would agree wholeheartedly; I am not charging anything illegal. It seems it is a matter, unfortunately, of what's been permitted under the law.

Representative BROWN. In other words, what we have under consideration is not a question of whether the administrations, past and present, have acted within the authority granted to them by Congress, but whether or not the Congress should have granted that authority in the past or should change that authority in the present.

Mr. STAATS. I think the thrust that comes through from this compilation is that the programs have been so proliferated among different agencies and under so many different authorities involving so many different committees of Congress, the question really is whether or not all this information was available to the committees that were called upon at any one time so that they had the full story. Representative BROWN. Well, now, let me ask you, Mr. Staats, available to the committees, any appropriating committee, I assume I am not serving on such a body, although serving on an authorizing committee, and for that matter any authorizing committee, has within its jurisdiction the responsibility of calling in the people who are responisble for these programs, and asking how the previous authorization and appropriation was expended, isn't that correct?

Mr. STAATS. Our point relates to the total picture with respect to all types of military assistance, not just the program that that individual committee had responsibility for. For example, the Agricultural Committees have responsibility for Public Law 480. We are not implying that that committee did not have the full information with respect to what had been transpiring under the Public Law 480 program. What we are saying is that that committee might well have had the information with respect to other types of assistance that were available, which would help contribute to the military assistance objectives that were involved under the Public Law 480 program. We are talking about programs that lie outside

Representative BROWN. You lost me on the second part, would you repeat? The Agricultural Committees know how the Public Law 480 funds were spent?

Mr. STAATS. Including presumably the 480 funds which went to undergird the country.

Representative BROWN. Which is authorized by law?

Mr. STAATS. Which is authorized by law. The question is whether the committee had the knowledge of defense aid grants support which fell to another committee and another agency of the Government. Representative BROWN. In other words, you are asking if any single committee exercises overall oversight.

Mr. STAATS. Or has the information available.

Representative BROWN. Or has the opportunity to get it.

Mr. STAATS. Right.

Representative BROWN. Let's pursue that for a moment. What about the Appropriations Commitee in the House which has within it all the appropriations of the Federal Government.

Mr. STAATS. To the best of our knowledge the Appropriations Committee has not assembled all of the data with respect to all of the programs which go to support military forces abroad in the way in which it is attempted here.

Representative BROWN. And the Military Operations Subcommittee of the Government Operations Committee.

Mr. STAATS. That would be true there also.

Representative BROWN. In other words, what you are saying is that Congress has not previously exercised its oversight in this area.

Mr. STAATS. Certainly it has not had the information which may have improved that oversight.

Representative BROWN. The Congress has not sought the information apparently. Whether the information is available or not, the Congress has not exercised its oversight.

Mr. STAATS. Not in a total program sense, no.

Representative BROWN. And, of course, this supports the point that I, as a member of the minority party in the Congress, have been feeling very strongly about for sometime. Maybe we are realizing today one of the bonuses of having a Congress in the hands of one party while the Administration is in the hands of the other party. We are going into some programs that nobody ever looked at when the Congress and the administration were in the hands of the same party. And it occurs to me that it will be beneficial to the operation of the Congress when we can get the majority to agree to give the minority the opportunity to control the oversight committees of the Congress. The Government Operations Committee is a good example, and there has been a proposal in this area. I would like to suggest we undertake this seriously sometime. What would you think of that, Mr. Staats?

Mr. STAATS. I am not sure I can respond directly to all the points you have made here, but I think anything which helps the Congress get the total information that contributes to a single objective, in this case the objective is to strengthen the defense forces of other counries, is going to improve that oversight. Therefore to the extent that you could get an agreement within the Government Operations Committee or the Appropriations Committee as to how this information is going to be developed and how it is to be utilized by the various committees is bound to be of great help.

