Mr. BATTLE. Isn't one of the main objectives of this program to give some internal stability to the recipient countries?

Secretary JOHNSON. My particular job in defense is not to secure stability except as stability applies to the over-all defense. I seek the peace of the world. Any lack of stability anywhere, of any government that is in the free world is itself a danger and a menace to peace. I cannot answer your question categorically because in countries other than those which have voluntarily accepted communism, I am against communism-anywhere. Therefore, I do not want our arms used to preserve Communists in any country that has not voluntarily elected to be a Communist nation.

Mr. BATTLE I did not mean to ask a catch question. I meant our arms would give these governments some stability to keep the Communists from infiltrating and causing trouble.

Secretary JOHNSON. I am for that but the over-all objective is to create enough strength to restrain any would-be aggressor. Chairman KEE. Mrs. Bolton? Mrs. BOLTON. No questions. Chairman KEE. Mr. Carnahan? Mr. CARNAHAN. No questions. Chairman KEE. Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Secretary, permit me to say that I think the people in this country are applauding your efforts to achieve real unification in our armed services. I think we are reaching the point where we have one team only.

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. I think we do have, now. The three Secretaries, General Bradley and the Joint Chiefs are all talking the same language-defense of America-and not wasting their effort in trying to promote one service at the expense of another. We only have so much time and ability. I think that Russia knows that, and the very fact of this unity itself is one of the things that puts off the danger of war a little further than it was a year ago.

On

Mr. SMITH. I have just one question in open session to ask you. page 7 you say that European forces must be increased to meet the existing threat of aggression.

What do you mean by European forces? Does that include our own forces?

Mr. JOHNSON. No, sir, not necessarily. I am talking about the potential forces of the western European democracies. They have more manpower than they have equipment. They would, in certain countries, on the bais of information received as late as this morning, have still more armed manpower if we would speed up the delivery of equipment to that country. We are advising them that when they have this manpower in training the shipments will be speeded up. Those are the things that give us comfort these days. It is the furnishing of equipment largely by us to those existing military organizations in Europe that I was talking about in that particular sentence. Mr. SMITH. Thank you. That is all.

us.

Chairman KEE. Mr. Ribicoff, have you any questions?

Mr. RIBICOFF. No questions.

Chairman KEE. Mr. Merrow.

Mr. MERROW. Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to have you with

You have given us a fine report.

Secretary JOHNSON. Thank you.

Mr. MERROW. You have said no attempt will or need be made to match the Soviet strength, division by division, or by mere numbers. I assume that includes other categories. Yet you assume the continuation of this program will give the West sufficient strength to defer aggression or prevent an attack upon the West?

Secretary JOHNSON. The trend in the last 6 months has been definitely upward in the strength of a unified Europe, militarily. I think that trend will continue, the ability to resist will improve and I look forward to the day when they will have developed enough strength and have enough equipment of their own, plus what we will furnish or sell to them, that their strength will ultimately become such that we can reduce our own Military Eastablishment.

Mr. MERROW. That is most encouraging, but do you feel that that increase in strength is already having an apparent effect on possible aggressors?

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, sir, quite definitely, and I think I know what I am talking about on that. However, the effect on a possible aggressor would not be sufficient without the alertness and strength of the United States. The United States can never let down its guard until that trend toward strength over there becomes actual strength in being of such type and character that it contributes beyond any question to the security of the world.

Mr. MERROW. And its policy then will prevent a possible world war?

Secretary JOHNSON. I hope that is the answer. That is why we work for it. We think that a would-be aggressor today appreciates only organized strength. We seek to have that.

Mr. MERROw. Thank you.

Chairman KEE. Mr. Fulton, have you any questions?

Mr. FULTON. I wanted to congratulate the Secretary on his comments. We in the opposition believe he is doing a good job. Secretary JOHNSON. I cannot hear you.

Mr. FULTON. I was complimenting you. Perhaps that is why you could not hear. It was a compliment from an unexpected quarter. Secretary JOHNSON. I am sorry I missed that.

