21

And, of course, it is important that the United States do its share. We are deeply concerned that a Congressional decision against IDA replenishment would signal to the world that America has lost interest. The consequences would be serious not only for the survival of the poor but for the possibility of a cooperative world order.

V. CONCLUSION

I began by noting that in both major crises of 1973 the United States made unique and substantial contributions-bringing the parties from the battlefield to the negotiating table in the Middle East and taking the first step toward international cooperation in energy. These achievements confirm both the necessity and the rewards of an outward-looking, internationalist America. The world continues to look to us for leadership.

We have established a solid foundation on which to build a structure of peace. But the task we have set ourselves cannot be completed in one administration, or in one decade. It will require sustained and cooperative participation by the Congress and the Executive Branch bulwarked and supported by the American people. I believe this can be achieved.

Let me conclude with a brief mention of the resources required for an American foreign policy which protects our interests and helps sustain our efforts towards peace. As you know, the Department of State has the smallest total budgetary requirements of any Cabinet-level Department. For the next fiscal year we are requesting authorization for appropriations of $792.5 million—an increase of $110.7 million. Three-quarters of this sum is required to meet statutory or mandatory increases such as our assessed contributions to international organizations, contribution to the Foreign Service Retirement Fund, statutory salary increases and overseas operating expenses. Other significant increases are requested for the International Salinity Project on the Colorado River and for the educational exchange program. Mr. Chairman: As requested, I have a prepared statement for the Department's Fiscal Year 1974 amendments which I am pleased to submit for the record.

Departmental representatives are with me and are prepared to answer questions you may have regarding the details of these budgetary requests.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH J. SISCO, UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS REGARDING FY 1974 AMENDMENTS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your Committee today in support of our requested amendment to the Department of State's Appropriations Authorization Act of 1973, Public Law 93-126. The amendments requested provide for increases of $22.4 million for the Administration of Foreign Affairs; $1.5 million for International Organizations and Conferences; $7.4 million for the 1974 costs of the Federal Salary increases authorized in January and October, 1973; and $1.5 million for the Foreign Service Buildings Program.

ADMINISTRATION OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS

The President's initiatives in foreign affairs have opened vital opportunities for furthering mutually advantageous relations among nations. Our proposed authorization amendment for Administration of Foreign Affairs will allow us to increase our representation abroad by opening new posts in East Berlin, German Democratic Republic; Ulaanbaatar, Mongolian Peoples Republic; and Port Moresby, New Guinea and will enable us to provide adequately for additional support costs of our operations in Washington and overseas which have occurred in the last several months. These estimates total $7.0 million. In addition, there is an increase of $15.6 million which will allow the Department to comply with the law requiring payments to the Foreign Service Retirement and Disability Fund over a thirty year period to cover the unfunded liability caused by transfers of new groups of employees into the Foreign Service Retirement System. Public Law 93-189, which became law December 19, 1973, provided for the transfer of approximately 2,500 employees of the Agency for International Development into the Foreign Service Retirement System. The amount of $15.6 million was calculated by the Treasury Department Actuary as that necessary for the first of thirty equal annual payments required by law. These estimates total $22.6 million; however, as there is $597 thousand of unused authorization available only $22.0 million additional authorization is requested.

22

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS AND CONFERENCES

The increase of $1.5 million requested for the category "International tions and Conferences" will allow us to request a supplemental approp $2.3 million for the remainder of the United States contribution to national Labor Organization (ILO). The FY 1974 Appropriation Act w $2.5 million less than the authorization of P.L. 93–126. However, $1.7 that authority was used for an urgent supplemental appropriation to p the Middle East Peace Conference and continuation of the Conference on and Cooperation in Europe. Coupled with the remaining unused author $789 thousand, the additional $1.5 million requested will be used to su supplemental appropriation required to fulfill our assessment to the II

CIVILIAN PAY ACT

An increase in authorization for $7.4 million is requested for the Civi Act, E.O. 11739 which was implemented in October, 1973. Our present A tion Act (P.L. 93–126) provides only for the January, 1973 pay raise.

