. The budget estimate for the Mutual Security Program for fiscal year 1961 is in the amount of $4,175 million. The military assistance portion of this amount is $2 billion. The amount requested for next fiscal year for military assistance, $2 billion, is $700 million in excess of the appropriation for this purpose for the fiscal year 1960. We will be pleased to hear from you. General NORSTAD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 502 PREPARED STATEMENT Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I will have a very general statement that I will submit a little bit later. Unfortunately I was an added starter at a couple of committee meetings yesterday, and I did not have time to complete it. It will be up here by noon. It is a very general statement and will not be required for the meeting this morning. (The statement referred to follows:) Next month NATO will be 11 years old. Perhaps the most compelling fact that emerges from any appraisal of its record is that it has achieved its prime objective so far. No foot of the soil of any NATO country has been lost to aggression. The basic purposes of the North Atlantic Allies who agreed by treaty to unite their efforts "for collective defense and for the preservation of peace and security" have been fulfilled for more than a decade. À most important factor in creating our overall strength has been the military assistance program (the MAP). It came into being at a time when the European member nations were unable to provide fully for their own defense. In the aftermath of World War II, these nations, exposed to the direct and imminent threat of Soviet invasion, did not have the economic power to rearm to any real degree of adequacy. The MAP was the instrument that filled the crucial need. At its height, in 1953, the program supplied $2.5 billion in military aid to our European allies, a figure which represented 20.4 percent of the combined defense expenditures of the countries concerned. Last year, the total of the arms and equipment for Europe under the MAP was down to about onefifth of the 1953 figure. It was equal to 4.2 percent of the amount that the receiving nations were providing for their own defense. Behind this remarkable change in the proportion of our military aid lies the whole dramatic history of European economic recovery. With the growing assurance that they were not about to be engulfed by a major invasion from the East, the nations of Western Europe regained their hope and confidence. If we compare their gross national product in 1950 and last year we realize how great that recovery has been. The GNP of these nations last year was almost double what it was in 1950. Their national defense expenditures have more than kept pace with this rise. In 1950, the year of acute peril, their combined budgets for defense were a little over $5 billion. Last year they totaled $13.6 billion. THE NATURE OF THE THREAT Such facts are illuminating-and heartening. They reflect the increasing determination of our NATO allies to contribute their fair share to the common defense effort. They also demonstrate European awareness that the Soviet threat continues. It is true that the threat has taken political and economic forms as well as military, and is now active also in other parts of the world. But it is equally true that,if we were to sacrifice any part of the defensive strength that has been created, it would swing back to the target it covets most: the North Atlantic Community. At their December meeting, the North Atlantic Council, by the firm statements of the 15 member nations and by joint resolution, demonstrated their awareness that the danger was still present and that it remained both acute and many sided. To reinforce their words, no less than eight of our NATO allies have announced their intention to increase their defense budgets for the year ahead. COST SHARING BY EUROPEAN NATIONS The European NATO nations are doing their share to an ever-increasing degree. Many cost-sharing projects are now underway. Six European nations, for example, share in funding SIDEWINDER, one of the latest air-to-air missiles. Five have joined with us in producing HAWK, the surface-to-air missile that is vital to our air defense. And cost-sharing production of naval vessels, radar, communications equipment, and planes is moving steadily forward as part of the overall MAP. The fundamental NATO concept is one of minimum force for the accomplishment of the double mission of deterring war and repelling attack should war come. Under it, each nation must within reason do what it does best. Thus some nations of Western Europe contribute both manpower and, increasingly, share in the design and procurement of weapons and equipment. The less industrialized nations like Greece and Turkey must rely to a large extent on outside help to train and equip the divisions, air squadrons, and naval forces which are their main and extremely valuable contribution. This year's MAP program is designed primarily to provide necessary new weapons to the forces which actually defend the forward line of the Westthe eastern boundary of the alliance. Because it supplies this vital element in overall defensive strength, and for its many other contributions to the continuing strength and spirit of NATO, the military assistance program deserves the fullest support in this crucial year. COMBAT EFFECTIVENESS REPORT General NORSTAD. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to again appear before this committee to discuss the matter of interest particularly from the military standpoint in the area of my responsibility in Europe and also the military assistance portion of the program for 1961. I would like to use charts as I have done in the past. Before doing that, I might make two or three general remarks. About a week or 10 days ago I went over the combat effectiveness report of the armies, the navies, and the air forces of the alliance. That is all of the European countries. I was impressed with the fact that there has been very steady and in general quite satisfactory progress in the course of the last year, progress not so much in the increase of the forces because, as I think I told this committee last year, the number of divisions, the number of squadrons, et cetera, is leveling off-that requirement is leveling off. But the improvement has been very marked in the training, efficiency, and combat effectiveness of these units, and from the results of the programs of earlier years plus what the countries themselves are doing. The equipment situation is substantially better at this time than it has been in the past. COST SHARING Members of this committee, I think Senator Ellender particularly, have discussed this with me, both in Paris and here, in the past-the question of cost sharing, what these other countries are doing directly in connection with the type of action that the military assistance program here is designed to carry out. There have been some quite significant developments in this field in the course of the last year. Not that I want to suggest they are very drastic and earth-shaking developments, but at least they do represent substantial first steps. As I will show later in some greater detail, there has been an increase in the cost-sharing principle. That is, where a country needs some particular item of equipment, where this in previous years all came from MAP, now we make a contribution and they make a contribution. They are increasing their effort and their activity in that particular field. Senator ELLENDER. Why should not ours decrease in proportion? got last year. General NORSTAD. That is right. year than you Senator ELLENDER. That is what makes me and others believe, I am sure, that |