(The following information was later supplied :) BLACK SEA VISITS BY U.S. NAVY SHIPS U.S.S. Maury (AGS 16), September 17-28, 1959. U.S.S. Ault (DD689) U.S.S. John W. Weeks (DD 701), March 9-14, 1960. US.S. Harlan B. Dickson (DD 708) U.S.S. Davis (DD 937), October 3-9, 1960. U.S.S. Mullinix (DD 944) U.S.S. Hawkins (DDR 873), March 25-30, 1961. U.S.S. N. K. Perry (DD 883) U.S.S. Haynsworth (DD 700), September 20–26, 1961 U.S.S. Farragut (DLG 6) U.S.S. Huntington (DD 781), October 3-13, 1962. U.S.S. Johnston (DD 821) U.S.S. N. K. Perry (DD 883), September 27, October 3, 1963. U.S.S. Wilson (DD 847) U.S.S. Fox ADD 779), October 4-13, 1964. U.S.S. Hawkins (DD 873) U.S.S. Ingraham (DD 694), February 16-19, 1967. U.S.S. Wood (DD 715) U.S.S. Goodrich (DD 831), November 15-18, 1967. U.S.S. Cecil (DD 835) U.S.S. Norris (DD 859), January 7-10, 1968. U.S.S. Dyess (DD 880) U.S.S. Turner (DD 834), December 9-12, 1968. U.S.S. N. K. Perry (DD 883) U.S.S. Norris (DD 859), June 18-22, 1969. Senator PELL. Now, from the viewpoint of international law, what would be the situation if a Soviet destroyer wanted to move into the Great Lakes down the St. Lawrence Seaway? Would he be in a different position than our destroyers moving into the Black Sea? He would, I think, because of the Montreux Convention. Secretary LAIRD. Yes; it is a different situation. We have access to the Black Sea, and we are guaranteed that access. The St. Lawrence Seaway is an entirely different situation. Senator PELL. I would agree with that. Under the law we would be in a much more favorable situation geographically. Secretary LAIRD. We have to get permission, of course, to call at any port. Senator PELL. Right. Secretary LAIRD. Whether we call at a Turkish port or whether we call at an Italian port, a warship must receive permission to call; and we request that permission of the government unless that ship is in distress or cannot move in any other way. Normally we go through a formal procedure to request permission for these various port calls. Senator PELL. We do not need permission to go through the Dardanelles, I do not think. Secretary LAIRD. We do not need permission as far as the Dardanelles are concerned. MILITARY GRANT PROGRAM FOR GREECE Senator PELL. In connection with Greece, but according to the military briefing book, and reading only the unclassified figures, there is a total of about $180 million in arms, including excess defense articles, available for delivery to Greece as of about a year ago, and if you add that together with our present program, it adds up to about $263 million, more than a quarter of a billion dollars. This is more than three times the largest grant program for Greece in the last 3 years, which is quite striking. The question I wanted to ask you is: First, how much was actually shipped in the last fiscal year, and how large is the backlog now? Are those classified figures and, if so, maybe you would submit them for the record. Secretary LAIRD. They are classified. As you know, we have a selective suspension on major MAP items at the present time. Other than the exceptions made following the Czechoslovakian crisis, no exceptions have been made since this administration has been in office. The selective suspension remains in effect. We are hopeful that the Greek Government will move in the direction of democratic procedures, and this would be reviewed at that time. Senator PELL. But let us say, Mr. Secretary, that if everything works out in Greece exactly as we would wish, why is there any need for an authorization request in this year's bill when you have available so much of a backlog? Secretary LAIRD. Because of the long leadtime that is involved in the military equipment that Greece wants and needs at the present time. I am sure you realize that the equipment which has been ordered and is being held back at the present time can be used in other sections of the military assistance program. There is a long leadtime involved in this equipment. Senator PELL. If, for the sake of argument, the committee in its wisdom decided not to authorize any military assistance for Greece this year, what would be the deleterious effect on Greece, bearing in mind the available backlog? Would not the leadtime that is necessary be able to use up the slack of the stuff that is backed up now? A lot of the stuff backed up, as you know better than I, is only in dollars and not yet in three dimensions. Secretary LAIRD. A lot of it is contracted for, even the undeliverable items which are held up. They have been paid for. That figure is classified, but I will supply it for the record. Total military assistance provided to Greece since the Greek-Turkish aid program was inaugurated amounts to $1.555 billion. (Classified information was later supplied to the committee files.) Senator PELL. Would it not be a correct statement that before we get into spending any of the money we would now authorize under your request we would first have to go through that $263 million that is already authorized and in the pipeline? Secretary LAIRD. I would like to make it clear, Senator Pell, that most of that money is involved in aircraft procurement. I cannot give the percentage-but it is limited almost entirely to aircraft procurement. Senator PELL. Thank you. Secretary LAIRD. There are some tanks involved, too; but it is mostly aircraft procurement and tanks. I do not want to mislead you there are some tanks. Senator PELL. I just wanted to leave the record clear. In my own view, I would not agree with this, and I may well propose an amendment. Secretary LAIRD. