oversight

Cost of Training Granted to Foreign Students under the Military Assistance Program

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-05-17.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                         DOCUMENT RESUME

02243 - [A1432426]

Cost of Traihing Granted to Foreign Students under the Military
Assistance Program. ID-76-79; B-163582. May 17, 1977. 49 pp.

Report to the Congress; by Eluer B. Staats, Comptroller General.

Issue Area: International Economic and Military Programs (600).
Contact: International Div.
Budget Function: National Defense: Military Assistance (052);
    International Affairs: Conduct of Foreign Af"airs (152).
Organizaticn Concerned: Department of Defense; Department of
    State.
Covgressional Relevance: House Committee on International
    Relations; Senate Committee on Foreign Relations; Congress.
Authority: Foreign Military Sales Act of 1968. Foreign
    Assistance Act of 1961, as amended. B-159835 (1975)
    B-165731 (1976). 3.R. 13680 (95th Cong.).
         The costs of providing grant-aid training to foreign
studerts under the Bilitary Assistance Program have been
understated, and the method of reporting costs has been
inconsistent. Findings/Conclusions: The fiscal year 1976
program provided training to 6,280 students from 43 countries at
a recorded cost of about $23 million. New costing procedures,
which will more accurately account for training costs, ere to
become effective in fiscal year 1978; but costs will continue to
be understated because the new procedures do not provide for
accounting for all related costs. Recommendations: To improve
cost controls, reduce costs, and make the program more
effective, the Secretaries of Defense and State should. (1)
record all costs of training foreign military personnel,
including salaries and allowances of military personnel engaged
in their training; (2) have recipient countries assume
responsibility for paying transportation and living allowances
to their trainees except when justified for specific economic or
political reasons; (3) stress the need for foreign nationals to
better use English language training facilities; and (4)
discontinue U.S. maintenance and operation of the Army and Air
Force Canal Zone military assistance schools through
internationalization or closure, with the merging of essential
programs with U.S. military programs in the United States as
soon as practicable. (Author/SC)
           REPORT TO THE CONGRESS

           BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL
Ye:   }:   VOF THE UNITED STATES




           Cost Of Training Granted To
           Foreign Students Under The
           Military Assistance Program
           Departments of Defense and State

           This report examines the grant-aid training
           program provided annually to over 6,000 stu-
           dents from 43 countries. It recommends that
           the Secretaries of State and Defense identify
           and record all program costs and close or
           internationalize the Army and Air Force mili-
           tary assistance schools in the Canal Zone. It
           seeks to make the program more effective at
           less cost to the U.S. Government.




           ID-76-79
                                                           MAY 17, 1977
                COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED 1TAT11
                           WAIWillNOTON. DC. 2




B-163582




To the Prdident of the Senate and the
Speaker o. the House of Represe.ntatives
     This report exa,,ines the management of the grant-aid
military training program provided annually to over 6,000
students from about '3 countries. It discusses ways to
reduce costs and to take the program more effective through
increased financial contributions by the recipient countries.
     The review was made to see if program management had
improved since our 1971 review. Our review was made pursuant
to the Budget and Accounting Act, 1921 (31 U.S.C. 53), and
the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31.U.S.C. 67).
     Copies of this report are being sent to the Director,
Office of Management and Judgets the Secretary of State; and
the Secretary of Defense.



                                   Comptroller General
                                   of the United States
COMPTPOLLER GENERAL'S                     COST OY TRAINING GRANTED TO
REPORT TO THE CONGRESS                    FOREIGN STUDENTS UNDER THL
                                          MILITARY ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
                                          Departments of Defense
                                          and State



            D I G E S T

            The U.S. provides military education
            and training to foreign students under
            a variety of programs, such as the
            International Military Education and
            Training Program under the Foreign
            Assistance Act (grant assistance), the
            Arms Export Control Act (sales program),
            and personnel exchange programs with
            military forces of other countries.

            This report discusses certain costs
            and management aspects of that train-
            ing provided under provisions of the
            International Military Education and
            Training Program, formerly the Military
            Assistance Program. GAO recognizes
            that political advantages accrue to the
            U.S. in providing training to foreign
            students, but this aspect was not
            specifically covered in this report.
            The fiscal year 1976 program provided
            training to 6,280 students from 43
            countries at a recorded cost of about
            $23 million. The costs of providing
            this grant-aid training have been
            understated and the method of report-
            ing costs has been inconsistent.
            New costing procedures, which will more
            accurately account for training costs, are
            to become effective in fiscal year 1978;
            but costs will continue to be understated
            because the new procedures do not provide
            for accounting for all related costs.

            The Foreign Assistance Act provides that
            funds made available for the grant-aid
            training program cannot be used to reim-
            burse other Defense appropriations for

CTiearS.    Upon rmoval, thf report   i                     ID-76-79
   iditie ishould b noted hereon.
salaries and allowances of military person-
nel used as instructors.

In GAO's view, however, salaries and allow-
ances should be recorded as a training cost
so that the Congress will know the total
cost of training foreign military students.
(See p. 7.)

In support of the progrca, the Department
of Defense says that it

--develops the capabilities of friendly
  countries to use their own resources and
  U.S.-originated weapons systems for
  defense!
-- transmits professionalism, U.S. military
   skills, and doctrine; and
--helps accomplish U.S. po]i:ical purposes
  by developing channels of communication
  with foreign military leaders.
GAO found the last objective to be partic-
ularly applicable to training assistance
provided to Latin America and some small
countries. Training to these countries is
provided primarily for political reasons and
the influence the U.S. derives from such
programs.
To improve cost controls, reduce costs,
and make the program more effective, the
Secretaries of Defense and State should:

-- Record all costs of training foreign
   military personnel, including salaries and
   allowances of military personnel engaged
   in their training.  (See p. 10.)
-- Have recipient countries assume respon-
   sibility for paying transportation and
   living allowances to their traineeq
   except when justified for specific eco-
   nomic or political reasons. (See p. 1C.)




                      ii
              --Stress the .--ad for foreign nationals to
                better use Ezalidh language training
                facilities.   (See p.   19.)
              -- Discontinue U.S. maintenance and operation
                 of the Army and Air Force Canal Zone mil-
                 itary assistance schools through inter-
                 nationalization or closure with the merging
                 of essential programs with U.S. military
                 programs in the U.S. as soon as practi-
                 cable. (See p. 19.)
             Transportation and living allowances provided
             to foreign military students were estimated
             to be from $9 to $11 million in fiscal year
             1975. Defense has negotiated some agreements
             for foreign governments to assume these
             costs, but greater efforts should be made to
             have all these costs paid by the recipient
             countries.
             This would give the countries a greater fi-
             nancial stake in the success of the training
             program and should improve selection proce-
             dures and use of trainees. At the same time
             U.S. costs would be reduced and other prior-
             ity training needs could be satisfied. (See
             p. 8.)
             About $2.3 million, or about 9 percent of
             the 1975 grant-aid training funds, was spent
             on English language training and about $1.7
             million of other grant-aid funds was spent
             for English language laboratories, training
             aids, and ,xblications.
             According to Defense, most countries receiv-
             ing grant-aid military training are capable
             of teaching English to their students. Many
             countries, however, do not allow their stu-
             dents enough time to study English and have
             allowed language laboratories to fall into
             disrepair. (see p. 11.)
             Student training is provided jointly to for-
             eign and U.S. military personnel in the U.!'.
             and is also provided to Latin American stu-
             dents in the Canal Zone. The Canal Zone


TYaai..Suu                          iii
training is in Spanish and costs approxi-
mately $7.2 million, including military sal-
aries and allowances of $4 million, which is
nr. charged to the program.
The Army and Air Force courses of instruction
in the Canal Zone and those In the U.S. are
generally similar, although some of the equip-
ment used in the U.S. is more advanced. The
students in the Canal Zone courses could be
generally absorbed into the U.S. courses of
instruction without additional instructors or
expense.
The following benefits would result from
closing ;the Canal Zone schools. (See pp.
6, 7, 13, and 18.)
-- Exposure of more Latin American partici-
   pants to the U.S. way of life.

-- More emphasis by recipient countries on
   Enqlish language training before
   their students attend courses in the U.S.

-- Reassignment of 300 military personnel
   now working in the Canal Zone schools.

-- Better use of existing facilities in the
   UpS., through use of unused classroom
   npaces by Latin American students.

-- Some cost savings. As noted, total
   direct costs of the schools are about
   $7.2 million.
Notwithstanding the benefits of closing
schools and shifting much of the training
to the U'.S., there is merit in internation-
alizing the Canal Zone schools.
The Department of State said that it will
investigate jointly with the Department of
Defense the feasibility of establishing
multilateral sponsorship of the Canal Zone
schools before considering their closure.

Defense stated that training at the Canal
Zone schools should continue, but it has


                     iv
taken limited action toward internetional-
izing the Army school. (See pp. 42, 47,
and 48.)
Both Departments expressed concern that
assuming more'training costs by some oar-
ticipatina countries will make the program
too expensive, and that consenuently the
countries will look elsewhere for training
or needs will go unfilled.
The State Lepartment said it does not
oppose full costs of the qrant training
program beinq recorded, as long as these
costs are not charged to the program.




                     v
                      Contents
                                  --
                                  -    n-f             Pag_

DIGEST                                                   i

CHAPTER

   1       INTRODUCTION                                  1
               Change in program emphasiA                2
               Program responsibilities                  3

   2       PROGRAM COSTS                                 4
               Costs not fully charged
                 or reported                             4
               Need for recipient countries
                 to pay sore                             8
               Conclusions                               9
               Recommendations                          10

   3       ENGLISH LANGUAGE TRAINING AND THE
             CANAL ZONE SCHOOLS                         11
               Foreign countries need to give
                 greater attention to English
                 language training                      11
               Canal Zone schools no longer
                 needed                                 13
               Conclusions                              18
               RecommendationJ                          19

   4       USE OF TRAINED PERSONNEL                     20
               Limited verification of use              20
               Interviews with former trainees          21
               Conclusion                               22

   5       SCOPE OF REVIEW                              23

APPENDIX
   I       English language training capabilities of
             some Latin American countries              24

  II       Comparison of Army and Air Force training
             provided in the Canal Zone and in the
             United States                              26
APPENDIX                                                 Page


 III       GAO report (B-165731, July 15, 1976)
             concerning not charging for Marine
             Corpu courses                                31

  IV       Department of Defense letter of August 17,
             1976, and Navy letter of October 5,
             1976, stating action to be taken on
             Marine Corps courses not charged             37

   V       Letter dated November 8, 1976, from
             the Deputy Assistant Secretary for
             Budget and Finance, Department of
             State                                        39

  VI       Letter dated November 18, 1976, from
             the Director, Defense Security Ascistance
             Agency and Deputy Assistant Secretary
             (ISA), Security Assistance, Department
             of Defense                                   44

 VII       Principal officials responsible for
             'administering activities discussed in
             this report                                  49
                           CHAPTER 1
                         INTRODUCTION
     We have reviewed grant-aid training of foreign military
personnel, provided under the Foreign Assistance
Our review covered (1) certain aspects of trainingAct.
                                                    furnished
to the military forces of Korea, Thailand, Indonesia,
Tunisia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, aid Colombia      Spain,
several military schools in the United States and  and (2)
                                                   the
Zone. The scope of our review is described in chapter  Canal
                                                        5.
     In fiscal year 1976, grant-aid traininn was separated
from the Military Assistance Program of the Foreign
                                                    Assist-
ance Act and provided in accordance with a new section
the act--the International Military Education and      of
                                                  Training
Prooram. The fiscal year 1976 program provided traininq
to about 6,280 students from 43 countries at a cost
                                                    of about
$23 million.