Representative BROWN. I think one of the things we can learn from this hearing is the method by which the Congress could get a little more militant or little more aggressive in its effort to provide oversight for the operations of the executive branch of Government. The figures which you have presented deal essentially with the era of the Johnson Democratic administration when you had total control of the Congress by the Democratic Party, as a matter of fact, overwhelming control. We are saying, in effect, that during that period of time there was never any oversight given to this particular problem of the use of military assistance funds and the distribution of military excess equipment and so forth. Isn't that about correct?

Mr. STAATS. Well, the word "any" may be too strong, but certainly it could have been improved.

Representative BROWN. Perhaps I should use the word "effective." We haven't had effective oversight.

Senator Fulbright viewed with such alarm the development of the Freedom Fighter airplane in the interest of other nations and not for our own utilization, apparently, as a piece of military equipment. As you see it, did the Defense Department efforts to develop and

sell this airplane or the proposal that they develop and sell it come within the purview of section 623 of the legislation passed by Congress in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 which authorizes this kind of activity?

Mr. STAATS. I would like to check on that, Congressman Brown, but I would say not. As I understand it, that would have to be authorized separately.

Representative BROWN. Well, you have said in your testimony that section 623 of the act defines the responsibility of the Secretary of Defense which included determining military end requirements, end item requirements and procurement, and delivery of the items to the foreign country. Would this include this Freedom Fighter airplane then?

Mr. DUFF. You are referring to the F-5 aircraft?

Representative BROWN. I am referring to the Freedom Fighter. Mr. DUFF. The Freedom Fighter I assume is the F-5 aircraft. Funds were justified under the military assistance program for the development of that aircraft.

Representative BROWN. Well, my question still applies to the testimony that Mr. Staats gave in his statement and the description of Section 623.

Mr. STAATS. Well, I think the answer to your question is that they would have to justify it. The Freedom Fighter, as we understand it, is an updating and improvement of the F-5 airplane. They would have to come to Congress to get justification for that. They would have to get the money for it, and justify it, but they would still have the responsibility here under this authority to do that within any funds available.

Representative BROWN. Yes. As I read your language it makes pretty clear that the Secretary of Defense is given authority by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 under section 623, to look at the end item requirements of other nations, and to pursue programs which would develop military hardware that would be utilized by other nations without reference to whether or not we need it. Is that correct?

Mr. STAATS. That would be correct.

Representative BROWN. So what we are talking about here again is a question of the language written in a law in 1961 which yielded the authority of the Congress up to the administration to make these determinations.

Mr. STAATS. But we would still have to come back to Congress for money to get it.

Representative BROWN. Sure, you would have to come back to Congress for money because the administration would not be able to do anything unless it has the authorization to spend. But the Secretary of Defense has the authorization under law to do this kind of developmental work and to expend the money if the Congress will authorize it and appropriate it.

Mr. STAATS. That is correct.

Chairman PROXMIRE. Congressman Moorhead.

Representative MOORHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to carry on what the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Brown, is saying that the Congress should be more effective in reviewing the

many, many programs, and I take this opportunity to say a word of congratulations to the chairman of this subcommittee. I would say that the Senator from Wisconsin has been an ardent fighter against waste in government no matter what administration was in power, and I am sure that this hearing today would have occurred no matter who was controlling the White House because, I think, the Senator really believes in the use of this subcommittee and this full committee as a way of looking over the entire spending program of the Government, and I commend him for that.

Mr. Staats, your table 1 shows quite a change in the military assistance program as compared to the military assistance service funded support with its tremendous growth in the latter category from $34 million to $201 billion. Is that exclusively or almost exclusively the result of Vietnam?

Mr. STAATS. It is Vietnam, Thailand, and Laos.
Representative MOORHEAD. Southeast Asia.
Mr. STAATS. Right.

Representative MOORHEAD. Our increased activity there.
Mr. STAATS. Yes.

Representative MOORHEAD. In your testimony you state:

The costs of U.S. general purpose forces committed to NATO and stationed in the European command, but not directly associated with support of NATO headquarters and agencies, are not included.

