Mr. MARTIN. Serving as the technical assistance committee, it has very broad control. However, it does have a steering group of nine embers which does not include any Soviet bloc members.

As far as the children's fund is concerned, there is a board elected v ECOSOC which consists of all the members of the social comittee plus eight other members. There are three Soviet bloc memers on the social committee who ex officio serve on the governing board for the children's fund.

Our people report that the Soviet bloc members have not taken an active interest in these programs, and have not thus far presented ny problems.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. We ought to have a way of correcting that situation.

Mr. MARTIN. They do not in any case contribute. Our organizaional problem is that by previous agreements these governing bodies with which they do participate have these responsibilities in ex officio. capacity, and it would require a decision that the social commission, for example, should no longer be all members of the children's fund executive board, or a decision of the Technical Assistance Committee, which is not particularly active, be selected in a new fashion.

BILATERAL ASSISTANCE TO EDC AND GERMANY

Mr. Chairman, I have one other thing I would like to put in the record, if I may. In the House committee hearings, the question arose of the arrangements being made to negotiate bilateral agreements covering military assistance to the EDC and to Germany and Assistant Secretary Merchant made a statement about the status of those negotiations, which I think it might be useful to have also in the Senate record, and with your permission I would like to put that in so that the Senate would be officially informed of the status of these bilateral negotiations.

These, of course, are all in anticipation of the ratification of the EDC and of the German contractuals.

The CHAIRMAN. Are they extensive.

Mr. MARTIN. It is one page.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you got it with you?

Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Marcy has a copy.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't know why if it is just one page that you don't read it.

Mr. MARTIN. I do not have a copy and I do not know whether Mr. Marcy has it with him.

Mr. MARCY. I will put it in the record.

[Whereupon, at 5 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

MINUTES

MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1953

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, D.C.

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

Present: Chairman Wiley, Senators Smith, Hickenlooper, George, Green, Sparkman, Gillette, and Mansfield.

The committee considered first the nomination of Mason Sears of Massachusetts, to the representative of the United States on the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations.

Mr. Sears testified personally in connection with his nomination. The committee then proceeded with the writeup of the Mutual Security bill. [This session on the mutual security bill was devoted to discussion of a pilot program to provide technical assistance to Italy, the Philippines, and Turkey, for the purpose of determining the feasibility of developing certain industrial projects to a point where they would attract U.S. private investment. The first such project-a survey of mineral resources in southern Italy-was examined in detail.]

For record of proceedings, see official transcript.

The committee recessed at 12:15 p.m., to meet again on Tuesday, June 9 at 10 a.m.

MINUTES

MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1953

UNITED STATES SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATION,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee appointed to consider executive A, 82d Congress, first session, the North Atlantic Regional Broadcasting Agreement, met at 4:30 p.m. in the committee room.

Present: Chairman Tobey, Senators Langer and Mansfield. Senator Johnson of Colorado was present also.

Chairman Rosel H. Hyde of the Federal Communication Commission was present and testified.

After some discussion it was decided to hold hearings on Executive A on July 1, 2, and 3.

For record of proceedings, see official transcript.
The subcommittee adjourned at 5:30 p.m.

(525)

ments problems and does not involve large-scale shipments of basic commodities like wheat and cotton and things that were in the TCA or the MSA programs up to this year.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I think there was a difference in the original concept of the two programs.

Mr. MARTIN. I think that still is true. It has cost us more money, sir.

Senator FULBRIGHT. It is getting into the MSA class.

Mr. EICHHOLZ. The only two points that I do want to make on I section 548 is that this is only done for the purposes of administrative convenience in order to permit us to have uniform systems in respect to technical assistance operations.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I have no objection to it except to try to keep it on a modest scale wherever we can, I mean, not go too fast too far. That is what I think destroyed the program.