     Our 1971 report to the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations (B-163582, Feb. 16, 1971) concluded that
                                                    improve-
ments were needed in proaram management. We recommended
                                                          that
the Secretaries of State and Defense direct their
                                                   staffs
jointly to examine the training program in each country
periodically, determine whether the training is warranted,
and identify the staffing needed to effectively manage
the program.
     We have found that management of most areas described
in our 1971 report nad improved. Generally, the
of Defense had:                                  Department

    -- Acted to see that qualified candidates for
       training courses were nominated, screened,
       and tested before departure.

    -- Helped identify each country's military
       requirements and resources so that approved
       training was related to eouipment acquired
       from the United States, was of high priority,
       and did not duplicate military training avail-
       able through the country's own resources.
    -- Taken or was takins steps leading to host
       countries gradually paying more of their
       military training costs.



                            1
     However; other areas of concern require management
attention.
CHANGE IN PROGRAM EMPHASIS

     Since our 1971 review, the sale of training has increased.
The changing political situation at home and abroad has
affected the stated program emphasis, the type of trainina
that can be provided, and the manner of program funding.

     The training program previously emphasized assisting the
forward defense countries on the periphery of the Communist
world and developing military forces able to defeat subversion
and maintain law and order esrential to political, economic,
and social progress for the lesser developed countries.

     In its 1977 congressional presentation, Defense stated
that the training program transmits professionalism and U.S.
military skills and doctrine, and helps accomplish U.S.
political purposes by developing channels of communication
with and influencing foreign military leaders. Defense also
believes that the program maximizes the capabilities of
friendly foreign countries to use their own resources and
U.S.-originated weapons systems and assume more resPonsi-
bility for their defense.

     We found that training assistance to many countries,
particularly those in Latin America and other smaller
countries, is provided primarily for political reasons
and the influence we derive from such programs.

     Foreign military personnel attend classes with U.S.
personnel at various U.S. military installations in the
United States and work with U.S. personnel overseas and
in the United States to learn specific skills or techniques.
The two main differences in training provided to foreign
and U.S. personnel are (1) foreign military personnel are
often trained at U.S. expense in English language compre-
hension and (2) the United States maintains and operates
special schools in the Canal Zone for Latin American students.
Instruction at the Canal Zone schools is in Spanish, but
the material is basically similar to that used at the military
service schools in the United States.




                              2
PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES

     The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, provides
that the Secretary of State, under the direction of the
President, shall be responsible for the continuous super-
vision and general direction of the Military Assistance and
International Military Education and Training Programs. The
act also provides that the Secretary of Defense shall be
primarily responsible for the actual implementation of
the approved programs. The Under Secretary for Security
Assistance carries out the State Department's responsibility
with the Bureau of Politico-Miiitary Affairs providing the
personnel and expertise.

     The Department of Defense Security Assistance Agency
is correspondingly responsible for implementing the
security assistance procrams carried out by U.S. military
groups, missions, or representatives under the U.S.
Ambassador's direction.

     To formulate annual programs and to resolve major
policy issues that arise within a program year, State's
Under Secretary for Security Assistance serves as Chairman
of the Security Assistance Program Review Committee.

Security Assi'tance Program
Review Committee

     The Committee was organized in 1971 to advise and
assist the Secretary of State with the Security Assistance
Program, specifically the finding of the Military Assistance
Program, Foreign Military Sales credits, and Security Sup-
porting Assistance. The Committee hears the issues related
to security assistance programs by regions and countries.

     Membership includes representatives from State and
Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, thF Agency for Inter-
national Development, the National Security Council, the
Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, the Office of Manage-
ment and Budge!t, Treasury, and the Central Intelligence
Agency. A working group, chaired by the Deputy Director of
the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs and including rep-
resentatives from the above agencies, clarifies issues and
develops agendas for the Committee.




                              3
                             CHAPTER 2

                        PPOGPAM COSTS
     The level of the grant-aid training program, as provided
for under the Foreign Assistance Act, has ranged from $31
million in fiscal year 1972 to $23 million in 1976. The
program has financed training of foreign military personnel
from about 45 countries at any one time.

     The yearly costs of grant-aid training do not accurately
portray all costs of the program because some costs are not
included. Also, because of inconsistencies in costing pro-
cedures, t6tals for different years cannot be compared. Some
training is reflected in Defense appropriations, and no
uniform procedures have been established for charging Foreign
Assistance Act funds the appropriate value of training pro-
vided by Defense installations or personnel.

     The training program can be made less costly to the
United States if recipient countries assume full responsibil-
ity for paying trainee transportation and living allowances.
Defense has begun actions along these lines in some countries.
We believe that with few exceptions such a policy should be
applied to all countries to aive them sufficient financial
stakes in the program. With the recipient country assuming
these costs, it should have a greater incentive to improve ita
selection of courses and individuals, and its subsequent use
of the military trainees. In Thailand, which has begun to
assume these costs, we found this to be the case in selecting
training courses.

COSTS NOT FULLY
CHARGED OR REPORTED

     Defense has been providirng training in military service
schools to grant-aid and foreign military sales program stu-
dents without charging for all costs incurred. In addition,
Defense has not adequately identified training costs at the
Canal Zone schools nor recorded certain other related costs,
such as training costs.

Training course costs
understated or not charged
     Course costs for training provided under the foreign
military sales program and the grant-aid proqram are estab-
'ished in basically the same manner. The grant-aid program,


                                4
however, excludes the cost of military salaries and allow-
ances and an asset-use charge for installed U.S. facilities
and equipment. In May 1976 Defense deferred until October
1977 the application of a new pricing policy for the grant-
aid training program that would have increased course costs.
The pricing policy was applied to the sale of training in
January 1976.
     Although we did not make specific tests of these costs
during this review, several of our recent reports showed
that all costs of providing training were not included in
the establishment of course costs, and thus not charged to
the sales and grant-aid programs.

     In a report dated December 1, 1975 (B-159835), we stated
that Air Force courses primarily involving flight training
did not include aircraft depreciation costs and used inaccu-
rate or dated rates in its computations. In a report dated
July 15, 1976 (B-165731, see app. III), we noted that the
Marine Corps was not charging for training prov 'ed under
both the grant-aid and sales programs.   In response to the
latter report, Defense stated, in ar August 17, 1976, letter,
and the Navy, in an October 5, 1976, letter (see app. IV),
that every reasonable effort will be made to collect from
the recipient country on all open foreign military sales
cases. Also, they will determine what action, if any, .is
required on sales cases that are closed. They noted that
every appropriate measure is being taken to recover all
future military education and training costs authorized under
the grant-aid and foreign military sales programs.

     In a comprehensive report on the pricing of training
(FGMSD-76-91, Dec. 14, 1976), we discussed the effectiveness
of the Defenae policy guidance issued in November 1975 and
revised in September 1976. This guidance provides for
including many indirect base operations costs that were
formerly excluded in computing course costs but still fails
to include all appropriate costs. Defense stated in September
1976 that certain costs are being excluded (reducing tuition
prices by 20 to 30 percent) to recognize the military and
political benefits the United States gains from such training.
In April 1977 Defense, however, modified its pricing policy.
Effective with the start of fiscal year 1978, most costs
excluded by the September policy guidance were again to be
included in determining the cost of providing training.

     The new pricing policy has not yet been applied to the
grant-aid training program. In our report on Defense action
to reduce charges for foreign military training (FGMSD-77-17,
Feb. 23, 1977), we noted that for the grant-aid program, the

                              5
military tuition rates were still based on the old military
services pricing system. Under this system the Army used an
additive pricing system; the Air Force charged on.y the var-
iable cost of training; and the Navy recovered essentially
the full cost of training. We estimated that for fiscal year
1975, the Army failed to charge $5.8 million in costs to the
grant-aid program.

     Defense stated its budget requests were based on the old
course costs and that application of the new pricing policy
would increase course costs and thus reduce the level of
training. However, Defense said the new pricing policy will
be applied to grant-aid training in fiscal year 1978.
Canal Zone schools cost
     The military services are reimbursed from the grant-aid
training appropriations for operating and maintaining schools
for training Latin Americans in the Canal Zone. These costs
are not specifically identified in the annual presentation to
the Congress.
     For fiscal year '975, the Army, Air Force, and Navy
determined reimbursable operation and maintenance costs for
their respective schools in the Canal Zone to be $2,246,000,
$944,000, and $38,500, recpectively--or a total of about $3.2
million.   In accordance with existing regulations, they
excluded military pay and allowances from the amounts to be
reimbursed.
     Reimbursable costs, generally determined by dividing
total programed costs of the schools by anticipated student
weeks of foreign students to be trained, are established
from 18 to 24 months in advance of the budget year. Because
of changes in actual costs from those programed, however,
over or under reimbursements can occir. For example, in
December 1975 the Army estimated that an expected decrease
in its ctudents could result in a nonrecoverable cost of
$500,000 during fiscal year 1976. The Air Force anticipated
a shortfall of $400,000. The drop in student enrollment was
primarily attributable to the loss of Chilean students
because of sanctions imposed by the Congress on assistance to
Chile. To cover the fiscal year 1976 shortfall, Defense
stated that $900,000 will be made available from the grant-
aid operation and maintenance funds.

Support and other related costs
     Before 1973 the training program included the cost of
military assistance advisory groups and command training
support. These costs consisted of half the permanent change-

                             6
of-station expense of military training personnel, military
station allowances, certain salaries and allowances, con-
tractual services, indirect expenses of subordinate com-
mands and activities, and Department of State administrative
and operating support of the overseas training personnel.
In 1973 these costs amounted to $8.3 million but were not
included in the training program costs.
     In 1975 U.S. personnel training costs of $95,000 were
similarly excluded from the training program. These costs
consist of language training, travel, orientation, and other
costs related to overseas advisory personnel. According to
Defense officials, these costs are not now included in the
grant-aid training program because they are not directly
attributable to training.
Salaries and allowances of
military training personnel

     The Foreign Assistance Act states that salaries and
allowances of advisory personnel and other military personnel
will not be charge9 to the grant-aid training program although
such personnel are directly engaged in training foreign mili-
tary students. Thus, the total cost of furnishing the train-
inj is much greater than the costs recorded for the program.
     For instance, personnel from the 7th Special Forces in
the Canal Zone were being assigned on a temporary duty basis
to Latin American countries to train, assist, and advise
host country military forces with no salary or allowance
costs being shown in the training program. Also, more than
300 military personnel in the Canal Zone Provide full-time
training to foreign military students; annual pay and
allowances of those personnel are estimated at $4 million.
     Although we have not determined the exact amount for
salaries and allowances, it is large. For instance, as
previously noted, the recorded cost of training at the
Canal Zone schools for fiscal year 1975 was $3.2 million,
and the unrecorded training costs of military salaries and
allowances at the schools was about $4 million. Other costs,
such as retirement contributions, were not covered in
arriving at this amount. To give the Congress a better idea
of what the program costs, we believe the salaries and
allowances of military personnel directly engaged in training
foreign military personnel should be recorded as a program
cost.



