key role in maintaining internal and external security, and in defense matters generally.

Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you, I thought that ought to be in the record. How many countries and what are they, that Soviet Russia assists as well as ourselves?

General LEMNITZER. The Soviet Union does have a military assistance program. I can't give you the exact number of countries to which they furnish military assistance. I think you will find Soviet equipment in the hands of every country behind the Iron Curtain. Soviet equipment is found not only behind the Iron Curtain, but some of it is also in countries in Africa and in other underdeveloped areas.

They have a sizable program. Egypt, for example, has a large amount of Soviet military equipment.

Mrs. BOLTON. In any of those countries, do we give military assistance, also?

General LEMNITZER. Not to my knowledge. I am sure we don't give any aid, military aid to the Warsaw Pact countries. Those are the ones with which I am principally concerned.

Mrs. BOLTON. Do you think our giving food to Egypt makes it easier for Russia not to do that and for them to do the purely military? General LEMNITZER. I don't think I am in a very good position to judge that problem. I think it is primarily a political problem. The people who are concerned with the overall military, fiscal, and political considerations are in the best position to judge that one.

Mrs. BOLTON. What can you tell us of why Saudi Arabia, which does have a lot of money, doesn't pay for the help it gets?

General LEMNITZER. Saudi Arabia happens not to be in my area, and I am not really acquainted with the situation there. I think General Adams will be coming. Saudi Arabia has recently been removed from my area of responsibility and transferred to the area for which General Adams has responsibility for U.S. military assistance. Mrs. BOLTON. We can ask him next week.

Why have the military programs for Guinea, why do we have that and don't have them for the Ivory Coast or Nigeria? General LEMNITZER. This is out of my area. I couldn't tell you. Mrs. BOLTON. Jordan is the same thing?

General LEMNITZER. Yes.

Mrs. BOLTON. Let's go to the Azores. We were very much involved in our sentiments back when the Azores were first made possible for us. Do you think we are going to have success in continuing there? Do you think Portugal will agree to it?

General LEMNITZER. As I indicated in my statement, we are there on an ad hoc basis day by day. We give Portugal a small amount of training assistance. But our base there at Lojes is functioning. It is particularly important to me, although it happens to be in Admiral Moorer's SACLANT area. It is the stepping stone for reinforcements and connections between the western part of the NATO alliance and Allied Command Europe. The facilities in the Azores would be heavily used as stepping stones in reinforcing my area.

They are of tremendous importance, also, in maintaining antisubmarine actions within the Atlantic. That is not a responsibility of my command but of SACLANT's. The Azores are in a very important strategic position.

Mrs. BOLTON. Do we have any countermachinery, shall I call it, broadly, to protect ourselves and the world from the submarines? There seem to be a great many submarines floating around about the

Ocean.

General LEMNITZER. I would say the United States has as effective antisubmarine capabilities as any nation in the world-greater than any nation in the world.

Mrs. BOLTON. I will try to get that from the Navy perhaps or something because it has not been my sense of any adequate number of submarines as compared to the Russians, and so on.

General LEMNITZER. [Security deletion.] It is one of our most important requirements, particularly in view of the vast number of submarines which the Soviets have available to them.

Mrs. BOLTON. Do we have anything?

General LEMNITZER. Indeed, we do. [Security deletion.]

Mrs. BOLTON. You say they have been designed?

General LEMNITZER. They are in-being.

Mrs. BOLTON. Are they being used?

General LEMNITZER. They can only be used for detection in peace

time, of course.

Mrs. BOLTON. Are they possible of use?
General LEMNITZER. Indeed they are.

Mrs. BOLTON. In adequate numbers?

General LEMNITZER. This is an area that I am not as familiar with as others who are scheduled to appear before the committee. [Security deletion].

Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you for that very much, because I have been rather unhappy that we have made no mention of that in any of the hearings that we have. I am glad to have you reassure me.