Mr. FULTON. The first thing you commented on was that the act was aptly changed from the military assistance program to the Mutual Defense Assistance Act in this committee.

Secretary JOHNSON. That is right.

Mr. FULTON. We felt that a reorientation of the program would give a better value to it abroad. But within the government organization, I notice that there is a Military Assistance Steering Committee, and a Foreign Military Assistance Coordinating Committee.

Now those committees are set up without any legislative restrictions or implementation.

Do you think they are operating all right, first, and secondly, do you think that within the current act that we are considering there should be implementatoin of these committees?

Secretary JOHNSON. No, I think not. That first committee is just one of those necessary background committees of Mr. Hoffman, Mr. Acheson, and myself, to keep things coordinated at the top level, next to the Commander in Chief.

Mr. FULTON. You agree that is better on an informal basis?

Secretary JOHNSON. I think so.

Mr. FULTON. Within our own Government, the implementation you have received from the previous act has been satisfactory? You need no changes of procedure to carry on further?

Secretary JOHNSON. That is right.

Mr. FULTON. In your policy statement, you had spoken of the repulsion of communism. May we have your comments on that term, vis-à-vis the former policy of the containment of communism?

By that do you mean you are approaching the problem merely by repelling the spearheads of communism where they might actively intrude on the democratic nations, or do you still hold to a containment policy that contains communism every place?

Secretary JOHNSON. I see what you are getting at. It is a little hard to answer in one word.

Mr. FULTON. I would rather go on and let you answer that for the record, later. It is a different basic policy whether you contain every place or just repel the thrusts. Rather than take the time here, if you will answer that for the record later, I will appreciate it.

Secretary JOHNSON. Let us discuss that, because that is an interesting thing that often sparks an idea that helps you do the job you are doing. I would like to sit down and visit with you on that score. Mr. FULTON. I would be very glad to.

Among the people you are now training, there are approximately 3,000 people being trained under this program abroad, foreign nationals being assisted in training under this mutual defense assistance program. Are there any of those nationals in countries that are nontreaty countries and also countries that are not within any section 51 agency of the United Nations? For example, are we taking in Spain or western Germany?

Secretary JOHNSON. There are none for Spain or western Germany. Furthermore there are no Poles. I will have to check on the question of the Poles, being trained by the United States over there.

Mr. FULTON. On the projects themselves that have been submitted to you, as I understand, there are probably 150 projects that have been brought up by foreign countries for the supplying of arms or for programs under this authorization so far. Do you have any estimate of what the total over-all cost of the programs submitted to date to you under this act would be, and if so, how much?

Secretary JOHNSON. We cannot give you that exactly the way you put the question, but you will get that in another way which I think will be satisfactory for you.

Mr. FULTON. Can you estimate later the requests for assistance and what they would cost, over-all? Not the requests after they are screened, but the general requests already made for assistance, to see what we are being called upon to provide.

Secretary JOHNSON. The requests for finished equipment in the first instance did not always give full recognition to integrated defense. Certain requests were directed toward a complete defense or substantially so, within the nation's own national boundary. Those figures are valueless.

Mr. FULTON. May I comment there: I believe your statement as you have just made it, of an integrated defense of the Atlantic area is the best definition of a balanced force under the Atlantic Treaty.

One other thing and I am through: Under the particular program we had set up, Congress said that a safe minimum must be kept of essential equipment for the United States forces. In no case have you gone into or depleted those essential items of equipment that the United States forces might need for the defense of our own country, have you?

Secretary JOHNSON. We have not and will not.

Mr. FULTON. In the beginning, under the program there was $450,000,000 worth of equipment which, although it might be excess to our immediate needs, the Congress would not let you ship more than that $450,000,000 amount. However, under the program we only charged the cost of putting this equipment into good condition. Secretary JOHNSON. That is the $79,000,000 in the fiscal 1950 program which is for putting on the improvements, modernization, and all the repairs needed to bring this excess equipment into first-class condition.

