Mr. IRWIN. If it is a question of time-well, let us see what we can get on it and what will satisfy the question.

Mrs. KELLY. Do I understand that $2.6 billion is your carryover for 1959?

Mr. IRWIN. At the end of fiscal year 1959, the carryover will be $2.6 billion.

Mrs. KELLY. That will be entirely obligated?

Mr. IRWIN. Yes.

Mrs. KELLY. On page 6 you mention aircraft, ships, and so forth. Are any submarines involved in that?

Mr. IRWIN. Which figure, Mrs. Kelly?

Mrs. KELLY. Page 6. Are there any submarines involved? You haven't mentioned submarines.

Mr. IRWIN. Mr. Shuff says there are submarines, but he does not know specifically how many.

Mr. SHUFF. I can find out for you, Mrs. Kelly.

Mrs. KELLY. Have the communications in Turkey been perfected over this past year? Excuse me; you have the figure on submarines now?

Mr. HOLCOMBE. One submarine to be overhauled. There is one new submarine in the fiscal year 1960 program.

Mrs. KELLY. One?

Mr. HOLCOMBE. Yes.

Mrs. KELLY. What kind of ships are involved in this, can you tell me? Is it landing craft?

Mr. IRWIN. Coast Guard patrol boats [security deletion], landing craft, landing ship transport, coastal minelayer, coastal minesweeper, inshore sweeper, ocean sweeper, submarine chaser, torpedo boat. One submarine

Mrs. KELLY. Just as listed in the book?

Mr. HOLCOMBE. Yes.

Mrs. KELLY. Aren't they almost all obsolete at this moment!

Mr. IRWIN. Our Navy feels very strongly that you need a wide variety of naval craft throughout the world. One of their main missions is keeping the sealanes open.

Mr. HOLCOMBE. In both SACLANT, SAC, and SHAPE they have established, at a high priority, the antisubmarine warfare program, Mrs. Kelly.

Mrs. KELLY. You were going to get percentages for infrastructure, on naval bases, airbases, and so forth. Could we have that broken down on a per-share-of-country program, instead of the worldwide, as I assume you have given it to us?

it.

Mr. IRWIN. I think it would be a difficult operation but we can do

(The information is as follows:)

COST-SHARING PROGRAMS

Infrastructure cost-sharing formula (gross percentages, including taxes)

As of December 31, 1958, $79 million of the MAP funds had been obligated or reserved for the weapons production program. The foreign governments' costs for the projects involved is estimated to be $113 million, or 59 percent of the total cost.

MUTUAL WEAPONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

Since the inception of the MWDP through December 31, 1958, the participating foreign governments have contributed approximately $288 million, supplemented

by U.S. obligations amounting to $164 million. The foreign governments' costs represent 64 percent of the total.

(A classified memorandum was also supplied for the committee records.)

Chairman MORGAN. The gentlewoman's time has expired.

Mr. Bentley

Mr. BENTLEY. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry other developments made it impossible for me to be here while Mr. Irwin was giving his major presentation. I will read it with care.

I want to ask about one particular aspect of it.

Can you tell me in which countries where we have a MAP program that the Soviets have a military program?

Mr. IRWIN. One example would be in Tunisia, Mr. Bentley.

Mr. BENTLEY. No. 2 would be Iraq, even though our program is suspended?

Mr. IRWIN. Yes.

Mr. BENTLEY. No. 3 would be Afghanistan, would it not?

Mr. IRWIN [security deletion]. We have no military assistance program in Afghanistan.

These are the countries where the Sino-Soviet bloc has given credit or grant for military purposes. Egypt, we have no program there. Syria, we have no program there. Yemen, we have no program there. In Iraq we had a program, which is suspended at the moment. In Afghanistan there is no military assistance program.

Mr. HOLCOMBE. No; there is none.

Mr. IRWIN. In [security deletion] we do have.

Mrs. KELLY. Would the gentleman yield? I think you should check [security deletion]. Did you mention Cambodia?

Mr. IRWIN. Cambodia is not listed as receiving military equipment, but we believe there is some there.

Mr. BENTLEY. I would like to discuss this particularly with reference to the countries in which we may have military personnel and in which the Soviets may be competing with a military program.

What steps can we take to make sure our military equipment isn't subject to inspection by military technicians of the Russians?

I think of Iraq where we had up until the revolution of last July a total delivery, I believe, of in excess of [security deletion] million. I don't know whether it was all military equipment, but the program cumulatively was over [security deletion] million.

I don't know of the nature of the weapons delivered to Iraq under that program, but presumably they are all subject to access and inspection now to Soviet military technicians. Is that a fair assumption? Mr. IRWIN. They would be; yes.

Mr. SHUFF. I would think that all of the equipment that was delivered to Iraq would have been available for inspection in other places by the Soviets. I don't think that any of the U.S. equipment would be the variety that would be terribly important for the Soviets to look at. They have looked at the same kind of equipment right out here at Wright-Patterson Field about 4 years ago, to my knowledge.