                              7
     Defense felt it was unnecessary to record military
salaries and allowances of training personnel. The State
Department said in November 1976 that it does not oppose
the full costs of the grant-aid training program being
recorded, including the military personnel costs for Armed
Forces members assigned directly to training functions,
without affecting the existing exclusion of these costs from
reimbursement to the military departments from the inter-
national Military Education and Training Program funds.
NEED FOR RECIPIENT
COUNTRIES TO PAY MORE

     We estimated foreign military student transportation and
living allowances for fiscal year 1975 to be from $9 million
to $11 million, from about $26 million total. Although Defense
has initiated actions to have recipient countries pay these
costs, only a few countries have agreed to do so. Cost-
sharing gives the recipient country a financial stake in the
program's success, which should increase the program's effec-
tiveness and reduce costs to the U.S. Government.

     Of the countries we visited, cost-sharing agreements
have been reached only with Korea and Thailand. The Korean
Government began paying for its trainees' international travel
in fiscal year 1974 and funded all trainee transportation
costs in 1976. In fiscal year 1977 the United States will
stop paying living allowances to Korean trainees, as their
costs will be completely assumed by the Korean Government.
     The Thai Government began assuming transoceanic trans-
portation costs in fiscal year 1976 and will assume all trans-
portation costs in 1977. It has agreed to assume 50 percent
of the students' living allowances in July 1977 and 100 per-
cent the following year.

     The prospects of reduced or discontinued grant-aid funds
appeared to be the prime reason for concluding these agreements.
We saw some indication that cost-sharing is a financial in-
centive for host country governments to better use the training
assistance by more carefully selecting training courses and
candidates. For example, with the advent of cost-sharing in
fiscal year 1976, the Thai Government reconsidered training
priorities and reduced its original requirements for several
U.S.-based training courses.

     Early in 1976 a Defense official associated with the
training program said that foreign countries should be required
to pay students' per diem, travel, and other allowances. He


                              8
also said these foreign countries would probably more care-
fully consider who is trained and how trainees are used.
     In November 1976 State and Defense, however, said that
while they actively encourage cost-sharing arrangements,
completely terminating these allowances would hurt poorer
countries. State further said that these agreements should
be worked out case by case depending on U.S. Government inter-
ests as well as the ability and willingness of the foreign
governments to pay. (Also see ch. 4.)
Lack of adequate consideration of
allowances paid by recipient countries

     According to Defense regulations, living allowances (per
diem) should not be paid to trainees whose countries pay all
their allowances. In the countries visited, extra pay or
allowances paid to trainees by their governments were not
taken into consideration by the United States. Colombia pays
its trainees substantially more than the U.S. scale, but no
reduction is made in the living allowances paid by the United
States. For instance, a major with three dependents and 17
years of service will receive an additional $1,700 a month
while participating in training in the United States. In
Tunisia the additional payment ranges from $2.50 to $7.50 a
day.
     We recognize, however, that information on actual allow-
ances or extra pay provided by the foreign government is not
always released to the U.S. officials. Also, the extra pay-
ments are often justified by the foreign governments on the
basis of raising the lower pay of their military trainees to
equal that of U.S. military personnel so they can enjoy equiv-
alent living conditions and social life while training in
the United States.
CONCLUSIONS
     The cost of the grant-aid training program has been
understated, and the methods of reporting have been inconsis-
tent. The actions the Navy planned, as reported in October
1976, will help to correct this situation, as will the new
Defense costing guidance when implemented for the grant-aid
program in fiscal year 1978. The Defense guidance provides
for including many indirect base operations costs that were
formerly excluded in computing course costs but still fails
to include all appropriate costs. In addition, the cost of
grant-aid training will still be greatly understated since no
procedures have been established to record U.S. military per-
sonnel costs for training foreign military students.
                              9
     Grant-aid training funds are used annually in reimburs-
ing the military services for operating Canal Zone schools
to train foreign military personnel. These costs, which
totaled about $3.2 million in fiscal vear 1975, are not sepa-
rately identified in the annual presentation to the Conqress.
Consequently, the Conqress lacks the information necessary
to evaluate the costs and the methods used to reimburse the
services.
     The Department of State, however, stated in November
1976 that in preparing the congressional presentation docu-
ments for the fiscal year 1978 Securiuy Assistance Program,
it will consider the proposal that the -11 costs of operating
the Canal Zone schools be reported, wi   at affecting existing
funding arrangements. Defense stated, ,fter its November 18,
1976, letter, that it has no objections if the State Department
wishes to separately identify Canal Zone school costs.

     Defense's cost-sharing agreements should (1) result in
lower costs to the United States, thus making more funds
available for priority training needs, and (2) make the
training program more effective since the recipient country
will have a greater financial stake in its success.

RECOMMENDATIONS

     We recommend that the Secretaries of State and Defense:
     -- Record all costs of training foreign military personnel
        under the grant-aid traininq program. The salaries and
        allowances of military personnel directly engaqed in
        the training proqram should be recorded as a program
        cost and reported annually to the Conqress in order
        that it may fully understand all costs involved in
        training foreign military personnel.

    -- Report the full costs of operating the Canal Zone
       schools in the annual presentation to the Congress as
       long as the schools are continued under U.S. super-
       vision and control.

    -- Have the recipient countries assume responsibility for
       paying all trainee .ransportation and living allowances
       unless justified for specific economic or political
       reasons. The progress made should be shown on a
       country-by-country basis in the annual congressional
       presentation.




                              -. 0
                          CHAPTER 3

                  ENGLISH LANGUAGE TRAINING
                  AND THE CANAL ZONE SCHOOLS
     Foreign military personnel are often given English lan-
guage training at considerable U.S. expense before receiving
military training in the United States. In Latin America,
the United States maintains and operates schools for train-
ing foreign military personnel in the Canal Zone, and in-
struction is given in Spanish.

     %bout $2.3 million, or about 9 percent, of the 1975
grant-aid training funds was spent on English language
training and about $1.7 million of other grant-aid funds
was spent for English language laboratories, training aids,
and publications. We believe the expenditure of grant-aid
training funds for this purpose could be greatly reduced if
recipient countries better used their incountry training
facilities.

     Many courses taught in the Canal Zone Army and Air Force
schools are comparable or similar to those offered at
military service schools in the United States. Eliminating
the Canal Zone schools would release about 300 military
personnel for other duties. Training foreign military
personnel in the United States instead of the Canal Zone would
more effectively influence personnel to the U.S. way of life
(a basic training goal).
FOREIGN COUNTRIES NEED TO GIVE GREATER
ATTENTION TO ENGLISH LANGUAGE TRAINING

     According to Defense, most countries receiving qrant-aid
military training are capable of teaching English to their
students. They have received language laboratories from the
United States, have had instructors trained in the United
States, and some of them have been provided with resident U.S.
English language instructors under the grant-aid program or
various Defense programs.

     Some of these countries effectively used the resources
provided and no longer depend on U.S. grant assistance.
Other countries continue to rely on U.S. assistance for
teaching students English in the United States before they
attend military courses in the United States.




                             11
     For example, Spain has arduallv ohased out English lan-
guage training under the nrant-gid nroora- and comoelled its
military services to emphasize enlarging, modernizina, and up-
dating its own English lanciuace traininn facilities. The
Spanish Navy includes Enqlish at its naval academy and naval
war college as part of the curriculum. It provides additional
compensation for other students receiving passing scores on
the English lanauaqe comprehension-level test.
        Tunisia, on the other hand, students enroll in lan-
guage classes late, many are often absent, and one lanauaae
school has no commissioned officer in charge of the crogram.
As a result, about 22 percent of the U.S. training funds for
Tunisia are used for English language instruction.

     Defense personnel stated that some Latin American coun-
tries do not devote enough resources to keep facilities
operational, do not allow students adequate time to learn Eng-
lish, and do not train and maintain a staff of nualified in-
structors. This probably stems mainly from the countries
relying on sendina students to the Canal Zone schools which
give instruction in Spanish.
     Brazil is a notable exception, having excellent Fnalish
language facilities and an incountry training protram. It
sends only a few students to the Canal Zone schools each year.
Defense believes the low use of the Canal Zone schools results
from the greater caoability of Brazilian military training
facilities and the Portuguese languace of the Brazilians.
The Army, however, believes that Brazil prefers to send as
many students as possible to the United States, because the
Brazilian military students prefer the prestiae of graduating
from a U.S. Army service school in the United States. The
Army also said that Brazilian Army personnel prefer the chal-
lenge of the English language to the Spanish languaqe.
     Appendix I contains information, provided by Defense or
obtained during our incountry visit.s, on the Enqlish language
training capabilities of some Latin American countries.

Defense and State reasons for
continuing language training
     In November 1976 the Defense and State Departments ad-
vocated continuing English language training to grant-aid
trainees. Defense stated English language training should
continue for countries which historically have shown a need
for this instruction so their trainees could absorb the
sophisticated material offered in the U.S. service schools.

                                12
     The State Department wanted to continue language train-
ing to support foreign policy objectives.   It stated that
training opportunities should not be circumscribed by the
candidates' prior competence in English or the willingness of
the foreign government to purchase preliminary English lan-
guage training. It further said this is particularly true of
cases in which relatively small training grants constitute a
principal avenue for contacts with the future military leaders
of ,Ionalined countries and in which emerging requirements for
a country's self-defense are being supported by authorized
programs of U.S. materiel assistance. However, State said
the proportion of grant training funds devoted to English
language training should be reduced as much as practicable.
     We do not believe grant English language training should
be continued based on historical needs. Where countries have
the language training capabilities but have not properly used
and maintained the facilities, we believe grant language
training should generally be discontinued and the countries
urged to properly use their English language training facili-
ties. There may be some justification for providing lan-
guage training to selected individuals for political reasons
or to newly emerging countries that lack adequate language
facilities.
CANAL ZONE SCHOOLS NO LONGER NEEDED
     We believe there is no longer a need for the Army and
Air Force Canal Zone schools to train Latin American person-
nel because the personnel now can be trained at service
schools in the United States or by the larger South American
countries. (See p. 14 for our comments on the Navy school.)
In addition, incountry facilities could also be established.
Eliminating the Canal Zone schools would free about 300 U.S.
military personnel for other duties. Closing the Canal Zone
schools would result in more Latin American military personnel
being trained in the United States and being exposed to the
U.S. way of life, an important objective of the training
program.
     The U.S. balance of payments and local economy will also
benefit from money trainees spend in the United States. Such
spending, particularly among officers, probably far exceeds
any allowances paid to the trainees by the U.S. military serv-
ices. Also, foreign grant-aid students generally are pro-
gramed to use existing spaces, primarily established for U.S.
service personnel for their courses. They share in prorating
expenses, which benefits the Defense Department through reim-
bursements from grant-aid funds.


