Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 1998, Pages 33-34

Congressional Preview

Pro-Israel Posturing Predictable During Second Session of 105th Congress

By Shirl McArthur

Although it is foolish to try to predict what devilment the Israel lobby may find for congressional hands in this 1998 election year, it is pertinent to preview some of the things that we will be following and looking for during this second session of the 105th Congress. Overall, we can anticipate more high-profile posturing from Israel's representatives in the U.S. Congress, resulting in some truly bad bills and resolutions, in addition to the predictable spate of shrill pro-Israeli letters to President Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright at every imaginable opportunity.

Issues to Watch

* Jerusalem. This is always a favorite congressional issue, especially in an election year. Congress has been increasingly critical of administration foot-dragging over implementation of the 1996 act requiring the U.S. Embassy in Israel to move to Jerusalem. In addition to turning up this pressure, Congress may also introduce legislation for the U.S. to recognize Israel's claim to sovereignty over all of Jerusalem.

* Lebanon. Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-MI) and Rep. Nick Rahall (D-WV), along with others, are continuing their campaign for full freedom of travel between the U.S. and Lebanon. Although the travel ban has been lifted, the Department of Transportation (DOT) still restricts travel agents from naming Beirut International Airport as a destination on air tickets for Americans, and no international airlines are allowed landing rights in the U.S. for flights originating in Lebanon. Both Abraham and Rahall have repeatedly contacted officials at State, DOT, and the National Security Council (NSC) to get the remaining restrictions removed. On Dec. 15, Abraham, along with Senators Bob Graham (D-FL) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA), wrote to NSC Director Sandy Berger urging him to review the issue as soon as possible with a view toward removing the ticketing restriction. However, security officials, especially at DOT and the FAA, remain concerned about the security situation at Beirut airport, and it will probably be at least six more months before any progress is made toward removing the remaining restrictions. (See also the "Congressional Trips" article, p. 11, regarding Rahall's and Graham's visits to Lebanon.)

* Iran. Recent conciliatory signals from Iranian President Mohammed Khatemi have caused widespread questioning of U.S. sanctions policy toward Iran. However, congressional sentiment for reviewing the sanctions remains muted, although Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) said at a press conference in Israel that "I think the U.S. has to re-evaluate our Iranian policy, especially in light of what the Iranian president has said... Iran cannot be ignored."

The whole subject of aid to the Middle East might be questioned.

Since Israel continues to portray Iran as a significant threat, however, this probably will be enough to ensure continued congressional hostility toward Iran and resistance to any administration efforts to reduce tensions with Tehran. Specifically, Congress probably will continue to press the administration to invoke sanctions against the French oil company Total and the Russian company Gazprom because of their involvement in Iran's South Pars oil field. In addition, Congress will continue to highlight alleged Russian and Chinese provision of missile technology to Iran, and may consider legislation aimed at those countries, perhaps in the form of the sanctions bill (HR 2709) that already has passed the House (see below). However, even in an election year, Congress may find sacrificing U.S. interests in Europe, China, Russia, and the Middle East too high a price to pay for its continued support of dubious Israeli objectives.

* Middle East Peace Facilitation Act (MEPFA). The provisions in the FY-98 foreign aid appropriations bill that allow contact between U.S. and Palestinian officials and permit U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA) will expire in September 1998. As reported in this column in the previous issue, in October 1997 the administration sent Congress a rather complex MEPFA renewal bill, which was referred to the International Relations committee chaired by Rep. Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), a pro-Likud hard-liner who has missed no opportunity to undermine the Middle East peace process by blocking promised U.S. financial assistance to the Palestinian Authority. It is therefore impossible even to guess what might happen to the administration's bill or any other form of MEPFA renewal, because its fate probably will be determined by Gilman's ability to seize on unforeseen developments to sabotage it. If there are further terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, MEPFA renewal will be less likely. On the other hand, in the unlikely event that the peace process is resuscitated, congressional leaders might be prepared to face criticism from the government of Likud Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his American supporters in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Morton Klein's Zionist Organization of America, and like-minded U.S. extremist groups. However, this can only happen with the full, public support of the White House, which probably will not happen unless President Bill Clinton decides to take an activist role in the peace process.

* Appropriations. The appropriations process always provides opportunity for congressional posturing, especially in an election year. Therefore, there will be more of the same kinds of one-sided amendments and provisions as were tacked on to the 1998 appropriations bills (see our October/November issue). The question is whether in this election year the most outrageous of those provisions for 1999 will be quietly dropped in the conference committee, as they were from the 1998 bills.

The whole subject of aid to the Middle East might be questioned, especially aid to Egypt, which has been pegged at two-thirds of U.S. aid to Israel ever since the Israeli-Egyptian peace agreement was fashioned. It is no secret that senior Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee have been grumbling that the Middle East gets too large a share of U.S. aid, and last year for the first time foreign aid to the Middle East was capped (at $5.4 billion, the same as was spent in FY-97). Election year politics probably will guarantee that Israel's aid package will not be touched. But aid to Egypt is not so safe, despite the disparity in populations (5.8 million Israelis vs. 63 million Egyptians) and per capital GNPs of $15,920 and $790, respectively.

A number of congressmen have questioned Egypt's human rights record and what they see as Egypt's lack of cooperation with some of the administration's efforts regarding the peace process, although a case certainly can be made that Egypt's record in both fields is considerably better than Israel's.

