The CHAIRMAN. I am told that the GAO just completed a draft last week, which is a followup on that letter, and they found no change in the situation. The draft is here, it has not yet been printed, other than in this form. So I only bring it to your attention for your consideration.

Secretary ROGERS. Thank you. I appreciate it. I would like to look at the letter and I will consider

The CHAIRMAN. That answers your question as to whether the first letter is out of date. I am told no change was found.

COOPERATIVE UNDERTAKINGS WITH THE SOVIETS

I do not know that there is much more. Let me see. There is one question that might be worthy of your consideration in view of the statements that have been made about trying to negotiate with the Russians in the field of arms control. I presume you are nearing the end of your preparations for those meetings; is that not correct? Secretary ROGERS. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe you testified before that the 21st of July or something

Secretary ROGERS. We suggested July 30.

The CHAIRMAN. July 30. I wonder if since the Russians have an aid program, and so do we, why it would not be a reasonable thing to suggest to them that, perhaps, this could be a common undertaking. They have done a good deal in India, for example, and so have we, Unless it is to be regarded as a part of the cold war, why shouldn't it be proposed that we undertake common programs in this area ?

Some of our hearings have suggested that one of the ways best calculated to get over antagonism among peoples is to have common undertakings, whatever they may be. I wondered, since we are talking about aid, if it could not be turned into something more useful with us with regard to our relations to Russia. It is a matter for you to think about.

Secretary ROGERS. Well, I will, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I have always thought, as have members of this committee, that in such activities as space exploration it could well be done on a cooperative basis rather than a competitive basis. It would save both of us a lot of money, and we would make better programs. Secretary ROGERS. My recollection is we did suggest it at one time. The CHAIRMAN. On aid?

Secretary ROGERS. On space.

The CHAIRMAN. On space.

Secretary ROGERS. Yes, and there was not-there was no affirmative response.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I do not know that we need to accept those negative responses forever.

We might try it again. It won't hurt us to try, and I would think that it might be a useful discussion with them. It might also be useful, in that connection, to try to turn this program away from military assistance.

I have often thought we should go more for economic assistance and cut down or eliminate military assistance.

We had testimony the other day which, I thought was very good, from George Lodge, Cabot Lodge's son, who is a very knowledgeable man, and he and some other witnesses believe that military aid does positive harm in Latin America, that it should be discontinued. I would like for you to consider assuming there is merit in that, suggesting to the Russians that we cooperate in our aid rather than compete. It might be useful.

You are having talks with them now about the Middle East, are you not? Don't these talks concern the competition in supplying arms in that area? They do, do they not?

Secretary ROGERS. Yes, and we have over the years had discussions with them about that subject, but there again we have not had any response that would suggest any progress.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I regret there is not, but I think we ought

to try.

The speech Mr. Gromyko made the other day was a rather unusual one. I cannot remember when they made as conciliatory a speech, and you have to assume maybe they will change, and maybe this Government would change, too.

We thought it would change before now in the foreign policy field, but in this area, with aid, I think it is a possibility.

Well, do you have anything further?

Secretary ROGERS. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

Secretary ROGERS. It has been a very pleasant session.

The CHAIRMAN. We will recess until tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. (Thereupon, at 12:40 p.m. recess was taken to reconvene tomorrow,

Tuesday, July 15, 1969, at 10 a.m.)

FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1969

TUESDAY, JULY 15, 1969

UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, D.C.

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:10 a.m., in room 4221, New Senate Office Building, Senator J. W. Fulbright (chairman), presiding.

Present: Senators Fulbright, Gore, Symington, Pell, McGee, Aiken, Case, and Javits.

Also present: Senator McCarthy.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

OPENING STATEMENT

The Committee on Foreign Relations this morning continues its hearing on S. 2347, the administration's foreign aid bill. The military portions of S. 2347 contain an authorization request for $375 million in grant military assistance. However, a separate proposal would authorize $275 million for the military sales program. Technically the sales bill is not before the committee today, but in view of the great interest of many members in the sales program, I am sure that questions may be raised about all aspects of the administration's military assistance policy.

Members of the committee are well aware of the fact that much of the detail concerning the military aid program, is classified, and cannot be discussed in public session, and the Secretary understands that. In case any of us raise a question of that character, he should feel perfectly free, of course, to remind us of that.

Many of us have for years tried to get some of this information made available declassified, in other words so that a rational public dialog could be conducted concerning the program, but we have not been successful. I do hope that this administration will give further study to this problem.

I understand from a member of the staff that there may be persons, either present or coming in later, who wish to demonstrate against a policy which has not really anything to do with the aid program. I hope that the guards will be alert to remove anyone who seeks to disrupt the orderly procedure of the hearing this morning. The matter which I understand they may protest, as I say, is a domestic matter, not a foreign aid matter.