                             13
     For those personnel not qualifying for training in
thq United States because of language requirements, the larger
courtries of the region that are friendly to or aligned with
the United States can probably provide the training. This
will help foster inter-American defense cooperation.
Latin American personnel can be
trained in the United States
     The U.S. Army School of the Americas, U.S. Air Force Inter-
American Air Forces Academy, and U.S. Navy Small Craft In-
spection and Technical Team are the three military assistance
service schools that train Latin Americans in the Canal Zone.
This program evolved from the need to train students on U.S.
equipment. Through December 1975 the Army school had graduated
about 33,500 students since its founding in 1946; the Air Force
school about 13,000 students since 1943; and the Navy School
about 800 students since 1963. Some Latin American military
and civilian personnel are also trained in the Canal Zone at
the Defense Mapping Agency Inter-American Geodetic Survey
School and the Naval Communications Station, Balboa.
     We visited the three Canal Zone schools and nine schools
at eight locations in the United States and compared the content
of many courses offered in the Canal Zone and the United States.
We also determined whether the U.S. schools can absorb the
Canal Zone students without adding personnel.

     Our comparison showed that Canal Zone naval courses are
directed toward personnel havin? little or no previous exper-
ience in nautical matters, wher.as U.S. personnel generally
have had basic nautical funda'r. :'tals. In fiscal year 1976,
138 students were programed for the Canal Zone Navy School.

     However, much of the Army and Air Force training provided
at the Canal Zone schools is similar to that taught at service
schools in the United States. Also, the Cenal Zone students
could generally be absorbed in existing facilities without
adding training personnel. The major difference was that
equipment used for training in the Canal Zone was generally
older and in some cases obsolete to U.S. forces. Training in
most of this older and obsolete equipment is available in
the training facilities of the larger Latin American countries.
(See app. II.)




                             14
Training available from other
countries and the Inter-American
Defense Collage
     While the United States provides much traininq for Latin
Americans, the more advanced Latin American countries, Canada,
and some European and Asian countries also provide Latin
Americans military training at little or no cost. Accordinq
to an official of the School of the Americas, most traininQ
offered in the Canal Zone schools is available at the training
facilities of the more advanced Latin American countries,
such as Brazil, Arqentina, and Peru.
     Also, Defense stated in 1974 that the task of building
the Brazilian armed forces into a viable, self-sustaining
institution has been accomplished and that the services are
basically capable of developing, maenadine, training, and
conducting operations without outside advice. In fiscal
year 1975 Brazil provided training to several Latin American
countries in such fields as command and general staff,
engineering, Army command and staff, oceanography, and sub-
marine operations. Brazil also maintains training missions
in Bolivia and Paraguay.

     During our visit to Bolivia, we noted that Bolivian Air
Force mechanics had received training in Argentina and Vene-
zuela on the F-86 aircraft. This training was not available
through the United States because the F-86 is no lonaer in
the U.S. Air Force inventory.

     To meet the increased training requirements associated
with the introduction of new Air Force equipment, Honduras
sent personnel to military training programs in 12 countries
during 1974.

     Training is also provided by a regional organization,
the Inter-American Defense College, located in Washington,
D.C. The college, established in 1962, is part of the Inter-
American Defense Board and is financed by the funds of the
Organization of American States through the Board and
by the individual countries who send fzculty members and
students. The United States is one of the 19 member nations
of the Inter-American Defense Board and the Inter-American
Defense College.




                             15
State and Defense views on the need
for t   Canal
         Schools
           oe Zone

     A State Department official stated in January 1976 that
the training in the Canal Zone does not expose the personnel
to the U.S. way of life; and accordingly the schools in the
Canal Zone should be closed and the personnel trained in the
United States. He further stated, in effect, that training
should be directed toward selected promising officers, because
there is more value in exposing people to the U.S. way of life
who may later play a significant part in their armed forces
or government.

     In November 1976 the State Department somewhat modified
its position. It stated that since it is clearly in the
interest of the United States to foster inter-American defense
cooperation, there are apparently significant advantages
in maintaining Spanish language training courses which will
bring together representatives of the Latin American armed
forces without a prior requirement for facility in English.
State also said, however, it will investigate jointly with
Defense the feasibility of establishing multilateral sponsor-
ship for the Canal Zone schools before considering our sug-
gestion for closing them.

     In February 1976, a Defense official said that inter-
nationalizing the Canal Zone schools was being considered.
In November 1976 Defense said it had recently sent letters
to the participating members seeking their views on creating
a permanent advisory commission in inter-American Army
educational matters. If the plan is adopted, the commission
will be staffed by about six people whose expenses would be
defrayed by the countries using the Army school. Defense
noted this, in effect, is the first step toward complete
internationalization. A Defense official also said a similar
commission was established at the Air Force school in the
Canal Zone a few years ago, but the participating countries
do not fund the commission.

     In addition, Defense advanced several reasons for not
closing the Canal Zone schools.

    -- Most students now being trained in the Canal
       Zone would no longer be trained by the United States
       because of increased costs and the language problem
       of training in the United States. Defense thus
       believes opportunities to favorably influence the
       students toward the United States would be lost. It
       believes that the military is the most important


                             16
       political institution for stability and Western
       political orientation of the region.

     -- Training in the United States is generally similar
        to that in the Canal Zone but there are important
        differences. Courses in the United States usually
        require higher student prerequisites in mathematics,
        mechanics, and electronics; and training in the United
        States is geared to more sophisticated equipment.
     -- The smaller Latin American countries cannot afford
        to develop their own career and specialized schools
        or buy more expensive equipment.

     -- There is no assurance that other Latin American
        countries friendly to the United States will
        provide the training now offered in the Canal Zone.

     We believe the reasons for continuing the schools are
not persuasive enough. Training assistance to Latin America
is provided primarily for political reasons and for the
influence we derive from such programs, rather than to
accomplish specific military objectives. Where specific
military objectives or requirements exist, they can be accom-
plished by training in the United States or by friendly for-
eign governments. For example, in World War II the United
States trained Mexican pilots and Brazilian Army personnel
in the United States, supporting the U.S. war effort in the
Philippines and Italy.
     Also, training of Latin American students in the United
States has increased, while in the Canal Zone it has decreased.
In fiscal year 1975 of the 3,760 Latin American students trained
under the grant-aid program, 899 were trained in the United
States and 2,861 in the Canal Zone. For fiscal year 1977 the
number of students programed for training in the United States
is 1,308, and for the Canal Zone 1,600.

     Many lower ranking military personnel now trained in the
Canal Zone, however, will probably not be trained in the United
States if the Canal Zone schools are closed because the recipient
countries probably will not want to invest the necessary
time and funds in teaching them English. But, as previously
noted, an Army official said most training offered in the
Canal Zone schools is available at the training facilities
of the more advanced Latin American countries. Training




                             17
which these countries currently provide to others in Latin
America indicates they are willing to help develop hemis-
pheric defense.
     Training at U.S. service schools may present some prob-
lems, as pointed out by Defense, but we do not believe they
are insurmountable. In the United States the military services
train many personnel from other countries who do not have
English as their native language or sophisticated equipment
in their countries.

CONCLUSIONS

     Training for foreign military personnel under the grant-
aid program is similar to that for U.S. service personnel ex-
cept for English language training and instruction in Spanish
at the Canal Zone schools.

     A large part of training funds is being provided to
teach foreign students English although with few exceptions,
as Defense stated, foreign countries have sufficient incountry
English language training resources to train prospective
military students. The State and Defense Departments wish
to continue English instruction, but State said the proportion
of grant training funds devoted to English language training
should be reduced as much as practicable.

     We do not believe language training should generally be
continued to trainees of countries that have the capability
to teach English but have not properly used or maintained
their language facilities. In some cases, however, the
United States may need to continue language training to
selected individuals for political reasons or to newly
emerging countries lacking adequate training facilities. The
United States probably should also provide language training
for highly technical or specialized terms used in pilot and
other hazardous types of training.

     We do not believe the Army and Air Force schools in the
Canal Zone should be continued by the United Scates. Training
now provided in the Army and Air Force Canal Zone schools can
be provided in the United States, by other countries, or
through regional Latin American organizations. Closing the
special military assistance schools in the Canal Zone would
benefit the United States because (1) more Latin American per-
sonnel could be trained in the United States, which would
better acquaint them with the U.S. way of life, (2) recipient
countries would have a greater incentive to improve their


                             18
English language training programs, and (3) considerable funds
would be saved through maximizing the use of existing
facilities in the United States and reassigning about 300
military personnel now used in these schools.
     Defense does not agree that the schools should be
closed (see the preceding section) but has initiated actions
which it considers a first step toward internationalizing
them. The State Department said it will investigate jointly
with the Department of Defense the feasibility of establishing
multilateral sponsorship for the Canal Zone schools before
considering our suggestion for closing them.
     While we believe greater benefits would result to the
United States by closing the schools and shifting as much
training to the United States as possible, we also see merit
in internationalizing the Canal Zone schools.

RECOMMENDATIONS

    We recommend that the Secretaries of State and Defense:

     -- Stress the need for foreign countries to better
        use their incountry English language training
        facilities. Where countries have the language training
        capabilities but have not properly used and maintained
        the facilities, we believe grant language training
        should generally be discontinued. This should pro-
        vide an incentive to fiost countries to improve in-
        country programs of language training.
     -- Complete their investigation of internationalization
        of the schools as soon as possible to see if the coun-
        tries using the schools are willing to fund their
        operations under a regional international organization,
        such as the Inter-American Defense Board or the Organi-
        zation of American States. If no satisfactory responses
        and arrangements are concludes in a reasonable period of
        time, we recommend that the Secretaries close the
        School of the Americas and the Inter-American Air
        Forces Academy as soon as practicable.




                             19
                         CHAPTER 4

                 USE OF TRAINED PERSONNEL

     The monitoring of military assistance trained personnel
by the U.S. incountry military groups varies from country to
country and by military service. Assignment records are
often incomplete or nonexistent, and generally no estab-
lished procedures exist for the United States to verify as-
signment data. Some recipient countries or military serv-
icos do not respond to U.S. requests for assignment data,
and visits are not always permitted to military units to
verify that personnel are properly assigned. Nevertheless,
where we were able to verify assignments, those trained
generally were being assigned to jobs in which they could use
the skills required.
LIMITED VERIFICATION OF USE

     The Foreign Assistance Act contains a provision on the
use of Defense-supplied services but does not state specifi-
cally how U.S. officials should insure the proper use of
such assistance. Defense implementing regulations require
periodic reviews of posttraining assignments and assurances
that personnel are properly and effectively used. The
regulations state that periodic reports from the recipient
governments will normally satisfy this requirement.

     In the countries visited, the training officers generally
lacked information on posttraining assignments. Where records
were available, they were often limited or did not contain
complete information on present assignments. Frequently, the
available information was not verified by inspection visits.
     For example, no utilization records were maintained of
Army enlisted trainees in Honduras, Navy trainees in Colombia,
and Air Force and Navy trainees in Bolivia.  In Tunisia, the
government did not supply posttraining assignment information
to the military group until a followup request was made by
the Ambassador as a result of our visit. In Thailand, the
government has not fully responded to a military group request
for the current position and status of many former military
assistance trainees. In Ecuador, the military group maintains
records of former trainees but generally cannot verify the
information because of political sensitivity in visiting
Ecuador's military units.