FOREIGN SERVICE BUILDINGS PROGRAM

The request for additional authorization of $1.5 million for the Foreig ings Program in fiscal years 1974 and 1975 is due to the 1973 devaluatio dollar and its immediate effect on the program. Devaluation has precip sharp increase in the cost of our Operations Program, which provides the for operating, maintenance and furnishings costs of office and residential ties, as well as minor improvements and long-term rental costs. The Cong already authorized and appropriated funds for fiscal year 1974 to cover increased costs for other Department appropriations.

The requested amendment to the Foreign Service Buildings Act includes 000 in each of these two fiscal years for the Operations Account. This sum both Foreign Buildings appropriations-the Regular Dollar Program and 480 Excess Currency Program.

We do not require an increase in the amount currently authorized for t year period for the Capital Program. Instead we are seeking an adjustm tween the two years to provide an increase of $154,000 in fiscal year 1974 corresponding decrease in fiscal year 1975. This transfer is needed to cover cost increases in several capital projects in the P.L. 480 Program, as a re the devaluation of the dollar.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Committee members for your time. have further questions on these matters, I will be pleased to answer them Senator SPARKMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sisco.

SUBMITTED STATEMENT

When you make reference to your submitting a statement fo Department's fiscal year 1974 amendments, is this it? I am still a unclear. We have two statements here. One of them is a summa the Fiscal 1975 proposal. Another is a comparative statement as to and 1975. Which one of those it it?

Mr. BROWN. We are submitting an amendment to the fiscal 1974 authorization requesting an additional $22 million for for affairs, $1.5 million for international organizations, and so on, sir. Senator SPARKMAN. That is this single sheet?

Mr. BROWN. It is not the comparison that we are talking abou Senator SPARKMAN. I have a two-page statement and also a onestatement. I am trying to find out which one you are putting in record, or if both are being submitted.

Mr. BROWN. No.

Senator SPARKMAN. I am sorry. These are prepared by our com tee staff and not you. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Sisco, I think that is a very fine statement and personally I am pleased with it and we are glad to have it as part of the record of these hearings.

I would like to ask a few questions and then ask Senator Aiken to propound questions. We have a great many questions to propound.

STATUS OF SALT, MBFR AND CSCE NEGOTIATIONS

I would like to start off with Europe.

Could you comment a little further upon the present status of the three ongoing negotiations you mentioned. One is SALT; the other is the European Security Conference; and the other is the negotiations regarding the mutual balanced force reduction.

Mr. Sisco. First, let me say a few words regarding the CSCE to the Conference on European Security.

Mr. Chairman, this is a conference which began in July of 1973 and, as you know, it brings together 33 European States plus ourselves and Canada.

Our approach basically is this: We would like to see this conference a firm principle of nonintervention and noninterference in the external affairs of States whatever their social or political systems. We would like to see this conference stress the promotion of freer human contact and the exchange of ideas and information beyond the traditional culture exchange patterns, and at the same time we would like to see or we would like to avoid by doing this any kind of action which would imply a formal recognition of the territorial status quo in Eastern Europe.

We would like to see it stress a broadening of East-West cooperation in increased trade, in exchange on science and technology and in efforts to improve the environment.

I think this conference has to be looked at in the broader picture of East-West relationships. In other words, a definition of these relationships, a clarification of these relationships.

Where we are in this: There have been ideas and proposals that have been exchanged. The principal focus at the moment relates to certain language dealing with the whole question of human contacts, freer human contacts.

I would say that progress has been reasonably good. We would like to see this thing concluded over the next couple of months, if possible. Now on SALT, I would say this: The talks reopened in Geneva on the 19th of February. Although I am no technician, I think I would say this: The objective here is to get an agreement with the Soviet Union which provides essential equivalence in the central systems.

The talks, as you are aware, Mr. Chairman, deal with extremely important matters of great complexity and nonetheless the President and Mr. Brezhnev have said that a serious effort will be made to reach a SALT II Agreement in 1974, and we remain committed to that goal. I would say that in this renewal of discussions that started on the 19th, that we are getting into the specific details.

As you know, in SALT I, we dealt with defensive missiles and you are getting now at the stage of where in dealing with offensive missiles you are dealing both with numbers and with quality, and so if the objective is essential equivalence, the difficulty and complexity of this,

since it deals with both numbers and quality, I think it is pr evident.

