Vietnam can defend itself as we pull out, because I am confident this administration, and I am not critical of it, has put us on an irreversible, inexorable course.

Secretary LAIRD. Yes, Senator, we have changed the course of the war, and changed the course of the American involvement in the war, since the new administration has taken office.

Back in September, when I suggested that 90,000 troops might be withdrawn from Vietnam, I was criticized by the administrationby the then Secretary of Defense-on the basis that this was not in prospect. I believe that we should push forward on this program, that we should change the direction of the American commitment from one that was continuing to go up and up and up to one that can go down and be reduced. As Secretary of Defense, I have made every effort to move in this direction, and I believe that we are meeting with success with this program.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS BY SENATOR CASE

Senator CASE. I have some other questions that I think I can put in the record, if I may, so as not to delay my colleagues, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.

(Senator Case's questions and the Defense Department answers follow :)

Question. How many American GI's are now deployed abroad?

Answer. There were 1,188,894 Department of Defense active duty military personnel deployed in foreign countries and areas as of 31 March 1969.

Question. 1. Would the Defense Department have any objection to public disclosure before final approval of proposed grant or sale of major weapons to underdeveloped countries? If so, why?

Answer. I have instructed Defense Department personnel with responsibility for public information to follow the policy of full disclosure with a minimum of exceptions. The principal exception is based on security considerations. A proposed grant or sale of major weapons to an underdeveloped country could be a matter of considerable significance for the security of that country, and public disclosure without prior consent by the receiving country could be a matter of great political sensitivity.

Question. What is the strength of Russia's armed forces outside the Soviet Union?

Answer. The Soviet armed forces strength outside the Soviet Union (in Central Europe and Mongolia) is around 500,000 men. This total does not include Soviet military personnel on duty in various other nations performing training, assistance, or advisory tasks.

Question. In your statement you say the United States is giving military assistance to 44 countries. How many countries are receiving military assistance from Russia?

Answer. At present the Russians give military assistance to 24 Free World countries and 9 Communist countries for a total of 33 countries.

Question. Last year the Congress amended the Foreign Assistance Act to prohibit grants of sophisticated weapons to poor countries, but allowing a Presidential waiver, with the requirement that he report any such waivers to the Congress. This year's bill proposes to repeal that restriction as it applies to Greece, Turkey, the Republic of China, the Philippines, and Korea. Why?

Answer. The so-called "Conte-Long" Amendments were first enacted into law in the Foreign Assistance Appropriations Act, 1968, and as so enacted the five named countries were among the seven countries expressly exempt from the applicability of that restriction. In 1968, these Amendments were reenacted as part of the Foreign Assistance Act and also were placed in the Foreign Military Sales Act. In their reenacted form, the seven country exemption was deleted in the Foreign Assistance Act but continued in the Foreign Military Sales Act. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to conform the grant aid prohibition to the sales prohibition. A review of the legislative history will show that the under

lying purpose of the "Conte-Long" Amendments was to restrain the acquisition of arms and dampen down arms races. It was not the intent to deny sophisticated weapons to these forward defense countries and in effect do damage to our national interests. Presidential waivers were obtained in FY 1969 for these five countries in accordance with the language of the Act.

Question. Do you see any reason for the Russians to think they are threatened? Answer. Yes I do, but not by the U.S. Certainly the long-term U.S. policy of restraint in our relations with the Soviet Union and our more recent efforts to move from an era of confrontation to one of negotiation, should reassure the Soviet Union about its own security. The Soviet leadership, however, does feel both geographical and ideological threats that trouble and preoccupy it. The long simmering polemical battle with Communist China has spilled over into open border hostilities. Clearly there is greatly increased alarm in Moscow about the potential threat to Soviet security posed by an aggressive China.

Question. Do you think that the United States automatically suffers a setback anytime the Soviet Union supplies arms to a neutral nation—such as India? Answer. Not necessarily. The experience of some of the Arab countries however, shows how difficult it can be for countries to maintain their neutrality when they are dependent on the Soviet Union for their vital military assistance needs. In addition to political "strings", Soviet advisors, manuals and training invariably accompany such assistance and in the end the recipient countries military personnel may come to rely on the Soviets as "partners". In general, from the U.S. perspective it can be said that to the extent a neutral country must adopt an anti-American attitude as a price for Soviet arms, U.S. interests are negatively affected.

Question. How many major bases do the Russians have abroad?