                              20
     The Defense Department said monitoring returned trainees
is difficult due to limited access to recipient countries'
records, but it wishes to continue the practice to the extent
possible. According to Defense, monitoring enables its staff
to evaluate the training program results and to determine
future requirements. When military groups do verify training
assignment data, it is generally done informally by telephoning
appropriate military commands or during visits to host country
military installations on other matters.
     The State Department, however, said the formal moni-
toring requirement should be discontinued because it may be
perceived as an unwarranted infringement on the sovereignty
of the foreign governments. State also said continuing to
reduce the grant-aid training related to U.S.-supplied equip-
ment and increasing foreign government reimbursement for the
majority of training in operating and maintaining U.S.
equipment will reduce the importance to the United States of
such monitoring endeavors. The State Department further said
that in those cases in which related operation and maintenance
training is provided on a grant basis, it will seriously
consider whether the participating government's payment of
transportation and living expenses (and/or English language
training when required) will provide a meaningful additional
incentive for the foreign governments to insure appropriate
use of the skills acquired.

INTERVIEWS WITH FORMER TRAINEES
     To determine whether foreign military students were using
the skills they were taught and whether the training has been
useful, we interviewed 137 former trainees in Colombia,
Bolivia, Ecuador, Korea, and Honduras and several students
attending the School of the Americas in the Canal Zone. We
were not given permission to interview former military assist-
ance trainees in Thailand, Indonesia, or Tunisia; in Ecuador
and Honduras we were able to interview personnel only in the
capital cities.
     Most trainees we interviewed had been assigned to areas
in which they could use at least some of the skills they had
learned. Also, most of them praised the training they received.
The Latin American students said they benefited from the training
in the-United States because, among other things, it gave
them the opportunity to meet students from other parts of the
world and to learn more about the United States. Defense,
however, had different results in an informal luncheon survey
taken in November 1976. Thirty-seven students from the command
and general staff course in the Canal Zone on an orientation


                             21
tour in the United States said they preferred training in the
Canal Zone to that given in the United States primarily
because it was cheaper and in Spanish.
CONCLUSION
     Knowledge and verification of the assignment of former
military assistance trainees depends greatly on each military
group and the cooperation extended by the recipient country
and military service. Where cooperation was extended, we
learned that former trainees generally were assigned to jobs
in which they could use their acquired skills.




                             22
                            CHAPTER 5

                         SCOPE OF REVIEW

     We reviewed the objectives of the grant-aid training
                                                       over
program, control exercised by the Department of State
                                                      Depart-
the program, and the program's implementation by the
                                       selecting, and  using
ment of Defense, including programing,
                               the types of training  costs
trained students. We examined
incurred and cost-sharing agreements reached with partici-
pating countries.
     The Army, Navy, and Air Force schools maintained and
                                                       military
operated in the Canal Zone to train Latin Americanthe grant-
personnel were reviewed to determine whether    (1)
                                                            serv-
aid training program was reimbursing the U.S. military   (2)  the
ices for all operating auid administrative   costs  and
                               trained  in  the United  States    at
students could be effectively
a savings to the U.S. Government. The political implication
                                           Zone was also con-
of maintainir£ the schools in the Canalofficer
sidered. In October 1975 a   political           of the U.S.
                                     had not been considered
Embassy in Panama said the schools but
in the negotiations at that time,       could be affected if
the schools are located in areas that Panama wants.
      Our review was made at the Departments of Defense      and
State in Washington, D.C.;  in Korea,  Thailand,   Indonesia,
                                                    Colombia;
Spain, Tunisia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras, andStates and the
and at several military schools   in the United
Canal Zone.




                                 23
APPENDIX I                                            APPENDIX I


             ENGLISH LANGUAGE TRAINING CAPABILITIES
               OF SOME LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES
BRAZIL

     The Brazilian Army operates a language institute similar
to the Defense Department's Language Institute at Monterey,
California. English, French, Italian, and German are taught
regularly to members of the Brazilian Army, Navy, Air Force,
and Marines and to other Latin American students. The student
body ranges from senior officers and civilians assigned to
diplomatic missions abroad to junior officers designated to
complete training courses in the United States and elsewhere.

     The English language staff consists of three fluent
Brazilian Army officers and' a U.S. native English speaker.
Because of their excellent training facilities, Brazilian
Army personnel have been exempt from meeting minimum English
comprehension-level requirements for entry into courses in
the United States.
MEXICO

     Since 1965, Mexico has been exempt from English language
proficiency tests administered by U.S. supervisory personnel
for entry into U.S. schools. Mexico insisted on complete
independence in selecting military assistance students and
in assigning them after training. Consequently, this has been
purely a Mexican military function.

     English is mandatory for all military students at the
service academies. U.S. military English language instruc-
tors are assigned to the Military Staff College, Engineering
School, and Naval Academy. A Defense report shows some prob-
lems with the training facilities, but there was no indica-
tion of the impact of these problems on the overall English
language training program.
NICARAGUA

     All cadets are required to take English language in-
struction throughout their schooling, and future graduating
classes will be bilingual. Also, prospective candidates for
U.S. schooling are enrolled in full- or part-time classes
about a year in advance with the expectation that they will
attain the comprehension score required for direct entry into
U.S. service schools.

                              24
APPENDIX I                                         APPENDIX I


PANAMA
     The national guard, which is the military service of
the country, has the laboratory equipment but, as of
February 1976, has not emphasized using the language facility.
Personnel are allowed to use the language laboratory in the
capital city at their own discretion if their geographical
assignments and available free time permit it.
PERU

     The Peruvian Army has facilities available to provide
English language training to meet Defense Department ibjec-
tives. However, the Army is reluctant to remove officers and
enlisted personnel from their primary duties to study English
full time. This problem is common to all services but is
particularly critical within the Army, which has relatively
few bilingual junior officers and enlisted personnel. To
offset problems in meeting minimum English requirements,
technical training is programed for the Canal Zone. Also,
such high-cost U.S. courses as helicopter training are
programed with an English language phase.
BOLIVIA

     The military services are reluctant to hire qualified
instructors, send personnel to instructor courses, or allow
sufficient time for students to study English. The language
training facilities are old and in disrepair, and there is
a lack of training aids and material.

     The Bolivian Army has initiated plans for requiring
English language comprehension at certain military ranks and
has begun an intensive program of English language instruction.
At the time of our review, however, only 4 hours a week were
allotted for students to study English, although plans call
for increasing the study time and comprehension level.




                             25
APPENDIX II                                         APPENDIX II



       COMPARISON OF ARMY AND AIR FORCE TRAINING PROVIDED

           IN THE CANAL ZONE AND IN THE UNITED STATES


ARMY

     ';:e Army school in the Canal Zone prog:amed 36 courses
for fiscal year ].976 for about 1,373 students. School
officials told us that the courses have similar objectives,
prerequisites, and content to those of some U.S. courses.
Two courses--jungle operations (3 weeks) and officer combat
arms orientation (5 weeks)--were specifically developed
for the Canal Zone.

     We selected 14 Canal Zone courses programed for fiscal
year 1976 with 516 students and compared them with courses
offered at six Army schools in the United States. Ten of the
Canal Zone course.; were essentially similar to existing
courses taught i.. the United States.   A summary of our com-
parison of the schools we visited in the United States
follows.

Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

     We compared the command and general staff course taught
in the Canal Zone with the course of instruction offered by
the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, a facility
of the Combined Arms Center at Fort Leavenworth.  The courses
have the same general objective of preparing selected of-
ficers for duty as commanders and general staff officers.
     The course at Fort Leavenworth lasts for 40 weeks;
during fiscal year 1976, it had 1,104 students, including
94 officers from 49 foreign countries. The Canal Zone course
lasts for 42 weeks and includes a trip to the United States.
It had 36 students, including 5 Americans, in fiscal year 1976.

     Although the official position appears to be that Fort
Leavenworth would not favor absorbing 35 to 40 additional
Latin American students, some high-ranking officials felt that
this could be done at little additional expense. The only
apparent additional expense would be to replace a part-time
typist in the office of the Director of Allied Personnel
with a full-time one.




                               26
APPENDIX II                                       APPENDIX II
Fort Bragg, North Carolina
     The U.S. Army Institute for Military Assistance Special
Forces School at Fort Bragg is capable of teaching four
courses now provided at the School of the Americas in the
Canal Zone--small unit warfare, internal security operations,
irregular warfare operations, and basic officer preparation.
In fiscal year 1975, 314 students attended these courses
in the Canal Zone. At the time of our review, 182 students
were programed for '-,,e courses for fiscal year 1976.

     In comparing * -   Zone courses to certain courses
provided at Fort Brasy, we found the subject material was
not the same in all cases. When the subject material was
different, however, it was covered or could be covered in
other courses at Fort Bragg. Only 2 of the 73 subjects
covered in the above courses could not be provided at Fort
Bragg; one related to police activities and the other to
tropical survival training.

     The Canal Zone instruction is directed primarily to
students with little military experience, while those
attending the school at Fort Bragg   7e already completed
basic training.

Fort Lee, Virginia

     We compared three courses provided at the School of the
Americas with the courses offered at the U.S. Army Logistics
Management Center and the U.S. Army Quartermaster School
at Fort Lee. Although the courses were not completely
alike, much of the instruction provided in the Canal
Zone can be provided at the Fort Lee schools. In fiscal
year 1975, 73 students attended these courses in the
Canal Zone, and at the time of our review, 44 students
were programed for these courses in fiscal year 1976.

     A comparisor of the Canal Zone's logistic management
course with that of the Logistics Management Center
showed that 37 of the 53 subjects taught in the Canal
Zone were also taught at the Center. We did not determine
how many of the 16 other subjects might be found in other
courses of instruction, but we believe that many of them
would be. For instance, the subject, "The Federal Catalog
System in the Department of Defense," taught at the Canal
Zone and not in the particular course compared at the Center,
should be offered in one of the military courses in the
United States.




                             27
APPENDIX II                                      APPENDIX II


     At the Quartermaster School, the scope of the two Canal
Zone courses, officers general supply and noncommissioned
officers general supply, was compared to supply management
courses offered at the Quartermaster School. School officials
believed that the courses at both schools could not be con-
sidered similar but that, except for the counterinsurgency
requirement, all requirements could be satisfied at ther
school. This could be done by taking subjects given in other
courses and fitting them into the course given at the present
time. In essence, new courses would have to be established
to meet requirements.

Fort Benning, Georgia
     At the U.S. Army Infantry School at Fort Benning, we
compared four courses offered in the Canal Zone with those
offered at the Infantry School. The combat arms and unit
staff officer courses and the basic infantry officer courses
were similar. However for the latter course, the counterin-
surgency operations taught in the Canal Zone were not taught
at the Infantry School, and airborne training would have to
be taken separately. Officials at the Infantry School stated
they could absorb the 42 Canal Zone students programed for
training in fiscal year 1976 into their courses without re-
quiring any additional instructors or facilities.
     The Canal Zone basic officers qualifications and non-
commissioned officers leadership courses were not considered
comparable to courses offered at the Infantry School. Courses
at the Infantry School contained some similar subject areas
to those of the Canal Zone courses. The two Canal Zone
courses programed a total of 160 students for fiscal year 1976.
FGot Gordon, Georgia

     We compared two courses for enlisted men--advanced
radio repair and communications chief--taught in the Canal
Zone with courses offered at the U.S. Army Signal School at
Fort Gordon. In fiscal year 1976 the Canal Zone school
programed 52 students for these courses.
     The Signal School officials stated that the equipment
used in the Canal Zone courses is primarily first-generation
equipment, which is no longer in the U.S. Army inventory.
Instruction on it has been discontinued at the Signal School.
The officials believe that adding courses at their school,
providing first-generation equipment to match that used
by Latin American countries, or providing instruction
in Spanish for Latin Americans would not be economically


                              28
APPENDIX II                                       APPENDIX II

feasible. We agree. Because of the current efforts by
Latin American countries to modernize their forces, there
will soon be little need for instruction on older equipment.
The need that does exist could be carried out by previously
trained Latin American instructors in their own or other
countries.
     The Defense Department stated, however, that it is
mandatory to conduct training in the Canal Zone schools
because the first-generation equipment possessed by the
Latin American countries is no longer available in the United
States and this situation will not change much in the
foreseeable future.