I can't predict whether we are going to be able to achieve ment in 1974 but, as I say, we are going to make every effort remain committed to that goal.

STATUS OF MBFR TALKS

Now as to mutual balanced force reductions. These talks op October, I recall, in Vienna, and I think the progress has bee good. Both sides presented some proposals in November and o ment is that thus far these talks have been conducted in a very b like atmosphere.

I would describe the situation roughly like this: You basically a Western proposal which seeks to redress the exist stantial Warsaw Pact advantage in ground force manpower.

As you know, I think the figure on the Warsaw Pact side thing like 900,000, if I recall. On the Western side, somewhere 750,000.

Our proposal envisages a two-phase negotiation ultimately to a common ceiling on ground force manpower for both sides On the other hand, the Eastern proposal envisages a thre reduction program in which all direct participants would red types of its forces by equal percentages totalling ultimately to 17 percent reductions.

It is clear from these two proposals that they do diverge su tially but they do at the same time contain some common eleme this is again a very complicated issue. It obviously deals wit security interests of both sides, and I think I can sum it up in thi That we realize this is a difficult task and that quick results are n ticularly likely but we remain cautiously optimistic regardi ultimate outcome of the negotiations themselves.

Senator SPARKMAN. On the mutual balanced force reductio gave two different proposals. The second was based on perc reduction. I believe you said 17 percent.

Mr. SISCO. Yes, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. What would that amount to in figures? Th I believe you said was 900,000 for the Warsaw Pact and 700,000 Mr. Sisco. 750 roughly.

Senator SPARKMAN. 750. To what would this 17 percent redu amount?

Mr. SISCO. We can compute that and submit it for the record. I think we have a figure on it.

[The information referred to is classified and in the committee f Senator SPARKMAN. Another thing. Why the greater number fo Warsaw Pact Nations than for the Western European Nations?

Mr. SISCO. Well, the disparity has been there based on the dist tion of forces within the Eastern European countries themselve other words, what they have now is roughly around 900,000.

Our force level, that is, the NATO force level is roughly 150,000 and this is one of the things that makes the situation so difficult in negotiation because you are talking here about a security situation

25

relates to conventional forces and I think that the Soviets quite candidly would not give up this advantage, if I can put it that way, the advantage not only of numbers but the advantage of the fact they are very close to Western Europe whereas if anything occurred and we were involved based on our NATO commitment we would have to move all the way back here from the Western Hemisphere.

I think you will find one of the difficulties in this negotiation is a reluctance on the part of the Soviet to give up this numerical advantage.

ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT OF WESTERN EUROPE UNITY

Senator SPARKMAN. I was glad to see your statement that we encourage the development of Western European unity but not at the expense of Atlantic unity.

I think that we certainly need to work with that in mind.

I want to ask you about one more area. I would like to ask you about all of these areas and hope before we finish we can do that, but I will ask one more and then turn it over to Senator Aiken.

RELATIONSHIPS WITH LATIN AMERICA

I don't recall that you mentioned Latin America.

Mr. Sisco. It is in my statement that I submitted for the record, Mr. Chairman. I skipped that part as I was reading it but let me say a word about that.

We are very pleased with the results of the recent meeting in Mexico City. We feel that the principal result of that meeting has been to create a positive atmosphere in our relationships with our Latin American friends.

It does begin, we believe, the initiation of a new dialog, a new dialog which will be carried forward in a subsequent meeting about a month from now. So that we think that this is an indication, a continuing indication, a fresh manifestation of American interest in Latin America

You know historically as one looks at Latin America, I think our Latin American friends have felt over the years that simply because we have been friends and we are so close that we tend to take them for granted. And, I think, of course, this would be a very serious mistake. I have talked to Secretary Kissinger on this regarding this recent trip and he is very, very pleased with the results and we are going to follow up here in this next month.

Senator SPARKMAN. I am glad to hear that because we have heard frequently that we tend to neglect Latin America, South America, particularly, and I think it would be a very bad mistake for us not to keep in mind at all times the importance of good relations between the United States and our southern neighbors, and I am glad we are going to have that followup meeting.

Senator SPARKMAN. I understand it was a very worthwhile meeting.