Answer. The Soviets have approximately 354 major bases outside the USSR. These bases are located in Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland and Mongolia. Types of bases considered are: tactical air force home bases and deployment airfields, air depots, and ground forces installations. There is no known major Soviet naval base outside the USSR.

Question. How many major bases do we have abroad?
Answer. We have 343 major bases abroad.

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from Missouri.
Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

UNITED STATES AND SOVIETS AS ARMS SUPPLIERS

Mr. Secretary, I have a few questions. You say in your statement "Despite assurances by the Soviet Union that it supports a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli dispute, Soviet arms continue to flow into the area although at a somewhat reduced rate."

If you were the secretary of the Soviet government, assuming the word "area" means a reasonably broad area, you could report that, despite assurances by the United States that it supports a peaceful resolution of the Arab-Israeli dispute, U.S. arms continue to flow into the area although "at a somewhat reduced rate" could you not?

Secretary LAIRD. Yes, Senator Symington.

Senator SYMINGTON. Thank you.

Now, you say later, "the Soviet Union has been the principal supplier of arms to India. Recent reports indicate that it is shipping weapons to Pakistan as well." Under the same circumstances it could be said "The United States has been the principal supplier of arms to Pakistan. Recent reports indicate that it is shipping weapons to India as well," could you not?

Secretary LAIRD. It is not correct, Senator, that the United States is shipping weapons to India as well. We are not supplying lethal weapons to India.

Senator SYMINGTON. None at all?

Secretary LAIRD. None at all.

Senator SYMINGTON. Then we could

Secretary LAIRD. We have made some small sales of spare parts to the Indian Government.

Senator SYMINGTON. I do not mean it critically but

Secretary LAIRD (continuing). spare parts, but we are not supplying India with lethal weapons as such under the program on which I am testifying today.

Senator SYMINGTON. Then you could

Secretary LAIRD (continuing). and there is no proposed allocation to India in the authorization request in this bill.

Senator SYMINGTON. I would like to discuss this with you further off the record. In any case, we could say the United States has been the principal supplier of arms to Pakistan; could we not?

Secretary LAIRD. With reference to the last few years, Senator. I think that that probably would be an error, but I would like to supply for the record

Senator SYMINGTON. It does not say, is the principal supplier, rather has been the principal supplier. What I am trying to get at fundamentally is the end of the telescope we are looking through from the standpoint of policy.

CONTROL OVER ARMS SUPPLIED SOUTH VIETNAM

Press reports are that we plan, in order to make the South Vietnamese more independent, to give them $6,200 million, in military equipment. I asked Secretary Rogers, and would ask you, do we plan to keep any hold on those weapons? Not too long ago there were some 6,000 American tanks wandering around Europe, and despite efforts, they seemed to be being sold to other countries willing to take them, even though perhaps to us or to the Soviet Union they would be considered obsolescent. What are our plans with respect to the $6,200 million we plan to give the South Vietnamese.

Secretary LAIRD. We would keep control over whatever we supply under the terms of our military assistance agreement.

Senator SYMINGTON. Now, if the idea of President Thieu for including the Vietcong in the elections, which I thought was a good idea, if that worked out to the point where the Vietcong and the National Liberation Front, along presumably with the North Vietnamese, controlled Vietnam, it would be rather difficult for us to decide whether they could sell those arms to China, or to the Communists in Laos or anywhere else, would it not?

Secretary LAIRD. I certainly would agree with you, Senator, that that might be difficult. But, under the terms of the agreement, there are procedures worked out to control those arms.

Senator SYMINGTON. I know that before we got into this business in a big way, which you had nothing whatever to do with, we understood the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong were using quite a little American equipment. You remember that?

Secretary LAIRD. In the early years of the war that was certainly true. I am glad to report that the situation has changed, and now as the arms we are capturing show, the whole trend has changed about 180 degrees in the last 16 months.

EFFECT OF ANTI-SOVIET STATEMENTS

Senator SYMINGTON. I ask these questions because what is beginning to worry me is knowledge that if we attack the Soviet Union they could destroy us, and if they attack us we could destroy them. That is Mr. Churchill's balance of terror. At times it seems we have been doing our best to exacerbate our position with the Soviet Union. We have had speeches on the floor of the Senate attacking their leaders using words like "bloody."

