House Panel OKs Curb on Salvador Aid : Would Link Funds to Presidential Report of Peace Progress

The House Foreign Affairs Committee, in a rare show of bipartisanship on Central America, agreed Tuesday to withhold U.S. aid to El Salvador next year unless President Reagan reports progress toward peace negotiations and human rights.

The measure, adopted by voice vote as an amendment to a $13-billion foreign aid bill, would block a proposed $429 million in aid to El Salvador unless that country’s government attempts to negotiate with leftist guerrillas, increases its control over the conduct of the armed forces and acts against rightist death squads.

It was similar to a long-debated Democratic demand that aid be withheld unless Reagan certified improvement on human rights--except that the compromise language requires the President to “report” progress, not to “certify” it.

Difference Between Words

Republican and Democratic congressmen managed to agree on the amendment in part because they chose to interpret it in different ways. Republicans said they favored the change because they considered the word report less stringent than the word certify. Democrats said they favored it because they saw no real difference in meaning.

Current law requires that the President report periodically on human rights in El Salvador, but it does not tie the disbursement of aid to his reports. Congress passed similar restrictions on aid to the Salvadoran regime in 1981 and 1982, but the measures lapsed after Reagan exercised a “pocket veto” in 1983.

Tuesday’s compromise was negotiated by Rep. Michael D. Barnes (D-Md.) and California Rep. Robert J. Lagomarsino (R-Ojai), the two parties’ ranking members of the panel’s subcommittee on Western Hemisphere affairs.

An Administration official who attended the committee session said Reagan might oppose the language once it reaches the House floor because it still makes aid to El Salvador depend on short-term changes in the human rights situation.

No Aid Delay Seen

“They’re not real happy with it, but it’s better than what might have been,” Lagomarsino said. He noted that the restrictions are unlikely to delay any aid to El Salvador because both Democrats and Republicans believe that the Central American country has made clear progress on human rights.

Lagomarsino said he discussed the issue with Salvadoran President Jose Napoleon Duarte and that Duarte objected to the idea of U.S. “certification” of his government’s progress on human rights but not to a less binding reporting requirement.

“When you certify something, you put a stamp of approval or disapproval on it,” Lagomarsino explained. “When you report, you just report what the situation is.”

Rep. Stephen J. Solarz (D-N.Y.), one of the authors of the original aid certification law in 1981, said he supported the amendment for the opposite reason: “As far as I’m concerned, the distinction between certifies and reports is a distinction without a difference.”

‘A Significant Achievement’

Solarz called the compromise “an extraordinarily significant development,” adding: “We are building a broadened base for a bipartisan policy in El Salvador. I think that would be a significant achievement.”

Salvadoran government representatives held two negotiating sessions last year with the country’s leftist insurgents. However, after the rebels made what Duarte called unacceptable demands, further talks were put off until after last Sunday’s national elections.

In other action, the committee agreed to block most aid to Guatemala until that country elects a civilian government and rejected a proposal to require the Administration to notify Congress 30 days in advance of any military maneuvers in Central America.

The committee also approved a measure to ban the use of U.S. aid for population-control programs in China, where there have been reports of widespread forced abortions, but rejected a conservative attempt to cut off all funds to the United Nations population program.