A good deal of the equipment that went to Iraq was of British design since Iraq had had British equipment prior to the time when we started programing it; and we have, in the history of the Iraqi program, through offshore procurement, added to it with things like British

25-pounders [security deletion] and that kind of thing, so that, even if they do see it, I don't think they will be seeing anything for the first time.

Mr. BENTLEY. I think, Mr. Chairman, for the record I would like to have the gentlemen provide us with the information regarding the country or countries where we have or have had a military program, and I think the Defense Department should make specific assurances that, where in those countries Soviet military technicians are now operating freely, there has been no equipment of any kind delivered in our programs to those countries which would be, from our standpoint, damaging if the Soviet had access or inspection to it at the present time.

Do you want to make that assurance now? If you would prefer to do it later after checking the figures, you can do so.

Mr. IRWIN. I would give you assurance that we would have no reason for concern if materiel given to those countries were compromised. Mr. BENTLEY. If you knew the country was going to be Sovietized, you wouldn't send them any equipment anyway, but I am talking about a program where the program operated in the country before Soviet penetration.

Mr. SHUFF. Mr. Bentley, I think I can reassure you of what Mr. Irwin has said. The places where we have our modernization are not places where we are directly competing with Soviets in the same arena. I can give you the assurance that anything that went to Iraq there is nothing that will benefit the enemy by being compromised. Mr. BENTLEY. Are there any countries now receiving so-called modernized equipment that conceivably might have a political change of heart!

Mr. SHUFF. To my knowledge, no.

Mr. BENTLEY. Do you want to check and supply that for the record! I think that assurance should be on the record.

Mr. SHUFF. I am giving you that commitment now, Mr. Bentley. Mr. FARBSTEIN. Would you yield, Mr. Bentley?

Mr. BENTLEY. Yes.

Mr FARBSTEIN. Would you extend that to include those countries where there is knowledge that a very substantial part of the electorate in the last year was Communist?

Mr. SHUFF. Would you delineate a little more specifically!

Mr. FARBSTEIN. I would not.

Mr. SHUFF. If you mean Italy and France, sir, I don't think I can answer that question.

Mr. FARBSTEIN. Well, who can? Anybody?

Mr. IRWIN. I think that is primarily a question for the State Department to judge. If I may speak personally I have no question in my mind as to the adherence to the West of those two Governments. Mr. FARBSTEIN. It is not a question of adherence of the Government. We understand the Government adheres to the West.

Mr. IRWIN. I would say of the people too, Mr. Farbstein, but who can look into the future?

Mr. HAYS. In other words, another Iraq could happen?

Mr. SHUFF. Hardly though, sir, in Italy and France.

Mr. HAYS. I am not thinking of Italy and France. You people sat here 2 years ago and I told you that Iraq, in my opinion, was in a shaky position and I was almost considered an idiot.

Chairman MORGAN. The gentleman from Michigan's time has expired. Mr. Hays.

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether this should come out of my time, but it ought to be in the record, and I am willing to do it.

You say this is your first appearance before the committee, Mr. Irwin?

Mr. IRWIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAYS. How long have you been with the program?

Mr. IRWIN. I have been in Washington a little short of 2 years, in the Defense Department. I have been a deputy to Mr. Sprague, but Mr. Sprague and Mr. Shuff handled all the military assistance hearings, and my responsibility was not directly with the mutual security program.

Mr. HAYS. What was your background before you came here? Mr. IRWIN. I was born and brought up in Iowa and I have been a lawyer in New York City.

Mr. HAYS. Now, you have in this request some $96.5 million for military assistance for what we call Latin America. Included in that is [security deletion] for Cuba. Now, I saw, heard, and read a lot of statements, and saw it on television, that Castro wanted our military mission to come home. Has he changed his mind?

Mr. IRWIN. No, sir. We have agreed to withdraw the missions from Cuba.

[Security deletion.]

Mr. HAYS. You say the State Department made this decision. This brings us to a very interesting question: Who does make the decision, item by item?

Mr. IRWIN. Decision, item by item, sir, is a Department of Defense responsibility. Whether or not an agreement or a program is instituted in a particular country is a political decision that both State and Defense share, but final responsibility for dealing with a particular country would be a State Department decision.

Mr. HAYS. If we get [security deletion] million in for Venezuela, you had [security deletion] million last year and you had approximately [security deletion] million the year before that.

Mr. IRWIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. HAYS. Now, if somebody out in Ohio said, "Why is Venezuela getting money in this bill," what would be my answer?

Because they threw rocks at the Vice President are we going to try to persuade them not to do it again, or what?

Mr. IRWIN. They are not receiving grants. They are receiving materiel by credit sales which we expect will be paid back.

Mr. HAYS. Have they ever paid any of it back so far?

Mr. IRWIN. I believe they have, sir.

Mr. HAYS. Before you tell me how much they paid to date, tell me how much they got, and that will have some relation to it.

If they got [security deletion] million and paid $1 million, that doesn't mean much. You can supply that later.

(A classified memorandum was subsequently supplied in response to Mr. Hays' request.)

Mr. IRWIN. My understanding is that they have paid the amount owed as payments become due.