Mr. FULTON. I want to bring up the limitation of $450,000,000 and ask you, if that limitation were taken off or broadened, is there not other equipment of that kind immediately available within this country, that with a small amount of repair and modernization could be used in this program, and if so what should that figure now be?

Secretary JOHNSON. It is in this bill. In there we ask for $250,000,000 for additional excess equipment. It is in section 7.

Mr. FULTON. Is the $250,000,000 the amount that you would like to spend to put the equipment in order, or is it the total original cost of that equipment? Does it take in the whole field of the equipment of that type that we might send over under this program? Is that all there is of it?

Secretary JOHNSON. That $250,000,000 is calculated as a "ceiling,' according to the outline of what we want to put into this bill, on the same basis as the original $450,000,000.

Mr. FULTON. Is that original cost?

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, original cost. However, in this presentation, I asked in the case of that excess equipment, where we are going to sell it to some friendly nation, that we be authorized to sell that excess equipment not on the basis of its original cost, whether it is higher or lower than the market value, but that, where similar things are being sold commercially, we be permitted to sell it for dollars at its real or fair value.

Mr. FULTON. In this program, that would not then move either to Spain or to the new agreement that has been made by the State Department in the Middle East? It would not go into any one of those areas, would it?

Secretary JOHNSON. It could not under the existing law and the status quo, go into Spain. However, I do not know why it could not go in part to Iran.

Mr. FULTON. But not under this legislation?

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, under this legislation, because Iran is designated in the Act.

Mr. FULTON. Well, Iran is under this legislation, but it could not necessarily go to Egypt or Israel?

Secretary JOHNSON. Yes, that is better.

Chairman KEE. Mr. Javits, have you any questions?

Mr. JAVITS. I have a few questions I would like to have answered in open session.

First I would like to join with my colleagues in congratulating the Secretary for making an excellent statement and for what he has accomplished.

Secretary JOHNSON. May I say that since Mr. Javits will be the last to interrogate me, your gratification means more than words can tell, because we have had some brickbats thrown our way in the last few months.

Mr. JAVITS. I understand from Secretary Acheson that there is nothing in the collective security forces which represents or is figured on being derived from German remilitarization?

Secretary JOHNSON. That is correct, sir.

Mr. JAVITS. I notice you mention one earth-shaking event in your statement. You say the atomic explosion in Russia-you name that as the first one of the events which would represent an intensification of Soviet, as you put it, hostility to our ideals of peace and freedom. Could you tell us whether there has been a reevaluation of the whole mutual defense assistance program in view of the Soviet advance shown in atomic explosion, with the assumption that the Soviet Union has or will shortly have the atom bomb?

Secretary JOHNSON. No; and yes.

Starting sometime ago, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, with the Joint Staff, prepare every 90 days for the President and myself, a revaluation of the world picture and a revaluation of our own armed strength within that picture. Such a revaluation was in progress when the explosion took place. Before you came back here for this session of Congress, we had the revaluation with that element taken into account. No time has been lost in keeping up to date on that, and this 90-day report from the Joint Chiefs is a tremendously valuable thing because you work toward a complete revaluation, you see, each 90 days. That was not true before.

Mr. JAVITS. Does the amount for this program you are asking for now represent the amount you feel you actually need for collective security forces in western Europe in terms of the possession by the Soviet Union of the atom bomb?

Secretary JOHNSON. It does.

Mr. JAVITS. What I think I would like to have the record clear on is that it does not represent some shading or arbitrary figure, in deference to what you think Congress might want. Is this really the amount for what you think will be the need for the next fiscal year for the MDAP in terms of the Soviet's possession of the atomic bomb? Secretary JOHNSON. It is, sir. I think I might say parenthetically that when we talked about this subject a year ago, we thought it might be a little less this year.

Mr. JAVITS. Do you think it extends the time in which we will need this mutual defense assistance program? In other words, do you think it will take longer than you did last year?

Secretary JOHNSON. I think the greatest effect of the Soviet atomic development has been to make the western European nations more willing to get together and speed up this program and that that has been a greatly compensating factor to any value that explosion might have had in Russia's preparedness program.