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from Wyoming. Senator MCGEE. The Senator from Wyoming was just about to say that he was watching the hour and fervently casting an eye toward Senator Pell's notes to see if there was just one more question, and then you intruded with your response, and I thought maybe this was a little more of a deterrent. But we have been experiencing that here. COMPARABLE SOVIET, CHINESE, AND UNITED STATES MILITARY ASSISTANCE I appreciate the chance to raise some questions. My first would be a followup of one of the questions Senator Pell was pursuing. That has to do with the other countries that are involved in military hardware. This being so broad, could you supply for the record those countries to whom we give military assistance, who also receive it from the Soviet Union? Secretary LAIRD. Yes. I have that available at this time. Senator McGEE. I think for the record would be sufficient. It will save a little bit of time. The second would be the same question as it pertains to the Chinese. Secretary LAIRD. Yes, Senator. (The following information was later supplied :) COUNTRIES CURRENTLY RECEIVING MILITARY ASSISTANCE FROM THE UNITED STATES AND THE U.S.S.R AND/OR Senator MCGEE. The point is obvious in regard to them. I think if you can relate those two it would give us a look that would permit some questions later on. AMERICAN PERSONNEL IN MILITARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS The second point has to do with the relevant numbers of American personnel overseas who are there because of the military assistance programs. Could we have maybe a country-by-country list of the military missions which relate to the requests in this particular bill? Is that feasible? Secretary LAIRD. Yes, we can supply that for the record. Senator MCGEE. I think that would be helpful to have that in the record. Secretary LAIRD. We are currently engaged in a program designed to make certain reductions in that area, too; and perhaps we might supply the information. Senator MCGEE. If you could supply the anticipated reductions that you are having a look at at the present time, I think this would enable us to be a little more specific in some of our dialog on the floor in regard to what may or may not happen in that category. (The following information was later supplied :) Countries with U.S. military missions related to fiscal year 1970 military In addition to 1240 U.S. personnel reduced under the BALPA program and 262 under the Department of Defense's own reduction program in FY 1969, I plan to make further personnel reductions in MAAGS, Missions, and Military Groups of at least 10%. CURBING SUPPLY OF ARMS TO POORER COUNTRIES Senator MCGEE. I asked the Secretary of State yesterday a question that, perhaps, is more appropriately yours, even though it has a good bit of diplomacy involved in it, and that is the possibility of approaching the Soviets on working out an agreement to limit the sales of arms, particularly to poorer countries of the world. Has this been given any thought in the Pentagon? Secretary LAIRD. It has been given thought, but I do not think it is a very practical suggestion. Senator MCGEE. I think the record then ought to show it. This is the reply we want. What is the problem that it poses? Secretary LAIRD. It would not work as far as the Middle East is concerned and it would not work as far as Latin America is concerned because of the other suppliers who are involved. The Soviet Union and the United States could very well come to that type of agreement, but it would not have the practical effect that they would wish to achieve in limiting military aid to the underdeveloped countries. They would be able to secure this aid. This problem has arisen in connection with the F-5 aircraft we were discussing just a few moments ago, and the question of seeking a waiver. There are four countries in Latin America that are about ready to purchase planes from Europe, and there is concern here on the part of certain manufacturers in the United States that they be able to compete on a fair and equitable basis in these Latin American countries. The planes that are perhaps going to be purchased by Latin American countries will cost them much more to maintain and to buy spare parts and everything else than if they bought U.S. planes. But because of the present law requiring a Presidential waiver, these planes will be purchased, unless such a waiver is requested, from a West European nation-not from the Soviet Union but from a West European nation; and our manufacturers will not be able to compete. This is a matter that is being considered in the Pentagon. Senator MCGEE. The obvious point of such a proposal would not be to make it exclusive, of course, but I picked the Soviets and the United States as the symbolic instrumentalities because of size and responsibilities that they have around the world. Would it be conceivable that a multilateral agreement might be undertaken? Secretary LAIRD. I think such an agreement, assuming you could involve all of the nations that are selling military hardware, would be a possibility. You would have to have that kind of an agreement, so my answer to that question would be yes. Senator MCGEE. That is, you would see no pitfalls if it could be made to cover the other potential suppliers? Secretary LAIRD. If it could be made to cover those contingencies, I would certainly agree with you, Senator. Senator MCGEE. How serious would be the risk if it were a bilateral agreement, as the first step in order to start the process moving? Secretary LAIRD. I think that would perhaps discourage the other nations from coming in at any future time, and that it probably would be a mistake. NOTIFICATION OF UNITED NATIONS OF ARMS SALES Senator McGEE. Yes. Would you see any danger in another proposal that I made yesterday to the Secretary of State, and that is the notification by the United States to the UN of the military assistance sales, that we made in the hopes that this might attract some additional interest, and be another way of stirring up a sufficient concern, to get other countries involved in the first agreement. Would that pose problems of security or national interest? Secretary LAIRD. First, I would assume, we would have to get the permission of the recipient countries for such a disclosure to the United Nations. I am not sure that would be something we could not overcome; but I believe, in all fairness and as required by our current military assistance agreements, we would have to have the agreement of the recipient nation before that information could be released. Isn't that correct, General Warren? General WARREN. Yes, sir. Senator MCGEE. Again, the point of all this is, we are groping for some way to get at some part, at least, of the military assistance problems, which are very real and very understandable. But it also becomes the great psychological block very often here, and it is the source of a great deal of hostility in Congress, to try to find some way around it, |