     We do not believe that training is mandatory in the Canal
Zone. An official of the School of the Americas stated most
of the training offered in the Canal Zone schools is avail-
able at the training facilities of the more advanced countries
of Latin America, such as Brazil, Argentina, and Peru.

     Defense has also recognized in the congressional presenta-
tion the desire of the major countries of Latin America to
modernize their forces. For instance, Defense said, Ecuador
is modernizing its armed forces, Brazil is determined to
modernize its armed forces and prefers U.S. equipment, and
Peru has undertaken a long-term effort to modernize its armed
forces.

AIR FORCE

     The Air Force programed '2 courses for fiscal year 1976
for about 350 Canal Zone stuJents.  Except for five courses
that have no U.S. counterparts, school officials in the
Canal Zone said their courses have objectives, prerequisites,
and course content 2imilar to those in the United States.

     We selected 11 Canal Zone courses with 219 students pro-
gramed in fiscal year 1976 foe comparison with courses at two
Air Force schools in the United States. The Canal Zone and
U.S. courses were similar except that the Canal Zcne courses
lasted 16 weeks while those in the United States ranged from
10 to 21 weeks. A summary of our comparison follows.
Chanute Air Force Base, Illinois

     We compared six courses taught in the Canal Zone at the
Inter-American Air Forces Academy with courses of a similar
description taught at the U.S. Air Force School of Applied
Aerospace Sciences at Chanute Air Force Base. The courses,




                             29
APPENDIX II                                       APPENDIX II

aircraft propeller repairman, avionics instrument system,
aircraft electrical repairman, jet engine mechanic, aircraft
maintenance supervisor, and airframe repairman, are generally
similar. The differences that exist, such as the emphasis
in one course on teaching officers as opposed to noncommis-
sioned officers and the length of courses, do not appear great.

     Chanute officials said the 123 Canal Zone students
programed for the courses during fiscal year 1976 could be
absorbed at their school at little, if any, additional cost.

Sheppard Air Force Base, Texas

     We compared five courses taught at the Air Force school
in the Canal Zone with those of a similar description taught
at Sheppard Air Force Base. The courses, aircraft propeller
repairman, helicopter mechanic, aircraft maintenance special-
ist (reciprocating), aircraft maintenance specialist (jet),
and reciprocating engine mechanic, were basically the same.

     Sheppard school officials stated that they had sufficient
space with existing facilities and instructors to absor,
the 96 Canal Zone students programed in fiscal year 3976.




                             30
APPENDIX      III                                                 APPENDIX   III



                        UNITED STATES GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
     _____                      WASHINGTON. D.C.


 *NTUrNAItMAL OIVISHD

                                                       JUL 151976
        ~-165731



        Lieutenant General H. N. Fish
        Director, Defense Security Assistance
          Agency and Deputy Assistant
          Secretary (ISA), Security Assistance

        Lear General Fish:

             During our review of military education and training we
        founc that, before January 1, 1l76, the Marine Corps did not
        uill foreign recipients for all training provided under
        Foreign Military Sales contracts nor assign dollar values to
        training provided as grant aid under the Military Assistance
        wrcgram. Thus,

               --the United States was not paid for
                 harine Corps training provided under
                 sales contracts nor was

               --training provided under the grant
                 aid program cnarged to the grant aia
                 appropriation.

            Tne information provided herein is being provided to you
       in order that you may take timely corrective action.  It will
       also be incluaed in an overall report on the sale of training
       to foreign governments that has been requested by the Chair-
       man of tne House Appropriations Committee.

            Our review was made at Marine Corps Headquarters and at
       the Navy's Office of Comptroller in Washington, D.C., where
       we analyzed Defense regulations, interviewed cognizant
       officials, and reviewed training documents.

        TRAINING PROVIDED UNDER THE
        fOREIGN MILITARY SALES ACT

             'Iraining may be provided to foreign nations under
        authority granted in the Foreign Military Sales Act of 196b
        (.2 U.S.C. 2761), provided that the foreign governments
        agree to pay not less than the value of the service.




                                        31
APPENDIX   III                                            APPENDIX III



    B-165731


         Department of Defense Form 1513 is used as the formal
    contract for sales of defense services to foreign govern-
    ments, and all sales are subject to the following cont actual
    conditions.

           --Prices of items shall be at their total
             cost to the U.S. Government.

           --The U.S. Government will attempt to notify
             the foreign government of price increases
             which will affect the total estimated contract
             price by more than 10 percent,.'but failure to
             so advise does not alter the foreign govern-
             ment's obligation to reimburse the U.S.
             Government for the total cost incurred.

           --The foreign government agrees to reimburse
             the U.S. Government it the final cost exceeds
             tne amount estimated in the sales agreement.

    Billing for training

         Effective January 1, 196b, the Marine Corps began
    charging for training authorized by the Foreign Military
    Sales Act. However, acting under guidance provided by the
    Department of Defense/Comptroller, dated December 18, 1975,
    the Marine Corps does not plan to bill for training pro-
    vided before January 1, 1976.

         Thne requirement of the Foreign Military Sales Act of
    1966 that a country pay "not less than the value thereof"
    for defense services provided under the act would seem to
    support some charge commensurate with the value of the
    service to the foreign government.   This view is reinforced
    by the Report of the Senate Appropriations Committee on
    the 1976 Defense Appropriations bill.   In discussing pilot
    training programs, the Committee stated that:

           "The Committee will object strongly to any
           country's receiving a 'free ride' under a
           FMS case.  All foreign customers must bear
           their proportionate share of fixed costs to
           train pilots. Collecting only the added
           costs but excluding a realistic share of the
           training base is simply not acceptable."




                                 32
APPENDIX   III                                          APPENDIX    III


    8-165731


         In addition, section 205 of the proposed Internatioal
    Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976,
    (H.R. 13680), would amend the Foreign ililitary Sales Act to
    specifically require the payment of the "full cost" to the
    U.S. Government of furnishing a defense service, including
    a fair share of all indirect costs.
         Although all tne sales contracts we reviewed contain
    provisions similar to those stated above in support of retro-
    active recovery of the cost of training services, we noted
    that several contracts expressly stated that certain training
    courses would be provided on a 'no-charge" basis. The right
    of the United States to recover training costs on closed
    contracts specifying "no-charge" is somewhat questionable as
    a matter of contract law. We recommend you consider all
    contracts, although open contracts, and particularly those
    that do not specify "no-charge" services, represent the
    strongest cases.
         The full value of courses provided by the Marine Corps
    can be determined only by detailed analyses of each year.
    however, using course costs developed by the Marine Corps
    for the second nalf of fiscal year 1976, we estimate the
    value of such training between July and December 1975 to be
    .252,305. As shown in the enclosure, most of this training
    was authorized during fiscal year 1976 and prior years under
    "open-end' sales cases which, we believe, will allow retro-
    active billing for the full value of such services. Five
    sales cases, which could not be identified by the Marine
    Corps or Navy, should be identified and the foreign countries
    billed as appropriate.
    Reason advanced tor not charging
    and our evaluation
         Marine Corps and Defense officials had several reasons
    for not previously charging for Marine Corps courses and for
    not wishing to make retroactive billings under sales cases.
         Their rationale for not having charged for training was
    that (1) spaces were available so no significant costs were
    incurred by the attendance of a few foreign nationals, (2)
    the administrative burden outweighed the costs to be re-
    covered, and (3) some countries might not send their students
    if there was a charge, and thus a chance to influence these
    personnel would be lost.




                                 33
APPENDIX III                                           APPENDIX III


    B-16573i


         he believe the reasons advanced could be equally applied
    by all the services, but, as previously noted, they are con-
    trary to congressional direction authorizing such training.
         Department of Defense and Marine Corps officials
    generally oppose retroactive billing on the basis of upset-
    ting the foreign governments' budgetary processes and the
    political sensitivities involved. We believe that, since
    the training benefitted mostly students from more affluent
    countries and since the retroactive billings for any one
    country do not seem overly burdensome, there should be no
    major obstacle to requesting payment for the value of
    services provided.
    Recommendation
         We recommend that the Marine Corps attempt to recover
    from recipient countries for all training provided without
    charge under sales cases during the last 3 fiscal years. In
    instances where the sales case is closed and the recipient
    country advances sufficient reasons for contesting the
    billings, the Marine Corps may decide whether further action
    is warranted. On all open sales cases, every reasonable
    effort should be made to collect for the services provided.
    TRAINING PROVIDED UNDER THE
    POREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT
         The granting of training services is authorized by the
    Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The value of training ser-
    vices provided under this act, exclusive of military pay and
    allowances, is reimbursed to the military services through
    funds authorized and appropriated for such purposes by
    Congress.
         The Marine Corps has not been reimbursed for any such
    training it has provided. From course prices developed by
    the Marine Corps for fiscal year lv76, we estimate the value
    of its grant aid training during fiscal year 1975 to be
    $464,000.
    Recomnendations
         he recommend that measures be taken to insure that in
    the future, the Marine Corps will charge Foreign Assistance
    Act appropriations for training services authorized by the
    act.




                                  34
APPENDIX   III                                          APPENDIX   III



     B-165731


          he also recommend that the Marine Corps be instructed
     to review its records and report to tne Congress all such
     training provided but not so charged.

                                   Sincerely yours,




                                   Louis i. Hunter
                                   Associate Director
     Enclosure




                                  35
APPENDIX III                                                                                                           APPENDIX   I



                                           *           *~~~~~~~~~b~~~~~                 -A~Oh

                        I>    a                ,
                                                   *a.~~~~~~               -




                       Ad                                                                                 i
                                                                                   4*




               huMs,        v. _ 31 ~~                                Z~           4ttt i,.,,.        II^,0
                                                                                                        l
                                  -                         -X -                   -X


                                                        ~~~~~.                                                0

                   1)                                                  8                                          I




                   a                                                                                              a~


               "       At |       IIii;I                                                         ,,

                       if   I                                   8i             8                 2                i4




                        'Il
                                  al.      I                i         4P4
                                                                                                 !    i~~~~

                                                   r     53 J                      A                  5




                                  I; iI                                                                           c.




