Mr. BRADY [reading]:

Amendment offered by Mr. Bingham, page 23, immediately after line nine, insert the following:

"Sharing of information and exchange of personnel. Section 314. Section 620 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(y) Nothing in this Act shall prohibit the sharing of information or the exchange of personnel with the People's Republic of China under section 103 ("Agriculture, Rural Development, and Nutrition"), section 104 ("Population and Health"), or section 106(b) ("Energy") of this Act.'"

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from New York is recognized in support of the amendment.

Mr. BINGHAM. I have discussed this amendment with the gentleman from New York, Mr. Wolff, the chairman of the subcommittee, and it is acceptable to him. All it does is to make clear that the kind of actions referred to here: The sharing of information or the exchange in personnel in these fields with the Republic of China would not be prohibited under the other sections of the act.

The administration does not want to raise the question of aid to the People's Republic and we concur in that judgment. But there are certain programs which do not involve funding in the aid sense but are more in the nature of exchange programs or information sharing and we want to be sure that those are not prohibited.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Are there any questions? The gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. DERWINSKI. I am not going to make a particular issue of this, but I would like to ask two questions, if I may, of whoever is representing the Department or the administration or both if they are speaking together.

My first question is a general one. There is nothing in this amendment that you experts see that would indicate a further tilt toward the People's Republic. Would this be an overplay of our China card in the minds of the Soviet-American watchers?

STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER CUTLER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS; FORMER U.S. AMBASSADOR TO ZAIRE

Mr. CUTLER. Mr. Cutler, Department of State. Mr. Derwinski, we are not prepared to discuss that from a policy standpoint. However, there are certain technical aspects of this which Mr. Shakow from AID could discuss with you if you wish.

Mr. DERWINSKI. Can anybody here speak for Miss Derian? I wonder about the People's Republic of China and its human rights policy and how opening up these programs of communications might pass judgment under the human rights concept.

Mr. CUTLER. There is nobody from that office this morning. However, we will be very happy to supply for you comments on this but we would have to have time.

Mr. DERWINSKI. Would you supply these comments before we reach the floor?

Mr. CUTLER. I would be happy to. Mr. Shakow would like to comment on the economic side.

STATEMENT OF HON. ALEXANDER SHAKOW, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR PROGRAM POLICY AND COORDINATION, AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. SHAKOW. Mr. Derwinski, as this is currently worded we do not see that it changes what we are now able to do under the act. In any case, reimbursable development programs which are part of this act are now being carried out with the People's Republic of China. There is exchange of information going on under that part of our legislation so that we do not see this as changing in any way the current authorities that we now have.

We are not proposing an AID program. Mr. Bingham said that. That is not indeed part of our plan and, therefore, there are no issues with the Human Rights Office, State Department, nor do we find this in any way changes what we are now able to do.

Mr. DERWINSKI. I have one more question, if I may have the attention of the gentleman from New York. I just ask this in a general sense. Is this amendment absolutely necessary or is it really the nature of a positive policy statement, or has there been anything in the administration of these three programs that you feel your amend

ment corrects?

Mr. BINGHAM. My advice is that it is useful to spell this out even though Mr. Shakow says they now do this. If the gentleman has serious reservations about it, we can perhaps defer it until we can get more information as to why it is necessary.

My information is that it is useful and indeed necessary to make clear that these activities can be carried on.

Mr. DERWINSKI. I do not have any serious reservations in the sense that I do not look upon these three items as being particularly controversial. But I do point out I share one concern the chairman has expressed continuously in that we better be prepared for an awful time on the floor.

When you open up this subject I think it acts like a lightning rod. It will invite all sorts of commentary and possibly amendments from noncommittee members on the floor. I do not find anything objectionable but I am concerned that we do not open up a floor discussion that will precipitate amendments we do not want. That is my only

concern.

Mr. BINGHAM. I think the gentleman makes a very good point and I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, that we defer consideration of this until I can provide the gentleman with information that might satisfy him.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request of the gentleman from New York to withdraw his amendment temporarily with a reservation to return to this section at a later time? The gentleman from Alabama.

AID TO ZAIRE

Mr. BUCHANAN. I have an amendment, if it is in order, Mr. Chair

man.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman's amendment to Zaire.

Mr. BRADY [reading]:

Amendment to the committee print dated March 10, 1980, offered by Mr. Buchanan. Page 19, line nine, strike out "$237,515,000" and insert in lieu thereof “$238,015,000 ;" and in line 12, strike out “$161,713,000” and insert in lieu thereof "$164,213,000."

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman from Alabama is recognized in support of his amendment and the Chair would like to ask, does your amendment increase the amount requested by the executive branch? Mr. BUCHANAN. No, sir. It restores the amount requested by the executive branch.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. The gentleman is recognized.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Precisely, this amendment would restore that amount which was requested by way of development assistance for Zaire by the executive branch but which was cut by the subcommittee. I supported subcommittee action in the reduction of Zaire's FMS credits by $4 million and we sustained that on an earlier vote but this is development assistance, and it will be directly taken from people in need.

It will mean they will not be able to go forward with the important mother-child health component of the development program. It seems to me that this is not the way to send a signal and I would urge the executive branch's request be supported through the enactment of this amendment.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Will the gentleman yield? More than the amount the Subcommittee on Africa had cut for Zaire was added on to some other programs. Therefore, this would indeed be an increase if the other increases remain. Is the gentleman in a position to tell us where the reprograming has shifted the Zaire money to some other purpose?

Mr. BUCHANAN. I understand this money was not reprogramed, but I would like to have my chairman speak to that question, Mr. Chairman ?

