able chance that the Khmer Government will survive the current crisis. What do you determine a "reasonable chance"?

But, first, let me ask one other thing. It has been suggested there be a cutoff date in the latter part of June. That would be about 90 days from now. What then would you determine a "reasonable chance" to be?

Mr. INGERSOLL. I think if there were a cutoff determined, that there would be little chance-because they would see a terminal point as would the other side-there would be no chance of negotiation under those circumstances.

Mr. BURKE. What about the reasonable chance that you mentioned? Mr. INGERSOLL. I think there is a reasonable chance if the Senate compromise proposal is passed by the Congress and if further aid is considered in the subsequent fiscal year.

Mr. BURKE. My question was: What do you consider a "reasonable chance," Mr. Secretary?

Mr. INGERSOLL. Well, as I pointed out, if the military aid is available, I think there is a reasonable chance that this government could survive through this dry season and into the wet season.

Mr. BURKE. Then it could no longer survive without further military assistance?

Mr. INGERSOLL. I don't believe there is any chance of survival if there is a cutoff. I think I mentioned that. I think they need to be assured of continuing aid so that a negotiation can be reasonable with the other side.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Hays.

Mr. HAYS. Mr. Ingersoll, I did not have the benefit of seeing this so-called compromise until 2 months ago. All I know about it is what I heard Mr. Hamilton and Mr. du Pont say. I thought I would vote for it, but it says in it this is only going to be given "after (A) the President reports in detail during such 30-day period to Congress that the United States is taking specific steps; (B) that the Khmer Republic is actively pursuing specific measures to reach a political and military accommodation with the other side in the conflict."

Now, I want to be realistic. You know, we passed a similar resolution about Greece and Turkey and a cutoff date, and so Makarios, who is not the stupidest guy on Earth, ordered negotiations to stop, and they just did not do anything until the cutoff date, and then the Turks got cut off, so everybody out there now has gotten frozen in

concrete.

Joe Kraft's column this morning in the Post notwithstanding-because I don't think he knows very much about the situation--but how do we interpret this cutoff? Suppose the Khmer Republic is actively saying to these people, "Let's negotiate," and they are getting no action. Does that cut off aid, and if it does, then I don't want to vote for this or anything else.

If we are going to let the other side determine the cutoff date, we might as well determine it ourselves and do it now.

How do you react to that?

Mr. INGERSOLL. I think I mentioned to Mr. Burke that a cutoff date will certainly not encourage the other side to negotiate. And I think they would just sit tight to whatever that cutoff date is and then pursue the course they have already.

Mr. HAYS. What you are really saying is encourage them not to negotiate?

Mr. INGERSOLL. That's right.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Findley.

Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Ingersoll, you mentioned other nations are watching to see what the United States will no in regard to further aid to Cambodia. Can you speculate as to why it is that almost no other nation has shown any interest in helping Cambodia either with humanitarian or military assistance?

Mr. INGERSOLL. I believe other nations have been supplying humanitarian assistance, too. Japan is a good example. Others have been supporting their economic stabilization fund, and there may be interest of other nations to supply some military support. They do not have the— that is, some of those nations do not have the financial muscle or strength that the United States does, and as long as the United States was continuing aid, they probably would not offer it. But I think there might be some forthcoming if there were continuing aid on the part of the United States.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Fraser.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Secretary, my understanding from your statement is that you do not support the recommendation by the Hamilton

subcommittee.

Mr. INGERSOLL. The cutoff feature of it, I think, would not give us any opportunity to pursue a negotiating course.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Secretary, I want to tell you my view so you can respond to it. My belief is that, the United States, by continuing military aid to the Lon Nol government is pursuing a lost cause. While we cannot tell a sovereign nation what to do, we also have a responsibility to decide what we are going to do.

I am deeply distressed-and I can hardly overstate this-at what I perceive to be the failure of the Department of State to initiate talks directly or through third parties to close out this war. By that I do not mean trying to preserve some remnants of the Lon Nol regime or some coalition or some other sharing which appears to be the objective, but I mean closing out the war.

