網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

MINUTES

TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1953

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The Committee met in executive session at 10:30 a.m. in the committee room.

Present: Chairman Wiley, Senators Hickenlooper, Ferguson, Green, Gillette, and Mansfield.

The committee discussed further agreements relating to the North Atlantic Treaty-Executives T and U of the 82d Congress, and Executive B of the 83d Congress.

For record of proceedings, see official transcript.

The committee recessed at 11:40 a.m., to meet again on the same subject Wednesday April 22 at 10:30 a.m.

(332)

MINUTES

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 22, 1953

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met in executive session at 10:30 a.m.

Present: Chairman Wiley, Senators Hickenlooper, Taft, Ferguson, Knowland, George, Green, Gillette, and Mansfield.

The committee considered further the Protocols to the North Atlantic Treaty, Executives T and U, 82d Congress, and Executive B of the 83d Congress.

Senator Watkins was present and testified in support of an understanding he has proposed.

For record of proceedings, see official transcript.

The committee recessed at 12:20 p.m.

(333)

MINUTES

THURSDAY, APRIL 23, 1953

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met in executive session at 11:30 a.m. to resume consideration of Executives T and U of the 82d Congress, and Executive B of the 83d Congress, agreements relating to the North Atlantic Treaty.

Present: Chairman Wiley, Senators Tobey, Taft, Ferguson, George, Green, and Mansfield.

The Chairman announced that he had the proxy of Senator Smith for the reporting of the agreements.

The agreements were ordered reported with the following understanding to Executive T, 82d Congress, 2d Session, "An Agreement Regarding Status of Forces of Parties of the North Atlantic Treaty:

"It is the understanding of the Senate, which understanding inheres in its advice and consent to the ratification of the Agreement, that nothing in the Agreement diminishes, abridges, or alters the right of the United States of America to safeguard its own security by excluding or removing persons whose presence in the United States is deemed prejudicial to its safety or security and that no person whose presence in the United States is deemed prejudicial to its safety or security shall be permitted to enter or remain in the United States."

The Chairman instructed that members of the committee not present be polled on the reporting of the agreements. [They were reported by a voice vote].

For record of proceedings, see official transcript.

The committee adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

REPORT BY THE DIRECTOR MUTUAL SECURITY

AGENCY 1

TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1953

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.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, Taft, Langer, Ferguson, Knowland, George, Green, Fulbright, Gillette, and Mansfield.

Also present: Mr. Tighe Woods and Horace Smith, Liaison Division, State Department; Dr. Wilcox, Dr. Kalijarvi, Mr. O'Day, Mr. Marcey, and Mr. Holt, of the committee staff.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

We are very happy, Mr. Stassen to have you back safe from the jaws of Europe.

We understand you have something very interesting to tell us, so carry on in your own way.

STATEMENT OF HON. HAROLD E. STASSEN, DIRECTOR,

MUTUAL SECURITY AGENCY

Mr. STASSEN. Thank you, Senator, and gentlemen of the committee. In responding to your invitation, I will make a brief opening report and then respond to your questions.

THE NATO MEETING A SUCCESS

I, of course, report to you from the standpoint of the mutual security program, on the meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, which has just been held on April 24, 25, and 26, in Paris.

Let me say, first of all, that it is my view that this session was a solid success; that it marked a significant advance toward the mutual security objectives of our country, and established a sound base for further progress in the combined military strength build-up of the free nations of the Atlantic Community.

May I say that one of the major reasons for its success, in my judgment, was the able affirmative participation of the Secretary of State of the United States, John Foster Dulles, who personally chairmaned and spoke for the U.S. delegation throughout the conference.

1 See note, p. 289.

I understand that you will hear the report tomorrow from him. 1:1 and he will, of course, discuss with you the foreign policy questions involved.

I will speak of the specific operation of the mutual security program in relation to this NATO meeting.

There were six definite results obtained in this regard:

CONTRACTS FOR JET AIRCRAFT

The first was the signing of contracts for the long-term production of the very best type of modern jet aircraft with substantial partici pation of a number of NATO members in both the payment and the production. The United States commitment is entirely within the previously granted appropriations and previously approved programs of the Congress for offshore procurement.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Let me ask you, in connection with that offshore production over there

Mr. STASSEN. The production over there is on a combination of orders from us, and other countries.

These are the models of the ships.

This one on the left there is the British Hunter Hawker, and this has been evaluated by our Air Force as just one of the top planes in the world today, and is just going into production, and under this combined contracting that we worked out, the Belgians are buying some of them with their own funds; the Netherlands, some with their own funds; Britain, some with their own funds, and some with our offshore production; so we combine these various contracts and put them in one large contracting approach under which they will be built in England, Belgium, and the Netherlands, with combined participation on engine and component parts and airframes, and we feel that it is, from a production and a military standpoint, the kind of a matter in which you get the best production basis and the best economical results and topflight combat aircraft for the combat forces.

The other plane is the Mystere IV, which is a French plane. Here again it has been evaluated by our Air Force, and their evaluation is that it is just a topflight plane.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. We have heard of a different type of record for that one.

Mr. STASSEN. You heard of the Mystere II; the earlier model was not good, and one of the first things I did last February was to see that we did not continue to spend any money for anything unless our Air Force evaluated it to be topflight, and any partial commitments of that type, we wanted to liquidate them and get them out of the way, and make new contracts on planes our own Air Force would evaluate to be excellent.

Senator TOBEY. What about the cost of these planes?

Mr. STASSEN. These planes, the total contracts entered into are $559 million, of which the United States portion will be $260 million. Senator TOREY. What does that figure, per plane?

Mr. STASSEN. The detailed figures per plane I do not have. The Air Force can give you that in detail. I think that the earlier

[ocr errors]
« 上一頁繼續 »