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Will the reprogramer from New York explain? Mr. SOLARZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Actually we did not attempt to reprogram these funds. It was a simple cut in the level requested by the administration. We did increase the funding above the level requested by the administration in the ESF account for both Uganda and Tanzania. We also put in $15 million for African refugees in the separate 495 F account. But this was a straight cut of $3 million as the gentleman from Alabama pointed out.

Let me simply say to the other members of the committee that when the subcommittee made this reduction from a request of $12.2 million to a recommendation of $9.2 million, it was very mindful of the fact that in fiscal 1980 they spent $6.9 million. So even with this reduction, it represents almost a 50-percent increase over the level of development assistance in Zaire last year.

I have to say that I am not going to live or die on the basis of this $3 million. I doubt President Mobutu will either. Development assistance is more commendable in Zaire than military assistance but the reason we recommended the reduction was that we felt it was important to demonstrate that we were not simply adding to countries but occasionally we were making cuts.

61-277 0 - 80 - 14

Furthermore, in evaluating our aid programs in Zaire, profound and serious questions were raised about the whole nature of our development assistance program in Zaire and the extent to which these funds could be effectively utilized. We recognized that at the end of the foreign aid process the Appropriations Committee is going to make some reduction in the level of aid to Africa and we thought that, given the fact that even with our reduction, there is almost a 50-percent increase over what was spent in fiscal 1980, that this was the kind of reduction which made some sense.

If the other members of the committee feel strongly they want to maintain the same level of aid recommended by the administration even though that would be almost a 100-percent increase over last year, I am not going to make a big fight over it.

I hope at the very least that we would have some strong report language in there along the lines recommended by the subcommittee calling upon AID to effectively evaluate and monitor the use of these funds. While all of us want to help the people of Zaire, so many of whom really live in wretched conditions, it does not make any sense to spend money if it is not being effectively utilized, and some serious questions have been raised about the degree to which our development assistance in Zaire has actually been effectively utilized in the past.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Let's let the executive branch speak for themselves and may I point out we are going through a reduction rather than increase in aid to Zaire, but can the executive branch speak to this? Mr. SHAKOW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the specific recommendation for the restoration of the level for Zaire, the administration supports that recommendation. There has been a good deal of discussion in the committee on previous days about Zaire generally, and I do not wish to speak to the political issues that were discussed. If the committee wishes to pursue that in more detail there are representatives from the State Department who can do that. I just want to make clear that the levels in Zaire have fluctuated within the last several years. Two years ago, for example, the level was $9.5 million.

The figure of approximately $12 million for this year is intended to stress the kinds of projects that the committee has been most interested in: Agricultural marketing development loans to improve road and river transport for small farmers, maternal and child health outreach programs to make family planning services available to the rural poor, a basic health family service project to build reliable health systems in a country which now has none.

These are the kinds of programs that would be affected adversely were the figures to be reduced and the program to be cut back. My understanding from the recent reports from Zaire is that there has been a reasonable amount of improvement-which I believe Mr. Bonker and others have also spoken to-in the last several months. The Ambassador recently cabled in saying that the recommended reduction in the 1981 program would have been understandable if one were looking at the program in terms of the events of 1979 and earlier, but in his view it is unjustified if one's perspective is 1980. And he recommends now that it is important for us to move ahead and support the kind of progressive steps being made little by little in Zaire and not to further

cut the program just at a time when the trends seem to be moving in the right direction.

Chairman ZABLOCKI. Mr. Shakow, can you respond to the concerns of the chairman of the subcommittee that we do not have an adequate oversight on end use of the items for the aid given? What improvements have been made?

Mr. SHAKOW. We have increased our staff attention to audit and oversight, in particular in connection with our earlier discussions of Public Law 480 programs. For example, there was a good deal of debate last year about the limited number of staff and time and attention that was spent on monitoring Public Law 480 programs. We now have, as I understand it, four people who are reviewing and controlling the Public Law 480 distribution program as opposed to less than one person last year.

It seems to me that you can be confident that these AID programs can move forward and can be adequately monitored and carried out successfully.

Mr. SOLARZ. Let me add one other question to the one asked by the chairman because this really was the heart of our concern. If you can satisfactorily respond to it my objections to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Alabama would be vitiated.

In his November 1979 report on the AID program in Zaire, the Auditor General of our own department concluded, and I am now quoting: "Considering the lack of self-help by the Government of Zaire, we believe there is a question as to whether development assistance is the appropriate mechanism for assisting Zaire."

In light of that expression of concern by the Auditor General, what is the justification for an almost 100-percent increase in the level of development assistance in Zaire?

Mr. SHAKOW. Mr. Solarz, occasionally there are differences of view between the Auditor General and other parts of AID as to the appropriate rubrics under which aid should be provided. These projects and these programs are in our view justifiable and perfectly permissible under the development assistance approach.

These are the same sorts of projects and programs that we would carry out in other countries under development assistance. So, it is our judgment that these are appropriate for development assistance programing.

Mr. SOLARZ. The question is not whether the particular projects you contemplate are appropriate in terms of development assistance. Nobody doubts that. That is not the issue.

The question is: Given the lack of self-help efforts by the Government of Zaire, can our development assistance make a useful contribution?

Mr. SHAKOW. Perhaps I should have Mr. Walker from the State Department respond to you on this, but my understanding is that progress has been made and the degree to which there is self-help being introduced into the individual projects is satisfactory and meets our conditions.

Mr. SOLARZ. Could I make this suggestion. Mavbe it will be acceptable to the gentleman from Alabama. How would you feel if we accepted your amendment but coupled it with strong report language