I was prepared to vote for the Hamilton recommendation today if I thought that the Department was willing to change course and actually to seek to close out the war in as orderly a way as possible in order to save the most lives, permit the Cambodians, who need to get out, to get out, to continue humanitarian aid under as peaceful conditions as possible.

But so long as you continue to pursue this war to the last Cambodiar to achieve an unattainable stalemate, I am forced to vote "no" today. and I tell you this in the hope that there might be some indication that the Department was prepared to change course.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I am not sure what your indication of changing course would mean, Mr. Fraser, because the Department has been pursuing a constant effort to negotiate with the other side. I think the efforts were fully placed in the public record by Mr. Habib earlier. I would certainly welcome any suggestion that you might have on how we might pursue it in a different way, but we have continued and are continuing efforts.

Mr. FRASER. Mr. Secretary, the basis on which I would understand the requirements to be met would be the assumption that the war is lost, not that it either is or can be stalemated. If I am not speaking clearly enough, I will spell it out even more clearly.

Mr. INGERSOLL. You are asking for a surrender then, Mr. Fraser. Mr. FRASER. Yes; under controlled circumstances to minimize the loss of life. If the Cambodian Government is not interested, that is their decision. But I remind you-as you don't need to be remindedthat we have to make our decisions as to whether we can justify continued taxpayers' support of a lost cause. If you are not prepared to move in that direction, then I am not prepared to vote any more

money.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I think it is difficult for the U.S. Government to ask another sovereign government to seek surrender. I think that must be their decision.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Buchanan.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Secretary, until your response to the gentleman from Illinois a moment ago, it had been my understanding and assumption that if we cut off the aid to Cambodia, there would be no other place they could obtain the needed military and needed economic assistance, and it had been my further understanding, on the other hand, that the other side was being heavily supplied from both the People's Republic of China and North Vietnam.

Is that not the case?

Mr. INGERSOLL. I think that would be the pragmatic case, that whatever military aid that might come from any other source would be of such a minimal nature it would not enable them to sustain their position. Economic aid, I believe, is now forthcoming and would continue to be forthcoming from other nations.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Can you get that into the country or do you have to go by airlift? Without continued military assistance, can you continue to provide any protection for the aircraft and the airfields? Do you think such economic aid can get into the country while the conflict continues?

Mr. INGERSOLL. We are not providing any protection for the airlift-we are providing this airlift-nor are we providing any protection on the ground. But I doubt if any other nation would pursue an airlift other than the United States.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I meant, if Cambodian ability to protect the airfields and airlift were undermined. I understood they were running out of ammunition. Perhaps I don't understand the situation.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Not for-I think Mr. Hamilton said-say until the middle or end of April.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Wolff.

Mr. WOLFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, in the event that Congress turns down the administration's request, what other options or alternatives are open to you to get ammunition or equipment to the Cambodians?

Mr. INGERSOLL. There are no options.

Mr. WOLFF. I recall some time back that there were some transfers of ammunition from another nation. Is that option still open to you? Mr. INGERSOLL. We borrowed, Mr. Wolff. We are limited by ceilings and the U.S. Government could not transfer from other governments.

Mr. WOLFF. But you could get another government to transfer ammunition, could you not, as you did before, and then replenish the supply of that ammunition?"

Mr. INGERSOLL. I think that would be contrary to the spirit of the law and also of the intention of Congress.

Mr. WOLFF. But that was done before; was it not, Mr. Ingersoll? Mr. INGERSOLL. I don't know.

Mr. WOLFF. If I might refresh your memory, it was done with Indonesia before; was it not?

Mr. INGERSOLL. General Fish will answer that.

STATEMENT OF LT. GEN. HOWARD M. FISH, U.S. AIR FORCE,

DIRECTOR, DEFENSE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AGENCY

General FISH. I think our conditions are quite different now. We have a precise ceiling clearly defined by law and we have examined all the options you suggest. There are none open other than coming back to the Congress and getting authority either to transfer like the Senate compromise proposes or additional obligation authority. We have looked into those possibilities.