General LEMNITZER. [Security deletion.]

Mrs. BOLTON. I hope so, General. I hope the research money has begun to be made visible not just be research.

General LEMNITZER. Definitely not that. We do have ships and aircraft and the weapons to deal with submarines. The submarine threat is a very difficult one to deal with. I would say we have made enormous advances in the field in recent years.

Mrs. BOLTON. Thank you very much for the reassurance.
Chairman MORGAN. Mrs. Kelly.

Mrs. KELLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will permit me to announce to the other members of the committee that the Subcommittee on Europe will continue its hearings on NATO this afternoon at 2:30. General Lemnitzer agreed to meet with us and go into some aspects of that subject, including showing us military charts and so on. I hope all the members will feel free to come. It will be an executive session.

General, it is always wonderful to have you here. I hope at this time. of great crisis in NATO, that your knowledge of the problems relative to this situation of France will bear weight. Because I know all of us have confidence in you..

General, can you tell me how much it costs us to maintain our Military Establishment in Europe?

General LEMNITZER. You mean the U.S. equipment?

Mrs. KELLY. Yes. If you want to put it in the record

General LEMNITZER. I will get it. I don't have it with me, but I can get it quite easily.

(The information follows:)

U.S. FORCES SUPPORT EUROPE

The cost of maintaining U.S. forces and equipment in Europe in fiscal year was [security deletion]. This figure includes pay, subsistence and clothing for personnel and operations and maintenance costs of equipment. Capital investment expenses are excluded.

Mrs. KELLY. What are the prospects from a military standpoint of reducing our military forces in Germany?

General LEMNITZER. The decision, of course, is up to the United States [security deletion].

This question is frequently asked me, and I would like to explain my position on it. We are having contacts with Communist forces around the world including the contact in southeast Asia of which we are. all so well aware of [security deletion].

We all know that there is a centralized control to Communist efforts and they could easily shift their activities into the European area.

I believe that the peace, security, and stability which we have been able to obtain in Europe as a result of NATO's strength enable us to deal more effectively with decisions in other parts of the world than we would have otherwise, having to deal with several fronts. [Security deletion].

Mrs. KELLY. I had hoped that you would have that answer, General. What is the condition of the European armed forces? Are they well equipped or to what degree.

I know you and I and the military generally feel that an army is never fully and currently equipped with the most up-to-date equipment. What percentage of the European armed forces is equipped with new, modern, up-to-date weapons?

General LEMNITZER. It varies by country. It even varies among the armed forces of the country.

I will take the Federal Republic of Germany, for example. They have recently completed the activation of [security deletion].

Those that were activated a few years ago are among the best divisions that would come under my command in the case of an emergency [security deletion].

Mrs. KELLY. General, could we say that roughly speaking the European NATO countries have attained [security deletion] or [security deletion] percent of maximum capacity for self-defense? Could we roughly estimate a percentage there with respect to selfdefense?

General LEMNITZER. I wouldn't want to put it in terms like that. The purpose of the NATO alliance was to take the military capabilities of the various nations and to weld them into a viable whole. Their capabilities vary by country, but the objective is to get the best overall capability out of them.

In Central Europe at the moment we have approximately [security deletion]. I would say we have considerable strength there. In the Norway and Denmark area [security deletion] generally speaking, we believe we have a strong capability throughout the Allied Command Europe.

Mrs. KELLY. I have one more question and I will save the rest for this afternoon.

While you commended highly the work of the MAAG groups throughout Europe, with the present situation are they really needed there?

General LEMNITZER. As I tried to point out in my statement, I consider that they are badly needed, for advice, and as a link which strengthens the efforts of the alliance as a whole. They provide valuable guidance and assistance to the armed services of the countries in which they are located.

They provide a means of assisting countries in identifying their military needs, and in selecting the best equipment for their needs. In general such equipment is that obtained from the United States. So the MAAG's do provide valuable advice with regard to the availability of modern military equipment in the United States.