                                                       ~~I~i
                                                                JH~
                                                                               36
                                                                            i..'                  P

                                                                                                 ~~~~~
                                                                                                                  a

                                                                                                                  a


                                  4        -                i i
                                           .we
                                            a                                                                     36
APPENDIX   IV                                                                 APPENDIX IV



                        OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEFENSE SECURITY A*ISTANCE AGENCY
                                                   AND
                        DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY(SECURITY ASSISTANCE). OASD/ISA
                                          WASHINITON, D.C. 21301
                                                               17 AULi 1976
                                                          In reply refer to:
                                                          I-8323/76


     Mr. Louis W. Hunter
     Associate Director, International Division
     United States General Accounting Office
     Washington, D.C. 20548

     Dear Mr. Hunter:

     This responds to your letter B-165731 of July 15, 1976, regarding
     recovery of Marine Corps training costs for foreign military
     students.

     The Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Financial Management) has been
     requested to have the Marine Corps: (a) make every reasonable
     effort to collect from the recipient countries on all open sales
     cases; (b) determine whether further action is warranted where the
     sales cases are closed; (c) collect all future International Military
     Education and Training (iMET) costs authorized under the International
     Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976; and (d)
     report to me all foreign military training previously provided but
     not reimbursed by the recipient government or foreign assistance
     appropriation.
     Please include this information in your report to the Chairman of the
     House Appropriations Committee.
                                                          Sincerely,




                                                   .    H. M. FISH                     "-.
                                           ~-    Leutenant Ceneral, USAF
                                       Director, Detense Security Assistance Agency
                                                            and
                                    Deputy Assistant Secretary (ISA), Security Assistance




                                          37
APPENDIX     IV                                                                            APPENDIX   IV




                         DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
                         OCreCs    OC T.4E ASSISTANT SECRETARY
                                         ' -'    .
                                  ,r,%          =:AL MAN&GE.ENT)

                                   AS--'iCTON OC iarO0

                                                                                    · OCT 1976

  MEMORANDUM FOR DIRECTOR, DEFENSE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AGENCY

  Subj:    Recovery of Training Costs

         Your memorandum of August 17, 1976, forwarded a copy of the General
  Accounting Office letter report to DSAA on recovery of Marine Corps Foreign
  Military Sales (FHS) and Grant Aid program training costs.

         In the GAO report it was reconmend.I that the Marine Corps attempt
  to recover from recipient countries for all training provided without charge
  under sales cases during the last 3 fiscal years; that measures be taken to
  insure the Marine Corps will charge Foreign Assistance Act Appropriations for
  training services authorized by the act; and that the Marine Corps review its
  records and report Lo the Congress all such training provided but not so
  charged.                                                                   [See GAO note.]
         The Marine Corps has reviewed its records and the attached listinn
  indicates Marine Corps Traininq not charged to reciient country or to For-
  eign Assistance Act Appropriations for FY 1974, 1975, 1976 and 197T. Please be
  assured that the Department of the Navy will make every reasonable effort to
  collect from the recipient country on all open sales cases and will determine
  what action, if any, is required on sales cases that are closed.

         Additionally, appropriate measures are being taken to insure that all
  future military education and training costs authorized under the International
  Security Assistance and Army Export Control Act of 1976 are recovered.

         As always, my staff and i are available to Drovide any further assistance
  you might require in this matter.



                                                                   .,,~j/   LU;.-
                                                                     0. D. PFNISTEN
                                                            ASSISTAN:T SECRETARY OF T-iZ I:AVY
                                                                 (FINAICIIAL UAOiGN')Lj




GAO note:         The attached listing is not included in appendix.




                                                       38
APPENDIX V                                                          APPENDIX V


                          DEPARTMENT OF STATE
                              Washington. D.C.   20520




                                                 November 8, 1976

    Mr. J. A. Fasic!:
    Director
    International Division
    U. S. General Accounting-Office
    Washington, D. C. 20548
    Dear Mr. Fasick:
    I am replying to your letter of August 17, 1976, which
    forwarded copies of the draft report: "Military Assistance
    Training Can Be Made More Effective At Less Cost."
    The enclosed comments were prepared by the Director of the
    Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs.
    We appreciate having had the opportunity to review and
    conmment on the draft report. If I may be of further
    assistance, I trust you will let me know.
                                      Sincerely,.


                                      De !irL.  williamson
                                      Deputy Asslistant Secretary
                                      for Budget and Finance
     Enclosure:   As stated




GAO notes:   1.   References in appendixes V and VI may not
                  correspond to the pages and sections cited.
                  Pertinent information provided by the
                  agencies has been incorporated in the
                  final report as appropriate.

             2.   Deleted comments relate to suggested changes
                  that have been made and matters revised or
                  omitted in the final report.


                                  39
APPENDIX V                                                APPENDIX V

 GAO DRAFT REPORT:     MILITARY ASSISTANCE TRAINING CAN BE MADE
                       MORE EFFECTIVE AT LESS COST

     The International Military Education and Training
Program offers substantial benefits to the foreign policy
of the United States. The program's educational and train-
ing activities are designed to encourage mutually-benefical
relations and increased understanding between the United
States and foreign countries in furtherance of the goals of
international peace and security. The Department of State
considers that the benefits that the United States derives
from the training of future foreign military leaders would
be reduced markedly by adoption of the cost effectiveness
considerations addressed in the GAO draft report.

     The Congress has specified that training should be
provided whenever feasible on a reimbursable basis. The
way the costs of providing such training are computed for
pricing purposes, however, clearly has a direct relations;'D
to the amount of training sold through our FMS program. is
the cost of United States training escalates to unrealistic
levels, foreign governments may decide to look elsewhere for
their military training. Alternatively they may attempt to
shortcut training requirements so that their forces are not
competent to operate or maintain US-origin equipment. In
either case, the U.S. would lose.

Program Responsibilities:



                     [See GAO note 2, p. 39.)




Training Program Costs (P. 6ff):



                 [See GAO note 2, p. 39.)




                                  40
APPENDIX V                                              APPENDIX V




      The Department considers that the effectiveness of the
 IMETP in accomplishing the goals established by statute
 cannot be measured in strict cost accounting terms alone.
 The Congress has recognized and accepted this principle. For
 example, FAA Section 632(d) provides for exclusion of the
 costs of salaries of members of the Armed Forces of the  United
 States from those expenses which shall be reimbursed from
 Foreign Assistance Act appropriations. The differential be-
 tween IMETP training costs and the costs charged for the same
 course when sold under FMS has been sharply increased by the
 revised FMS pricing policy, and is causing misunderstandings
 with foreign governments. The Departiment therefore strongly
 recommends that FMS costs for attendance by foreign students
                                                     'incremental'
 at U.S. Service schools should be limited to those students.
 costs directly  incurred by the addition of foreign

 Recommendations Regarding Training Program Costs (P. 15)

      We have no particular problem with the proposal that the
 full costs of the grant training program be recorded, including
 the military personnel costs for members of the Armed Forces
 assigned directly to IMETP functions, without prejudice to  the
 existing exclusion of these costs from reimbursement to the
 military departments from IMETP funds.
      In preparing the Congressional Presentation Documents for
 the Fiscal Year 1978 security assistance program, we will take
 into consideration the proposal that the full costs of operat-
 ing the Canal Zone Schools be reported, without prejudice to
 the existing funding arrangements.

      We do not agree that transportation and living allowances
 for foreign trainees should be discontinued for all countries
 or in all cases. We do not find persuasive the stated argument
 that payment of these charges by foreign governments would
 have beneficial impact by increasing the "stake" of these govern-
 ments in the success of the program. On the contrary, we
 believe that requesting payment would tend to exclude partici-
 pation by many poorer countries. While we do not exclude
 arrangements for payment of transportation and living costs as
 already concluded with some governments, we believe these should
 be worked out on a case-by-case basis, depending on USG interests
 as well as the ability and willingness of the foreign government
 to pay.




                                 41
APPENDIX V                                               APPENDIX V


 Recommendations Regarding English Language Training
 Canal Zone Schools (p. 25)                          and the

       While we agree that the proportion of grant training
 devoted to English language training should be               funds
                                                 reduced to the
 practical minimum, we do not agree with the general
 tion for termination of English language training     recommenda-
 except for limited, highly technical training.     under  IMETP
                                                  The United
 States seeks to support its foreign policy objectives
                                                         through
 the provision cf grant training, and the offer
 opportunities should not be circumscribed by    of training
                                               the individual
 candidate's prior competence in English or the
 the foreign government to purchase preliminary willingness of
                                                 Fnglish language
 training. This is particularly true in those
                                                cases
 relatively small IMETP grants constitute a principalwhere
 contacts with the future military leadership           avenue for
                                               of non-aligned
 countries, and in cases where emerging requirements
 foreign country's self-defense are being supported for a
 programs of materifl assistance under MAP.          by authorized

      The Department will investigate jointly with
                                                     the
of Defense the feasibility of establishing mutilateral Department
ship for the Canal Zone schools prior to addressing        sponsc.r-
mendation for closing these schools. Within            the  recom-
                                               the community   of
the Americas, English, French, and Portuguese
languages. Since it is in the clear interest are minority
                                                of the United
States to foster inter-American defense cooperation,
                                                         it appears
that there are Significant advantages in maintaining
language training courses which will bring              Spanish
tives of the Latin American armed forces to together   representa-
                                             learn U.S. military
doctrine and the operation and maintenance of
ment without a prior requirement for facility US-origin equip-
                                                in English.
Recommendation Regarding the Utilization of
                                             Trained Personnel
(P. 30)


                 [See GAO note 2, p. 39.]


           We believe that the continuing reduction in the
amount of 'related' training provided on a grant
increasing reimbursement by foreign governments basis, and
                                                 for the majority
of training in the operation and maintenance
equipment will serve to reduce the importance of U.S.-origin
                                               to the USA of
such monitoring endeavors. We do not believe
                                               that the task of
monitoring the assignments of former MAP trainees
                                                   has in any




                               42
APPENDIX V                                             APPENDIX V



   country occupied so much as one man year, *o we doubt there
   is any basis for the projected personnel reductions. In those
   cases where 'related' O&M training is provided on a grant
   basis, we will give serious consideration to whether the pay-
   ment by the sending government of transportation and living
   expenses (and/or English language training where required) will
   provide a meaningful additional incentive for the foreign
   government to ensure appropriate utilization of the skills
   acquired.




                                Gerge S. Vest
                                Director
                                Bureau of Politico-Military
                                  Affairs



   November 2, 1976




                               43
APPEND:X VI
                                                                                   APPENDIX VI

                           DEFENSE SECURMr  ASISTANCE AGENCY
                                           AND
                 DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY (SECURITY ASSISTANCE).
                                                                   OASWNA
                                   WASHINGTON. D.C. 2030

                                                                  1 8 NC0 i:
                                                            In reply
                                                            refer to:           1-9346/76

     Mr. J. Kenneth Fasick
     Director, International Division
     U.S. General Accountinq Office
     Washington, D.C. 20548

     Dear Mr. Fasick:

     This is in reply to your letter of 17 August 1976 to
                                                          Secretary Rumsfeld
     regarding GAO's draft report entitled "Military Assistance
     be Made More Effective at Less Cost" (OSD Case #4238-B).   Training Can

     We appreciate the opportunity to review this draft report
                                                                and recommend
     that you give full consideration to DOD's comments.
                                                           If you are unable
     to accommodate all our comments, request that they be
     final report and be referred to when applicable.       appended to the

     We noted that the report only addresses the Issue of
                                                            cost effectiveness
     and fails to consider the foreign policy and national
                                                             security goals of
      the U.S. that are inherent in the. foreign military training
     Although the political and military advantages the U.S.       program.
                                                               derives from the
     program are significant, there Is no Indication that
     consideration. The goals of the report as Indicated they received any
                                                            in the recommenda-
     tion section of the digest, are to "     . .mprove
                                                  I.      cost controls, reduce
     cost, and increase program effectiveness . . .       The recommendations,
     however, only pertain to the first two goals but not
                                                            the third one.
     Furthermore, any cost saving achieved should be applied
                                                               to Increased
     quotas which allow more foreign students to participate
                                                               in the program
     since the foreign military training program is part of
                                                              the U.S. foreign
     policy and is very effective in promoting pro-U.S. orientation
     thering U.S. objectives to standardize training and equipment and fur-
                                                                     among our
     friends and allies. Further and more detailed comments
                                                               are contained in
     the enclosure.

