House passes untagged Reagan aid proposal

Press, 12 May 1984, Page 11

House passes untagged Reagan aid proposal

NZPA-Reuter Washington President Ronald Reagan won an important endorsement of his Central America policy after months of struggle with Opposition Democrats when the United States House of Representatives approved of ?USI.3 billion in aid for the region yesterday. The proposal ignores tough conditions on human rights in El Salvador which had been advocated by liberal Democrats. Although most Democrats, who comprise the House majority, voted against the plan, enough joined minority Republicans to give Mr Reagan a narrow 212-208 victory.

Desperate Democrats, hoping to shift support their way, used a Parliamentary tactic to force a second vote. But they lost that one, too, 211-208. "Our feeling is this was not a personal win for (Reagan). We were impressed by the closeness of the vote,” said an aide to the House Speaker, Mr Thomas O’Neill, who has accused Mr Reagan of widening the fighting in Central America. The White House was elated with the outcome, which vastly improved the chances of the aid’s becoming law. The measure now goes to the Senate, controlled by Mr Reagan’s Republican Party. The aid approved contained about SUS4OO million less than Mr Reagan had sought for 1984 and 1985. The ?USI.3 billion total supported by most Democratic leaders gives El Salvador no extra military aid in 1984 but 5U5189.3 million

(about $287.7 million) in the 1985 financial year that will begin on October 1, as well as SUS24O million (about $364.8 million) in economic aid.

The aid plan was approved by the House amid new assertions that the Central Intelligence Agency had been active in the Presidential election in El Salvador on Monday. One Congressional source said that the Senate Intelligence Committee, in an in camera session, had given the C.I.A. clearance to provide aid for United Statessupported political parties in general and in El Salvador in particular.

Other sources said the House Intelligence Committee had sent a letter to the C.l.A.’s director, Mr William Casey, protesting that it had not been told of the C.I.A. activity, as required by law. Senator Jesse Helms raised the issue this week when he publicly accused the C.I.A. and the State Department of funnelling funds to Jose Napoleon Duarte, a moderate who many United States officials hope will win the Salvadorean Presidency and who has claimed victory ahead of the final result. The Senate committee met on Thursday and discussed Mr Helms’s assertions and the Salvadorean elections. Asked about the Helms assertions, the committee’s vice-chairman, Daniel Moynihan, a New York Democrat, said, “They are something the Executive (branch of Government) has to deal with and ought to deal with.”

Mr Reagan said in a televised speech on Thurs-

day that a Communist takeover in Central America was possible if his aid measure was not approved. His supporters said yesterday that he had taken a reasonable approach for attaining peace and democracy in the region. “Anything less invites disaster on our borders,” said Congressman William Broomfield, a Republican.

But liberal Democrats argued that the United States had to impose tough conditions on aid to El Salvador to give Mr Duarte leverage to challenge the military in his country, end Right-wing death squads, halt terrorism, and make other reforms.

Stephen Solarz, a Democrat and critic of Mr Reagan, said, “We need a change of course. We need to prove to the Salvadorean military that there is a bottom line.” Another Democrat, Michael Barnes, asserted that the Reagan-backed plan had removed a statutory limit of 55 on the number of United States advisers permitted in El Salvador, and that “leaves open the door” for wider United States entanglement.

Ed Cleary, president of the New York state A.F.L.C. 1.0. labour organisation and an official United States observer of the Salvadorean election, told reporters that the voting had been “basically fair.” He also denied that trade union workers in El Salvador who backed Mr Duarte had received C.I.A. funding, adding that if the agency had been active in the election, Mr Casey “should be fired.”