Pending Legislation

* Foreign Affairs Reform. This is the measure being pushed by Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Jesse Helms (R-NC) to consolidate most of the foreign affairs agencies within the State Department. It also includes authorization to pay most of the $1.2 billion the U.S. owes to the U.N., conditioned upon the U.N.'s enacting several administrative reforms. The measure, which is part of the FY-98/99 Commerce-Justice-State Departments (CJS) authorizations bill, was hung up during the first session because House conservatives, led by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), insisted on language prohibiting U.S. funding for family-planning organizations that perform abortions or promote liberalized abortion laws overseas.

However, Helms is not going to give up, and will reintroduce the bill in some form early in the coming session. It remains unclear whether it will remain attached to the CJS authorizations bill or be separated from it. Helms probably would like to see it separated to increase its chances of passage. However, Smith and others with interests in other parts of the authorizations bill fear that separating the foreign affairs reform portion would reduce the chances of passing the full authorizations bill (the authorizations step can be waived, moving straight to the appropriations process, as was done with the FY-98 appropriations). Because this is an election year, Hill staffers still feel that the two measures will not be separated.

This question is important for the Middle East because the authorizations bills as they passed the House and the Senate each contained a number of mischievous provisions, as described in our October/November issue. The worst of these, designed to undermine the Middle East peace process by bypassing land-for-peace negotiations called for in the Oslo accords of September 1993 and September 1995, was the provision that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel.

Other provisions included one calling on the president to apply the same sanctions on Syria as are applied on Iran, and one prohibiting any financial transactions with state sponsors of terrorism (aimed at Sudan and Syria, see below). Since the conference committee reportedly has eliminated most of the objectionable provisions described in our October/November issue. However, reinstating some of those provisions could be a cheap and easy way for certain congressmen to reaffirm their commitment to Israel.

* Freedom from Religious Persecution. This bill, sponsored in the Senate by Arlen Specter (R-PA) and in the House by Frank Wolf (R-VA), will no doubt gain momentum this year. In the House, Wolf modified his original bill to meet some of the State Department's objections and to reflect concern for religious persecution against other religious minorities in addition to Christians. However, Wolf's modified bill still would establish an Office of Religious Persecution Monitoring in the White House, require the office to send reports to Congress, and impose specific, unilateral sanctions on countries named in the report as engaging in religious persecution.

A large part of the text still is devoted to detailing a broad range of sanctions against Sudan. Wolf's bill currently is with the International Relations committee, chaired by Gilman, who strongly supports the bill but reportedly has problems with some of its details. Wolf's office, however, seems confident that the bill will soon be reported out by Gilman, and passed by the full House shortly thereafter. The Senate appears to be waiting to see what happens to the revised Wolf bill to decide whether to push ahead with the original Specter version or accept the House revision. In any case, don't be surprised to see further congressional hearings on religious persecution, especially the headline-producing allegations of restrictions by Muslim countries against Christians.

* Sanctions Against Syria and Sudan. H.R. 748, sponsored by Rep. Bill McCollum (R-FL) and co-sponsored by Reps. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Jim Saxton (R-NJ), was passed by the House last summer. It would cut off all financial transactions "with countries supporting terrorism." Although the Anti-Terrorism Act prohibits transactions with countries designated as supporting terrorism, the Departments of State and Treasury can issue exemptions for certain transactions. The McCollum bill would take this exemption authority away from the executive branch. When it was passed by the House, the bill was targeted at Syria and Sudan, since other countries on the terrorist list already are under sanctions under other provisions of the law. Since then, on Nov. 4, President Clinton issued an executive order imposing sanctions on Sudan, including a prohibition on financial transactions, but with a liberal waiver provision. This was clearly intended to blunt HR 748.

Furthermore, the Senate version of the CJS authorizations bill includes an amendment, sponsored by Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO), that is similar to HR 748, but that allows for a limited amount of presidential flexibility. If the Senate leadership decides to keep Helms's foreign affairs reform proposal as part of the CJS authorizations bill, and if the Ashcroft amendment survives the conference, HR 748 will probably be allowed to die. If not, this could be one more opportunity for election year posturing by certain senators.

*Sanctions on Countries Supplying Missile Technology to Iran. As reported in the previous issue of this magazine, on Nov. 12 the House passed HR 2709, which mandates sanctions on any "foreign person with respect to whom there is credible evidence indicating that that person...transferred goods or technology, or provided technical assistance or facilities, that contributed to Iran's efforts to acquire, develop, or produce ballistic missiles." This appears aimed as much against Russia and China as against Iran, and many administration foreign affairs officials object that this kind of sledge-hammer approach does not help their diplomatic efforts with Russia and China. As passed by the House, the bill also includes the text of the unrelated bill (S. 610), which the Senate had already passed, implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. This irritated the White House and the State Department, which issued a statement saying that if the bill passes both houses of Congress in that form, it would recommend that the president veto the bill.

The question now is, what will the Senate do? Since the FY-98 aid appropriations bill passed in 1997 includes a clause that withholds 50 percent of aid to Russia unless Russia stops providing aid to Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile programs, it is likely that the Senate will ignore HR 2709, consider its own version of the bill, S. 1311 (without the Chemical Weapons Convention implementation bill attached), and wait for the House to pass S. 610, which technically still is pending.