                                             Sincerely,




                                                           *..!



    Attachment                  D>                            *a. .        AgenCy
       a/s
                            Deputy A:
                                                                      ..   :ty AuistitN,
                                        .    v.
                                                                               s

                                        44
APPENDIX VI                                                            APPENDIX VI
                                  DOD COMMENTS

                      GAO DRAFT REPORT "MILITARY AkSISTANCE
                       TRAINING CAN BE MADE MORE EFFECTIVE
                                  AT LESS COST"


   GENERAL COMMENTS
                                                                 Act of 1976
   The International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control        shall
   provides, among other things, that education and training activities
   be designed to:
                                                                   and increased
        a.   Encourage effective and mutually beneficial relations
             understanding between the United States and foreign countries.

        b.   Improve the ability of participating foreign countries to utilize
             their resources, including defense articles and services obtained
             by them from the United States, with maximum effectiveness, thereby
             contributing to greater self-reliance by such countries.
                                                                            worldwide
    The GAO draft report falls to give adequate consideration to the
                                  above.   Implementation   of  the  report  recom-
    purpose and mission outlined
                     contravene  this legal  mandate  and  have  a  detrimental
    mendations could
                                                                         an example,
    impact on the basic thrust of the grant training program. As
                                          countries    should  pay  for  all transport-
    the report recommends that recipient                                     for train-
                         to bring  their students   to  the United   States
    ation costs required
                                                                 relationships   with
    ing. If followed, this procedure would impede on-going
                                           such as  Ghana,  Senegal,    Nepal, and
    small but highly important countries
    Afghanistan and virtually all Latin American countries.
                                                                          complete
    Throughout the report the assumption is Implied that the U.S. has        by
                      type, level, and location  of the training  requested
    control over the
                                                        each country  determines
    each foreign country. This is not the case since                    to obtain
    what Its training needs are and where It will send its personnel
                    It is a fallacy to assume,  for example, that  if you  did not
    the training.
                                                                        utilize
    have the Canal Zone schools the countries In Latin America would
    U.S. military schools.

    The report's findings and conclusions are broad and often unsubstantiated.
                                                                           the
    For example, the conclusion that $4 million would be saved by closing is
    Canal Zone military assistance  schools and reassigning the personnel
                                                                         and
    not factually justified. Although $4 million is the estimated pay would
    allowances of personnel assigned to the  schools, their reassignment
    not necessarily save any money.


                           [See GAO note 2,        p.   39.]




                                            45
APPENDIX VI                                                       APPENDIX VI


  On page 6, para 1, change $27 million to read $23 million and delete
  "(exclusive of the 5th quarter)." The approved and funded FY 76 IMETP
  did contain training which started during the period July-September 1976.

  RECOMMENDATIONS   (Pages 15 and 16)

  Recommendation #1:

  The Foreign Military Assistance act of 1961, Public Law 87-195, dated
  September 4, 1961, as amended, Section 632(d), precludes the charging of
  the salaries of members of the Armed Forces of the United States to the
  Grant Aid appropriation. Under current DOD policy, all training courses
  offered to foreign students are priced on a Grant Aid and a sales basis.
  Since the sales price includes the salaries and allowances of military
  personnel directly engaged in the training program, total cost Informa-
  tion is available.

  Recommendat ion #2:

  With enactment of the separate appropriation for the IMETP, all costs of
  the Canal Zone schools are being charged to the new appropriation. The
  annual presentation to the Congress will therefore reflect these costs.

  Recommendation #3

  As mentioned in the report, DOD actively supports cost-sharing agreaments.
  Countries that are financially able are encouraged to pay transportation
  and living allowances; however, the complete termination of these allow-
  ances would be detrimental to the poorer IMETP countries.    IMETP programs
  are established at a dollar level to meet a country's valid training
  requirements which cannot be met through FMS sales. Forcing countries to
  pay transportation and allowances effectively reduces the program level and
  would result in fewer personnel being trained. The "package" approach of
  being able to finance all IMETP costs should be retained for operational
  flexibility. DOD should not stop paying transportation and living costs
  but rather should continue to encourage those countries financially able
  to share these costs and adjust training levels accordingly.

  TREATY NEGOTIATIONS



                        [See GAO note 2,       p.   39.]



  RECOMMENDATIONS     (Pages 25 and 26)

  Recommendation #1

  This recommendation was made even though the report Itself states that
  some in-country programs do not produce qualified English speaking students.
  It is difficult under the best of circumstances for a student to comprehend




                                          46
APPENDIX VI                                                       APPENDIX       VI


   training taught in an acquired language. The task becomes increasingly
   difficult If the student has not received adequate English language
   training. B..cause of the sophisticated material offered in our Service
   schools and the nature of the tightly packaged programs designed to meet
   the needs of our rapidly changing armed forces, crash courses in English
   are not viable. Experience has shown that most of the courses are too
   fast for even the R3S3 level English-qualified student. DOD non-concurs
   with the recommendation. If a student is eliminated from training for
   language deficiency there Is not only a waste of available funds but also
   a waste of the training space for the initial course and possibly the
   sequential training slots. Therefore, IMETP funds should continue to be
   utilized to provide English language training for countries which histor-
   ically have shown a need for this Instruction.

   Recommendation #2:

   We do not agree with the recommendation to close the Canal Zone Military
   Schools. Since there Is no replacement for these schools the preponder-
   ance of the students now attending the CZMS would simply go elsewhere for
   two primary reasons: costs and language. During a recent USARSA CONUS
   orientation tour, a survey was taken of the 37 students, ranking from a
   Major to Colonel and representing every LATAM military establishment that
   sends students to the Canal Zone for training. The unanimous result was
   expressed by one senior officer, "We far prefer to attend USARSA in lieu
   of Fort Leavenworth for two reasons: first the language difficulty, even
   in our ranks and second, the feeling of paternalism that exists in the
   Stateside military schools. At USARSA we are comfortable in our own
   language, the courses are designed for Latin America -- we study problems
   that are indigenous of our experiences rather than the armored corps (of
   which we have none) in the attack."

   We agree that one of the benefits of the training program is to acquaint
   Latin American personnel with the U.S. way of life. Although this can-
   not be accomplished as effectively in the Canal Zone, benefits are still
   derived in this area. Moreover, the fact that the schools develop a
   spirit of Latin American cooperation and comradeship offsets any loss of
   exposure to the U.S. way of life.

   The report stated that courses offered in CONUS were similar to those pro-
   vided In the Canal Zone. This is true in a general sense but there are
   significant differences. For example, CONUS courses are designed to pro-
   vide training on equipment in the USAF inventory and the maintenance sys-
   tems used. IAAFA courses are geared to the less-sophisticated needs of
   Latin American Air Forces. In addition, CONUS courses usually require sig-
   nificantly higher prerequisites in the areas of math, mechanics, and
   electronics than IAAFA courses. The students are also better able to
   absorb course materiel as it is presented in their native language.

   The report assumes that should the Canal Zone Military Schools (CZMS) be
   closed, the other countries from the region will obtain their training from
   the U.S. or other Latin American countries. This kind of assumption is
   questionable when necessary consideration is given to the growing presence




                                       47
APPENDIX VI
                                                                    APPENDIX VI


  and influence of Cuba and the USSR in the region. The report
                                                                   also fails
   to consider that the military is the single most Important
                                                               political
   institution for stability and Western political orientation
                                                                 in the region.
  Further, CZMS provide a regional military presence not dedicated
  defense of the Panama Canal and provides the U.S. an opportunity to the
                                                                      to favor-
  ably influence the students toward the U.S. The CZMS also
                                                               provide  effec-
  tive support of U.S. goals in Latin America, and the unique,
                                                                  professional,
  and technical instruction provided by the schools strengthens
  capabilities of the countries in the region, enhances their      the military
                                                                capability for
  self-defense, and contributes to the collective defense
                                                           of the Western
  Hemisphere. In many cases, the smaller countries of the
                                                            region utilize
  CZMS because they cannot afford to develop their own career
                                                                and specialized
  schools or purchase more expensive training.

  DOD has initiated action calling for the creation of a permanent
  commission in inter-American Army educational matters.           advisory
                                                          This in effect
  amounts to the first step toward complete internationalization.

  RECOMMENDATION (Page 30)

 We agree with the report's conclusion that monitoring of
                                                           returned trainees
 is difficult due to limited access to the records of recipient
 However, we feel that continued monitoring, to the extent       countries.
                                                            possible, Is
 necessary to evaluate the results of the IMET program and
                                                            determine future
 training requirements.

 APPENDIX I    (Page 32)

 Brazil: Brazil has not sent students to the CZMS for many
                                                            years because
 (I) its military school system is more than capable of conducting
                                                                   the
 training, and (2) their language Is Portuguese, not Spanish.
                                                               These rea-
 sons have no relationship to English language training.
                                                          Brazilian stu-
 dents go to the CONUS schools both for added knowledge and
 military doctrine.                                         to exchange

 APPENDIX II   (Page 41)

 The facts of the matter are that most Latin American countries
                                                                  do not possess
 the same generation equipment as the Armed Forces of
 there is no indication that this situation will changetheappreciably
                                                            U.S. Furthermore,
                                                                      in the
 foreseeable future. Since it is not possible to conduct
                                                            training in the U.S.
 school systems for this first-generation equipment, it Is
                                                             mandatory that we
 continue to operate CZMS.




                                      48
                                                  APPENDIX VII
APPENDIX VII


               PRINCIPAL OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE

                FOR ADMINISTERING ACTIVITIES
                  DISCUSSED IN THIS REPORT

                                     Tenure of Office
                                    From            To

                  DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
    Harold Brown                    Jan.   1977   Present
    Donald Rumsfeld                 Nov.   1975   Jan. 1977
    James R. Schlesinger            July   1973   Nov. 1975
    William R. Clements, Jr.
      (acting)                      May    1973   June   1973
                                    Jan.   1973   May    1973
    Elliot L. Richardson                                 1973
    Melvin R. Laird                 Jan.   1969   Jan.

                     DEPARTMENT OF STATE

SECRETARY OF STATE
    Cyrus R. Vance                  Jan. 1977      Present
    Henry A. Kissinger              Sept. 1973     Jan. 1977
    William P. Rogers               Jan. 1969      Sept. 1973




                               49