The United States is regarded also as the center of the most up-todate military learning and education.

I consider the military advisory groups in these countries very important, and that is why I devoted so much attention to it in my prepared statement.

Mrs. KELLY. I realize that. But when there is so little military assistance going to these countries, I wondered why we continue to support sizable MAAG groups? The reason for their being in those countries in the first instance has disappeared.

I also want to comment on the sale of military equipment to the countries involved. I know that they can come directly to private brokers and industries instead of coming to our Government. I wondered if that had anything to do with the integration of the forces. in Europe, politically.

General LEMNITZER. The MAAG's are very welcome in their respective areas. They do provide most valuable advice and guidance. They contribute greatly toward the integration of individual country efforts with the entire NATO effort. I could run down a long list of the advantages in having MAAG personnel there who can provide that kind of advice.

We constantly review on the size of the MAAG's. They are not nearly as large as they used to be. They are frequently surveyed to insure that they have the personnel required to do their job, and

no more.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Adair.

Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Chairman.

General Lemnitzer, let me say, as others have, that we are pleased to have you here today. Through the years in conferences here and abroad we have learned to have confidence in what you say to us, and in your judgment.

General LEMNITZER. Thank you.

Mr. ADAIR. I directed some questions yesterday, as did the gentlewoman from New York and the gentleman from Florida, to the Secretary of Defense and General Wheeler, relating to this NATO problem which has just been under discussion, and which you touch upon on page 9 of your statement.

As I understand the proposed program, and if I read the book correctly there is an allocation of $90 million proposed for infrastructure in the coming fiscal year.

General LEMNITZER. That is correct.

Mr. ADAIR. A basic question of mine-and it was not answered yesterday was in the light of the recent pronouncements and actions of President de Gaulle; Has your estimate of need for this figure changed in recent weeks or months?

General LEMNITZER. [Security deletion.]

Mr. ADAIR. The Secretary, I believe it was yeterday, pointed out that if some of these installations have to be moved, it is quite possible they will be brought home-the great supply depots, for example, in light of the greater mobility, and our ability to supply from a distance. General LEMNITZER. I think that refers to the vast U.S. array of facilities in France which are part of our lines of communication. [Security deletion.]

Mr. ADAIR. If De Gaulle does go through with his apparent plans, do you anticipate that we will be denied the use of the pipelines and the supply depots and comunications systems and all the rest of those things that are now in France?

Are you anticipating a complete denial of the use of those facilities? General LEMNITZER. [Security deletion.]

Mr. ADAIR. I would certainly agree with that, General.

Along a slightly different line, has any thought or any exploratory work been done with respect to the question, if the French do deny us the use of these facilities which we have put there, of asking them to reimburse us for costs involved? What could you tell us about that?

General LEMNITZER. Our arrangements as to U.S. facilities that are located in France are based on five agreements that have been consummated between the United States and the French Government from 1950 up through 1958. [Security deletion.]

I have them listed here. I anticipated this would be of interest to the committee. [Security deletion.]

Mr. ADAIR. And then repaid to the United States?
General LEMNITZER. [Security deletion].

We have a total of five of these agreements. The Air Base Agreement is another one. The period of validity of this particular agreement, which was signed on the fourth of October 1952 [security deletion]. That, in general, is the manner in which this is handled. Chairman MORGAN. Mr. O'Hara.

Mr. O'HARA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

General, it is a delight having you back with us.
General LEMNITZER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. I first met you, I think, in 1949, and you have remained my idol of what an American soldier should be. I want to congratulate you and our country on the terrific job you have been doing in the European area.

General LEMNITZER. Thank you, sir.

Mr. O'HARA. General, I am a little concerned, reading your statement, the Soviet buildup apparently has been large, and you seem to feel that in the modernization of weapons we are not keeping pace? General LEMNITZER. I don't think I said that.