We have had an emphasis on the belief they are determined to destroy the United States if they can. We had a talk by Mr. Gromyko the other day in which he said he would like to see better relations with this country. At times, when somebody says something in the Soviet Union as, for example, Mr. Kosygin saying the ABM was a defensive weapon, everybody says "Why, Kosygin himself says that the ABM is a defensive weapon." But when any Russian says something that does not go along with their policy, the same people say, in effect "you can never trust anything those dirty Russians say."

I was impressed with the remarks made by the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont about the results of a close vote on a particular issue. It seems to me, if I were in the Soviet Union and listening to the presentations currently being made, I would get the idea that we have developed more hate so far as the Soviet Union is concerned. You may not agree, but that is my opinion as I have watched this debate over recent weeks and months. With the premise these two countries are the two superpowers, from the standpoint of future generations, do you think it a good thing to develop this antagonism, if it is done to attain certain ends from a military standpoint? Do you think that wise from the standpoint of the future of our country?

Secretary LAIRD. Senator, I hope that we can do everything within our power to see that hate does not become a force in this country or the Soviet Union or any place else, and I hope this kind of debate is not moving in the direction that you anticipate. I think this debate on this system that you are talking about is good for our country, and I am

Senator SYMINGTON. Excuse me, I was not anticipating. I read a bitter attack on the entire Soviet leadership in the Politburo last week on the floor of the Senate. There is no anticipation in my mind.

Secretary LAIRD. They attacked me and used some rather unkind terms, too.

Senator SYMINGTON. Well, they have attacked me, too, pretty bitterly.

Secretary LAIRD. But I do not let that bother me as far as my job is concerned. I have tried to keep this debate on the basis of the facts and what the Soviet Union is doing in a military way. I thought it was my responsibility as Secretary of Defense to inform the committees of Congress to give them as much information as I possibly could-not only about what the Soviets are saying, but what the Soviets are doing in a military way. This has not been based on any hate or done with the idea of instituting any fear in the minds of the American people, but only so that they can have the facts and make the decision based upon those facts.

I believe, therefore, that the debate which is currently going on is good for our country, good for all people in an open society like ours

to have the opportunity for the kind of open and frank discussion that has been going on in the U.S. Senate. I think America is strong enough to take this kind of debate.

PROSPECTS OF ARMS CONTROL AGREEMENTS WITH U.S.S.R. AND RED CHINA

Senator SYMINGTON. Let me put the question this way: Do you think that there is any opportunity for us, more opportunity for us, to reach an agreement, a mutual agreement, of arms control and disarmament with the Soviet Union than with the Red Chinese?

Secretary LAIRD. I certainly do, Senator, and I believe that there is a better opportunity to reach agreement with the Soviet Union because of the debate we are having in the United States. I think we have a better opportunity if we do not take unilateral action, but do follow a sound course of action such as that set forth by President Nixon, as we prepare for these discussions with the Soviet Union.

Senator SYMINGTON. Do you think that the difference between the Red Chinese and the Soviet Union is a very real difference that could operate in our favor, or do you think that it is a relatively unimportant difference as against the broad difference between communism and capitalism on a standard basis as it is discussed in the communications of today?

Secretary LAIRD. I feel that it is a very significant difference, and I have been impressed with the manner in which it has heated up oratorically in the last few months.

I have also been impressed with the manner in which the Soviet Union has reacted by the deployment of troops and weapons to the Chinese border, and also by the reaction of the Red Chinese. I think this is a significant development.

Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Secretary, I am very glad to hear you say that. We are all in this together. Nobody in their wildest dreams would have thought 25 years ago that two of our three best friends in this world would be the Japanese and the West Germans, and I doubt if they would have believed that our two worst enemies-at least in the theory of it would be the Red Chinese and the Soviet Union. So things do change a great deal over a relatively short period of time. But I am worried about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. It will not be too long before it will be impossible for any two countries to get together and control what has been described as the balance of terror. There could soon be 20 scorpions in a bottle. So I would hope that in emphasizing the importance of a particular weapons system, we do not at the same time say things which will make it much more difficult for us to negotiate an agreement that could be very beneficial, not only to ourselves but also to the world.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Mr. Secretary.
The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from New York.

SOVIET TREATY VIOLATIONS

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Secretary, just one word to complete the point made by Senator Symington with which I so very deeply agree. We had a number of treaties with the Soviet Union. We have the test ban treaty, we have the Antarctic treaty, we have the nuclear weapons in space agreement. In the years since World War II, have we had