In any case we are very pleased this morning to have as our principal witness the Secretary of Defense, Melvin R. Laird, and he is accompanied by Lt. Gen. Robert H. Warren, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Assistance and Sales.

Mr. Secretary, will you proceed, sir?

STATEMENT OF HON. MELVIN R. LAIRD, SECRETARY OF DEFENSE; ACCOMPANIED BY LT. GEN. ROBERT H. WARREN, USAF, DIRECTOR OF MILITARY ASSISTANCE AND SALES

Secretary LAIRD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, although I am now on the other side of the table, I still feel a sense of homecoming in appearing before congressional committees as a witness from the executive branch.

Being the first Member of Congress to serve as Secretary of Defense, I have both an opportunity and, in deed, a very great challenge. I hope to make the most of the opportunity, and to meet that challenge, by speaking frankly and candidly to all of the committees that call upon me to testify.

I recognize that we all have a responsibility for the security of the Nation, and we are all committed to working together to achieve legislative action, policies, and programs that promote the national interest.

STATE OF WORLD SECURITY

As I come before you today, Mr. Chairman, to testify on military assistance and sales, I sincerely wish that I could issue a more hopeful message on the likely state of the world security over the next decade. In the wake of the Soviet invasion and occupation of Czechoslovakia, it would be foolhardy for me to expect and to predict an early abatement of fear of aggression in Europe. As we look toward Asia, we must anticipate a continued situation of instability. In Latin America, and Africa, there is a constant threat of terrorism, guerrilla warfare, and insurgency.

Another very troublesome area, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, which has serious implications for our arms transfer policy is the Mediterranean Basin. Soviet naval operations have steadily acceÏerated in the Mediterranean Sea, being at a higher level in 1969 than in either of the two preceding record years. 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.

The Soviet Union continues to employ military assistance as a basic instrument of political infiltration. Soviet arms deliveries have raised concern about the level of armaments in the Horn of Africa, as well as in the Middle East and North Africa. The Soviet Union has been the principal supplier of arms to India. Recent reports indicate that it is shipping weapons to Pakistan as well. There is little doubt in my mind that military assistance will continue to be used as a major instrument of Soviet policy over the foreseeable future.

Peking continues, without Soviet assistance and despite domestic disorders, to improve its conventional military capabilities, particularly in naval forces and air forces. Under its present leadership, Communist China has not swerved from its pronounced goal of supporting insurgency movements and revolution abroad. This militant stance adds to other pressures threatening the internal stability of nations on its borders. Despite heightened tensions with the Soviet Union, Communist China is still regarded as a serious threat by its neighbors.

Another area of chronic and lately increased concern is the belligerency of North Korea. I need not call to you attention, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, the tragic attack on our EC-121 reconnaissance aircraft in blatant violation of international law. In addition, continued military incidents in the DMZ and rear area call for heightened South Korean vigilance.

The well-mobilized and strongly motivated armed forces of the Republic of Korea represent a persuasive deterrent to North Korean aggression. It is therefore essential that those forces have the equipment they need to defend their homeland.

In our own hemisphere, direct military attacks by an outside power or by Cuba do not seem to be in the offing. Yet active insurgencies exist currently in Colombia, Guatemala, and Venezuela. And conditions may be developing throughout the area that will be conducive to further instability.

This brief summary of international conditions emphasizes our need to make the best use of all instruments of foreign policy at our disposal. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the military assistance program and foreign military sales complement each other as parts of a controlled and restrained U.S. policy on arms transfers to our friends. and allies. By strengthening the common defense posture of friendly nations, this policy plays an important role in helping deter possible aggression.

STRENGTHENING COMMON DEFENSE POSTURE OF FRIENDLY NATIONS

The common defense of nations which seek to live in peace has an important bearing on our own national security. It is clearly weakened to the extent that the military capabilities of allied and other friendly armed forces suffer from lack of adequate equipment and training. We can counter such a degradation in capabilities by providing, through grant aid and foreign military sales, weapons and other assistance to countries that seek to maintain peace, that have the determination to resist external aggression or internal subversion, and that need our help. Fortunately, Mr. Chairman, many of the countries supported by grant aid are developing sufficient economic strength to provide for a rising share of their defense needs from their own

resources.

Some of these countries, however, continue to need substantial grant military aid for properly equipping, training, and maintaining the large forces that contribute so much to the common defense. I refer in particular to the key forward defense countries of Greece, Turkey, the Republic of China, and the Republc of Korea. On-the-spot deployment of their forces close to the borders of Warsaw Pact nations and Communist China helps to provide a creditable deterrent to aggression in areas where we have vital security interests and to lessen the possibility of the commitment of U.S. forces in the event aggression should occur. It also greatly reduces the size of U.S. forces that would otherwise have to be stationed overseas to support our forward defense strategy.

EMPHASIS ON FORWARD DEFENSE AREAS

I wish to assure you that the executive branch fully subscribes to the expressed sense of the Congress on the matter of according highest