Mr. WOLFF. So there would be no other avenues open to you?
General FISH. That is correct.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. du Pont.

Mr. DU PONT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Secretary, I am not sure that you understand the choice that is before this committee today. In just a few minutes we are going to vote on some of these amendments and one of two things is going to happen between now and 12 o'clock. We are either going to adopt the Hamilton-du Pont amendment, or we are going to report your request for aid unfavorably to the House of Representatives.

Now which of those alternatives do you prefer?

Mr. INGERSOLL, I would like to suggest another choice.

Mr. DU PONT. You don't have another choice, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. INGERSOLL. You amend the Hamilton resolution so it does not have a cutoff.

Mr. DU PONT. Mr. Secretary, you just are not coming to grips with the problem and I don't know whether you don't want to see it or whether you have been instructed not to see it, but there is no other choice. There is going to be no aid or there is going to be some humanitarian help for the refugees, for the combatants, and we will try to wind the thing down with as little bloodshed as possible.

Mr. INGERSOLL. Mr. Chairman, is it not legal to amend the Hamilton resolution?

Mr. DU PONT. Mr. Secretary, we have worked for 4 days to put this together. There are going to be some amendments offered. I don't think they are going to pass. Maybe I am wrong. I am just giving you my judgment.

But one of two events is going to happen and your response is you would prefer a third course. Maybe you would prefer a third course, but you are not going to get that choice.

Mr. INGERSOLL. I believe the committee as a whole, in its wisdom, would determine that.

Mr. DU PONT. You betcha it will. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Chairman MORGAN. The Chair would like some guidance. I still have requests by Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Riegle, and Mr.

Solarz to ask questions, Mr. Bingham, I would like to move along as rapidly as possible. It is now 5 minutes of 11. I know we have at least two amendments pending.

I would like to finish our consideration of this bill and act on it one way or the other by 12 o'clock.

Mr. RIEGLE. I have been waiting to ask a question. I would be willing to forego that question if the others would also, so we could move on. Might I suggest that?

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Lagomarsino wants to ask one question.
Mr. RIEGLE. We all want to ask one question.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Would it not be in order to move that the questioning period ends at 11 o'clock?

Chairman MORGAN. Such a motion would be in order.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I so move.

Chairman MORGAN. All in favor of the motion by Mr. Zablocki so indicate by saying aye.

[Chorus of ayes.]

Chairman MORGAN. All opposed?

[No response.];

Chairman MORGAN. The motion is adopted. We will start the markup at 11 o'clock. We have five minutes left for questioning. Each questioner will have a minute.

Mr. Lagomarsino first.

Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Secretary, I understand your concern-although I think it is unrealistic, about the cutoff date. Assuming that the cutoff date were removed from the bill, would you then agree to the bill with its change in policy for the U.S. Government.

Mr. INGERSOLL. We would certainly prefer the Senate proposal, but as I pointed out earlier, we would have to be bound by whatever Congress does.

Chairman MORGAN. Mr. Riegle.

Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. Ingersoll, on page 3 of your statement you referred to the government of Phnom Penh as a sovereign government. You have also used the phrase "sovereign" nation. I understand the use of the word "sovereign nation," but in this case sovereign government, what gives the government sovereignty to my knowledge, or I think in terms of the way most people in America feel there have not been the kinds of free elections or any other broad expression of public will nationwide that would invest this government headed by Lon Nol with sovereignty as we would tend to think of it.

Now on what basis do you use the word that would have some relevance to the real values in the way we run our self-government system here?

Mr. INGERSOLL. There are many

Mr. RIEGLE. And I object to the use of the term.

Mr. INGERSOLL. There are many governments in the world that do not possibly fall in the definition that you call sovereignty. This nation is recognized by the United Nations as the true government of Cambodia and has been so voted in the credentials challenges at the last two General Assembly sessions.

Chairman MORGAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Mr. Bingham.