If we keep this as far as we can on the concept of TCA in the backward countries, I think the program will cost less, do more good and last longer. I mean, the Congress will support it longer. Mr. EICHHOLZ. It may well be that we will in some of the MSA countries still have a more modest administrative system. I do want to point out that before we set up any missions at high status in any TCA countries, we are specifically directed to secure the approval of the Secretary of State.

[The committee next entered into an involved discussion of the use of local currencies.]

USING MILITARY ASSISTANCE OUTSIDE THE NORTH ATLANTIC AREA

Mr. EICHHOLZ. Page 17, line 13.

Section 606. The Mutual Defense Assistance Act of 1949, as amended (22 U.S.C. 1571-1604), is further amended as follows:

"(a) Assistance to NATO Countires.-Add the following proviso before the period at the end of Section 101 (relating to military assistance to NATO countries):Provided, That military assistance may be furnished for purposes not included in such defense plans upon a determination by the President that it will further the purposes and policies of this Act.'"

The CHAIRMAN. Who asked for that?

Mr. EICHHOLZ. This problem arises in the case of countries, European countries, having global responsibilities. It is primarily a British problem. Under the Mutual Defense Assistance Act, military assistance to European countries is subject to this requirement. I am reading from section 101 of the Mutual Defense Assistance Act:

After the agreement by the Government of the United States with defense plans as recommended by the Council and the Defense Committee, military assistance hereunder shall be furnished only in accordance therewith.

Now that means that assistance which we furnish the British, for instance, its use is confined to the requirements of North Atlantic defense.

Now the difficulty that you run into is that it upsets the logistic system of the British very considerably just as it would upset our logistic system if there were a requirement that military equip ment, for instance, that is used for the Korean war could not be used for any other military requirement of the United States.

Let me give an example. For instance, suppose there is a British vision stationed in Germany assigned to NATO and that division s some equipment among which is American equipment which has en furnished under the Mutual Defense Assistance Act, and in e normal course of rotation of units, that British division is signed to the Far East.

Now under the British system even more than under our own stem, British units take their equipment with them. Now the esent law seems to require in some cases that they have to leave eir equipment in Germany and go out to the Far East without eir equipment, and this kind of restriction has proved to be exssively cumbersome and we feel that under proper safeguard, a termination by the President that it will further the purposes and licies of the Mutual Defense Assistance Act, that it should be ossible for military equipment which is furnished for our North lantic allies to be used to discharge their global military responbilities.

Have I covered that adequately, Sam?

Mr. EFRON. Yes. If I may add something to that, you may have a ritish division which has both MDAP financed material which has en given them on a grant aid program plus its own equipment. nder normal rotation the British division may go to Malaya, we ll say, but there will be another division taking its place in the orth Atlantic area, so we have the result of the same number of oops with the same types of equipments left in defense of the orth Atlantic area.

USING AMERICAN EQUIPMENT IN COLONIAL WARS

The CHAIRMAN. It has been called to my attention that we have consider the matter of the utilization by the British of American uipment in case they had a colonial war anyplace, what effect that ay have.

Mr. EICHHOLZ. Well, it would still have to be a determination by
e President that it would further the purposes and policies of the
utual Defense Assistance Act, and if it were a colonial war in
hich it was not considered that the security of the United States
as involved, the President would not make such a determination.
The CHAIRMAN. Further, the purposes and policies of this act, in
her words, a matter of our national defense would be primary.
Mr. EICHHOLZ. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, carry on.
Mr. EICHHOLZ. Page 17, line 23:

EXCESS EQUIPMENT

(b) Excess Equipment.-Immediately before the period in the next to last mtence of Section 403 (d) (relating to limitation on furnishing of excess uipment), add the following: "and after June 30, 1953, by an additional 00.000,000."

The effect of this provision is merely to raise the cumulative total equipment excess to United States needs which is authorized to e transferred as military assistance from $1.2 billion to $1.4 bil-. on. That limitation has been raised each year. It is not an authorition of funds.