Are they included in any figures in your statement?

Mr. STAATS. No, they are not included in our statement, and we have defined those to be excluded from the purpose of the hearing since they are U.S. forces, even though committed to NATO.

Representative MOORHEAD. I think it would be helpful for the record if you can submit the costs of that in a separate category.

Mr. STAATS. I believe that could be done. We have not attempted to do that but I believe it could be done.

(The following information was subsequently supplied for the record :)

The Department of Defense estimates that the annual operating cost of maintaining U.S. forces in Europe committed to NATO is about $2.9 billion.

Representative MOORHEAD. Table 2 on foreign military sales shows cash sales and Export-Import Bank loans. Can those be broken down into the two categories?

Mr. HYLANDER. Not very precisely, sir. In the statement we give an explanation of how those were derived. We explain the Export-Import action which establishes a line of credit, and then when the Department of Defense negotiates sales under that line of credit it picks them up as sales.

Representative MOORHEAD. And for the total period Export-Import Bank loan authorizations of $1.5 billion, much less than 50 percent of the total.

Mr. HYLANDER. Yes, the rest of those would be cash sales. They wouldn't be precisely comparable because some of that $1.5 billion of Export-Import Bank credit probably hasn't resulted in sales yet, it is still an outstanding line of credit, but it is roughly that amount as opposed to the amount on the previous page.

Representative MOORHEAD. În your statement, Mr. Staats, you say,

"Credits may be granted directly by the Department, or it may guarantee credits extended by the Export-Import Bank or by private banks." Can the Defense Department still guarantee Export-Import Bank loans?

Mr. STAATS. Yes, sir.

Representative MOORHEAD. Didn't we make some change in the law in that respect? I remember, I know there are no Export-Import Bank loans guaranteed for the years 1969 and 1970.

Mr. STAATS. I believe you are correct that there was a change made in that. I don't believe that any Defense Department guarantees of Ex-Im Bank loans have been made recently, not in the last 2 or 3 years, I don't believe. Let us submit a statement on that if we may. Representative MOORHEAD. But it is still possible for the Defense Department to guarantee?

Mr. STAATS. I believe technically it is. I believe the law still permits it.

Representative MOORHEAD. I would like to have that for the record. It was my recollection that we had this up before the Banking and Currency Committee and were quite shocked by this secret transaction by the Ex-Im Bank.

Mr. STAATS. That was several years ago.

Representative MOORHEAD. And I thought we changed the law. Mr. STAATS. On further thought, I have the recollection that a change was made. We will submit a statement on that.

(The following information was subsequently supplied for the record :)

Section 24 of the Foreign Military Sales Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 1320, which authorizes the President to guarantee against political and credit risks nonpayment arising out of the financing of credit sales of defense articles and services to friendly countries and international organizations specifically excludes such guarantees to United States Government Agencies. This, accordingly, excludes guarantees to the Export-Import Bank since it is an agency of the United States. Representative MOORHEAD. But the Defense Department can still guarantee loans by private banks?

Mr. STAATS. Yes, sir.

Representative MOORHEAD. Although apparently none were so guaranteed during the year 1970 according to your time?

Mr. STAATS. Right.

Representative MOORHEAD. Are you going to supply for us figures for 1971 ?

Mr. STAATS. To the extent that we can get them. They will be program figures for the most part. We are still, of course, within the 1971 fiscal year; but on a program basis, we will be able to bring this table up to date.

In overall terms it will not change the figures in total represented in these five tables very much. It will be up slightly, but not substantially, approximately the same.

Representative MOORHEAD. In your statement, Mr. Statts, you say, "we are also submitting," the next to the last paragraph, "at the Committee's request, a list of the major U.S. suppliers of weapons." Does that mean the list is not ready now or has it been submitted?

Mr. HYLANDER. We have it with us and it has been submitted for the record.