two to three times what we contribute through the Alliance for Progress. I am not saying it is too much, but I am saying it is around a billion and a half dollars. I added it up on the books here. How does it come to be determined in a given country, as to whether it is wiser to develop the military capabilities in that country, to enlarge its forces, or to put considerably more emphasis on the training of local and national police? How does this kind of judgment get made with a careful perspective where there is this division of responsibility between your assignment and the AID missions? In other words, who is taking a careful look at this from a counterinsurgency point of view? General PORTER. I am doing it and the Ambassador in each country is doing it. I am looking at it from the regional point of view, military point of view. The regional aspects on the AID side are considered here in Washington. What we are working at-I say "we," because I have talked to all of the Ambassadors, and we are together on this and I have talked to Secretary Gordon and our people in the Joint Chiefs of Staff and in Defense-what we are trying to do is get organized in these countries so there is a harmony and a cooperative but not a duplicative effort between the military and police. It takes both. [Security deletion.] We are working to harmonize these forces, feeling what is needed to get a feeling in-country on the part of constituted authority, the head of state, that he can deal honestly and squarely and firmly with all groups in the country and carry forward constitutional processes. If he gets the police and military fighting among themselves, or if you get the three military services fighting among themselves, this is a readymade situation for the Communists to move in. We are working to try to get this harmonization between the police and military. It is working very well. There are some exceptions. If you wish, I could tell you some of them, but I think you know them as well as I do. Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the gentleman from Minnesota must know these books better than I. I would guess that he may have slipped a decimal point in suggesting that the Latin American countries are spending a billion and a half dollars on their own military aid programs. That would be 20 times as much as we are planning to put in under our military aid program. Mr. FRASER. I am talking about our total aid program. General PORTER. Defense expenditures of Latin American countries. for fiscal year 1965 amounted to $1,425 million. The total economic aid under all programs provided through the Alliance for Progress in fiscal year 1965 was $1,258.3 million. This included $512.4 million obligations under AID. The military grant assistance programs amounted to $73.3 million and military credit assistance was $13.6 million. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Where is that figure? Mr. FRASER. I got it by taking the defense expenditures for each country. General PORTER. Actually our military assistance program is not large. [Security deletion.] Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Much as I would like to hear about the situation in Colombia, this self-imposed system of limiting the time makes it almost impossible for us to listen to what you have to say, and forces me to interrupt. First of all let me say that what you have said has interested me deeply. It has made a great deal of sense. I would like to ask about your statement that you feel that we can get by with about $75 million for Latin America this year. How much planning ahead are you doing with respect to what you may need for the next 5 years? How meaningful can such planning be if, as you point out, there is a long record of unpredictable flash floods, as you put it, in the whole area, and if there is every expectation that there will be serious political instability over a period of years? General PORTER. First, the fiscal year 1967 appropriation when it finally comes from the Congress and is signed by the President, will appear in the form of assistance hardware on the materiel side probably in 1969. When we are talking about the next year, we are talking about the appropriation which came from the Hill in 1965-66. There is about 18 months leadtime on this. There is a feeling on my part, knowing fairly well the commanders in these countries, having an intimate, continual discussion with the ambassadors, it is my feeling that the armed forces and the police are dedicated and are going to do everything they can to maintain the stability which will permit the Alliance for Progress and the investment and so on to germinate. We have sown the seed. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I don't think you have answered my question with respect to the nature of long-range planning. Are you doing it and how meaningful can it be? General PORTER. We require the U.S. military group in each country to keep a 5-year program of what they feel is required in the country based on the threat that exists, condition of the equipment in the country, and based on guidelines we give them as to the amount of money we assume to be made available for these countries. They keep a 5year program, [Security deletion.] We are programing ahead. We are trying to make this program compatible [security deletion] and we talk to them about their cash purchases and follow very closely negotiations they have under the military assistance program for credit sales. We also talk to them about this personnel and their training problems so this will get the maximum amount of money. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Are these reasonably successful long-range projections on their part? How do you justify your boss' contention, the Secretary of Defense, that long-range planning now really doesn't make any sense because we refuse to authorize more than a year ahead? Is there any justification in this argument? General PORTER. Yes, there is justification for his statement because we expect responsible fiscal management in these countries just as you expect it from our military people. [Security deletion.] Yet we do not permit our people to discuss anything in advance, you see, of the congressional appropriation. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. The appropriation will still be on an annual basis. So why is it of any particular value to have a long-term authorization? Of course you can't discuss in advance what we are going to appropriate because we haven't done it. They know that General PORTER. If you read the press in the United States, or listen to responsible people talk, they are not certain the military assistance program is going to last more than 1 year more. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Of course they can't tell. I think this is quite right. To what extent should we commit ourselves more than 1 year ahead? As you point out, political instability is a characteristic of Latin America. For that reason you can't budget in a meaningful way, either for the unforeseen emergencies that may develop that will require additional military aid, or for situations that will require a termination as soon as possible of military aid to a country that we no longer wish to aid. General PORTER. But, sir, you have to plan as if you are going to be here for a thousand years. You may be moved tomorrow, if you are making logical assumptions and your plan is based on good premises from a political point of view, you may not be here, there may be a different government, but the problems we are facing are long-term problems which will have to be solved by another government if we are not there Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. No one is arguing that. No one is suggesting that plans should not be laid and we should not help them do it. No one is saying that we should not have proper planning. The argument is about what point there is in anything more than a 1-year authorization? Isn't it of value for you to come and justify what you have been doing and to give us an indication of what you propose to do in the next 12 months? What value would there be not to have that necessity? You would have to testify with respect to appropriations, I might add, anyway. You would have the necessity to come here if we should feel interested in what you were planning to do during the next 12 months. I can see absolutely no justification from what you have said, or with all due respect to him, from what the Secretary of Defense said. The gavel will be used, I am sure, before there is anything on the record to justify a basic change in the program. General PORTER. I think this is a very important question, Mr. Congressman. I would like to respond to it if I could, a minute [security deletion]. Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Maybe you and I are talking about different things. If you make a case for establishing a regional communications program and say you need so much money to start it this year, there is a reasonable expectation that you will get further installments on paying for that project, ambitious as it may be, over a period of years. You have no assurance that you are going to be paid as much next year as you are being paid this year, but there is every likelihood that you are. I don't see how this is an argument at all. It is like paying for an aircraft carrier. The aircraft carrier is paid for in installments. I will be willing to have a statement, because we are not going to get an answer now, I see. I didn't mean to paralyze the discussion. General PORTER. You see I am down in Panama and I am confined pretty much to the Latin American area and we are discussing something from the Secretary of Defense which he has stated Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I would like to confine my question to a single country, to a region, your own particular area. I am not asking you to defend broadly speaking the Secretary of Defense. He can talk for himself. Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned his name. I would like to know how your job would be made easier if we authorized a program of this character for 2 years rather than 5? Chairman MORGAN. General Porter will furnish the statement requested for the record. The gentleman's time has expired. (The information follows:) LONG-RANGE PLANNING AND MULTIYEAR AUTHORIZATION It is clear that we all agree on the need for long-range planning in the military assistance program. We have been preparing 5-year plans for the grant aid program for several years and, more recently, have begun the development of 3- to 5-year military assistance sales plans. It has not been an easy task since the Latin American military have been slow to develop a capability for such planning. Improvements have been made especially in the past year or so. However, the additional incentive and influence that could be brought to bear by a 5-year authorization would go far to speed up the development of long-range planning. If Latin American governments in general, and the Latin American military specifically, knew that the 5-year, or even 2-year, military assistance plan and program would be discussed with the Congress and would receive tentative congressional approval by long-term authorization legislation, it would provide them with an incentive to develop an adequate planning capability. This would emphasize the need for sound long-range plans and could be utilized as a lever to influence these countries in realizing maximum econoiny and effectiveness within total available resources. Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Murphy. Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, in your statement this morning you mention the formation of a Central American Defense Council. Is that equivalent to the Common Market? General PORTER. It parallels that. The same countries are in it. Mr. MURPHY. Is it for regional defense? General PORTER. Yes, and they are concerned about internal security principles. Mr. MURPHY. As members of the Organization of American States, Latin American countries are not committed to the defense of the Western Hemisphere? General PORTER. Yes, they have agreed Mr. MURPHY. They agreed, but there is not any pact which obligates the countries of Latin America. General PORTER. I think in the minds of all of them they feel they must stand together against a threat from outside the hemisphere. In all honesty, they have not seen fit to activate the Military Advisory Committee which would give substance to this political statement. Mr. MURPHY. Canada is not a member of the Organization of American States? General PORTER. That is right. Mr. MURPHY. We could have a separate bilateral agreement with Canada as to the defense of North America. But in reference to Latin America, we do not actually have any commitment? General PORTER. Nothing formal. Mr. MURPHY. Would you explain just what they mean by a joint operation center? General PORTER. It is a center-actually it is a communications center in which the principal military organizations whether Army, Navy or Air Force, are tied together in a central location so that the picture in the country as far as internal security is concerned, or if there is an attack from outside, that situation will be clearly reported and then decisions can be made by the senior commander or the head of state if it is really a serious crisis based on accurate and timely information rather than just piecemeal reports coming from outlying areas. The police are also tied into the center and any intelligence networks in the country. Mr. MURPHY. What part does MAAG take in this? General PORTER. Our military assistance people in Latin America are advisory people. They advise on getting effective communications set up. They advise on how the center should be organized so it will be efficient. [Security deletion.] Mr. MURPHY. One more question. In reference to combined exercises, military, air, and naval, how do you arrange that with these countries? How many countries in Latin America have participated in these exercises? General PORTER. Halcon Vista was held last October. Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, the United States participated, and El Salvador, with observers from Costa Rica. We had five countries, plus the United States, who participated in that exercise. Mr. MURPHY. Was that a military exercise? General PORTER. Yes. It started off with shadowing a vessel which was suspected of having arms in it. The U.S. aircraft started it off. Then Nicaragua picked it up and so on. The Navy-as it approached coastal waters, the navies came into play. There were actual feints and night operations in which troops were put ashore both in Honduras and Guatemala and there were small ground force exercises in these two countries. Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Mailliard. Mr. MAILLIARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, last year when we were considering this bill we changed the language of the legislation from what it had been previously regarding civic action programs. Perhaps before I came in you went into this, but I would be interested to know whether the new language has proven to be restrictive of your objectives, also whether since the new language has been in effect, we have gotten away from the things that were criticized last year which were cases where in some countries the committee felt that military units were really being used as civilian contractors almost, in other cases where military units were being assigned jobs which were beyond their capabilities. Are you familiar with this controversy that went on last year? General PORTER. Not completely, Mr. Congressman, because I came down there on the 22d of February and it took me 6 months to find |