the flow of illicit narcotics entering the United States. Accordingly, we are encouraging foreign governments to experiment with more stable and less harmful crops, and to adopt policies that remove obstacles to increasing other agricultural production. The Asia Bureau has an important role because it covers portions of the notorious Golden Crescent and Golden Triangle narcotics areas.

In Pakistan, we are supporting GOP narcotics efforts through an ongoing project as well as a major new project starting in FY 1983; the inclusion of poppy clauses in most country wide projects; collaboration with State/INM; and establishment of a full-time narcotics project management officer within the A.I.D. Mission. In Thailand, the Government supports narcotics control, receiving some assistance from the State Department. A.I.D.'s Highland Area Development project indirectly supports crop substitution efforts by expanding the area coverage of cash crops that have proven to be successful alternatives to opium. In Burma,

the government is pursuing narcotics control and eradication, working closely with the State Department/INM and United Nations Fund for Drug Abuse Control. There are still major problems in controlling the growing areas. There is no A.I.D. involvement at

present, though we are exploring possibilities.

PL 480 Title I/III

The Title I request is $171 million in FY 1984 for four countries: Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Indonesia.

The policy dialogue conducted in connection with the PL-480 Title I programs in Pakistan have resulted in a number of innovations. Among these have been the expansion of wheat production, use of fertilizer, and increased private sector involvement in the manufacturing and sale of fertilizer and other agricultural inputs. Similar important policy changes will continue to be discussed in the FY 1983 and FY 1984 PL-480 Title I agreements.

In Bangladesh, the largest Title III program in the world deals with major policy issues including foodgrain price supports, rationalization of the public food distribution system and acquisition and management of grain reserves.

PL 480 Title II

In 1984 we are requesting $182 million for Title II World Food Program and voluntary agency programs in India, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and the Philippines. We are continuing to improve our Title II programs. For example, an evaluation of the Sri Lanka Title II Thriposha program found it to be one of the better Materna) Child Health (MCH) programs sponsored under Title II and also recommended that a plan be developed to phase-out the school feeding

program.

Private and Voluntary Organizations

We continue to use the extensive abilities of our private secto colleagues in implementing our Title II programs. For example, CARF and Catholic Relief Services assist with Title II implementation in India and Bangladesh, while a host of PVOS cooperate throughout the region in activities funded by A.I.D. through dollar grants as well as Title II food donations. Most of the aid program in the South

Pacific, for example, is planned and implemented by PVO's.

Management Initiatives

We are attempting to improve a range of management practices in the administration of U.S. assistance programs in Asia. Through project evaluations, we are improving the effectiveness of our assistance and learning from past experience. Some 65 project evaluations were completed last year. We are dealing with audit recommendations forthrightly. We have maintained a close liaison with congressional staff on audit and other management concerns. The bureau has tightened its project implementation review process to better identify projects which require re-design, deobligation or other

special attention of management. Finally, we are reducing the cost of managing the A.I.D. program through reduction in direct hire staff in Washington and, to a lesser extent, overseas.

Conclusion

By and large the Asian nations are employing economic assistance both multi- and bilateral ·· to build their economic capacities and to help alleviate proverty. We recognize, of course, that there are significant economic differences within the region. The countries of Southeast Asia in general are progressing more rapidly than the recipients in South Asia. All countries in the region recently have been following sound economic policies, but the severe population pressure in South Asia has kept those countries from progressing as rapidly as is the case in Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines. For South Asia, we envision a basic rural development focus for some years to come, with the exception of India which does receive substantial science and technology assistance. For Southeast Asia, we are beginning the process of thinking through the possible program changes which must evolve as these nations continue

to progress.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward to answering your questions.

NEAR EAST

STATEMENT OF ANTOINETTE FORD, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR

Senator KASTEN. Ms. Ford.

MS. FORD. The administration's goal in the Middle East is to help bring a lasting peace to this crisis torn area. Our economic assistance program is designed to help bolster the efforts of those countries which are taking major policy risks on the road to peace by addressing some of the pressing economic and long-term development problems in these countries.

Certain of our programs are directed at helping those countries in the region which provide important access or transit facilities into the region for U.S. forces and also support their deployment in time of crisis. Through our support of long-term economic and social development, as well as economic stabilization and reconstruction efforts in Lebanon, AID helps to strengthen the perception that the United States is dedicated to the security and wellbeing of all friendly states in the area:

Senator KASTEN. Thank you very much. [The statement of Ms. Ford follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF W. ANTOINETTE FORD

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR NEAR EAST

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to support the President's request for economic assistance for countries in the Near East region. For the region as a whole, the President is requesting $1,863 million, comprised of $1,810 million for Economic Support Funds (ESF) and $53 million in Development Assistance funds. Attached to this statement, which I am submitting for the record, is a table which summarizes the Administration's request. Under a separate appropriation, $319.6 million in Public Law 480 Titles I and II is planned for countries in the Near East.

Within the region, our request for countries in the Middle East includes $1,592 million in Economic Support Funds and $53 million in Development Assistance while our request for countries in Europe is in the amount of $218 million under the ESF.

The Administration's goal September

THE MIDDLE EAST

as stated in the President's initiative last

is to help bring a just and lasting peace to this crisis torn area. In this context, our economic assistance programs are designed to help bolster the efforts of those governments which are undertaking major policy risks on the road to peace by addressing some of the pressing economic and long term development problems which these countries face. Certain of our programs are directed at helping those countries in the region which provide important access or transit facilities into the region for U.S. forces and support their deployment in time of crisis to defend strategic U.S. in the region. Through our support of long term economic and social development as well as economic stabilization and emergency reconstruction efforts in Lebanon, AID helps strengthen the perception that the U.S. is dedicated to the security and economic well being of all friendly states in the area.

Egypt

For fiscal year 1984, we are requesting $750 million under the Economic