Congress May Increase Foreign Affairs Funding, or Maybe Not

by Shirl McArthur

Responding to a strong appeal from new Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, President Clinton overruled his Office of Management and Budget and submitted a budget for foreign affairs that reversed a 10-year decline in spending. Clinton’s budget would allocate $19.45 billion for State Department operations, foreign aid, peacekeeping, and international lending institutions, compared with $18.23 billion in the current fiscal year.

What really counts are the 13 appropriation bills Congress will produce.

Initially, some people wondered whether the president’s budget included money for paying the arrears owed by the U.S. to the U.N. (variously described as being between $920 million and $1.3 billion, depending on who is talking). It does not. As we understand it, the administration plans to propose a separate, rather complicated bill that would provide $1 billion to be turned over to the U.N. this year, but charged to the U.S. FY 1999 budget. Although Congress’s budget bill has not yet been acted on, we understand it will be similar to the president’s in terms of foreign affairs spending.

However, the budget bill is only the first step in the long, drawn out congressional budget process. In fact, all it does is set limits and guidelines. What really counts are the 13 appropriations bills that Congress will ultimately produce. To make it more confusing, foreign affairs spending is divided between two appropriations bills. Funding for State Department operations is part of the State, Commerce, and Justice Departments appropriations, and the other functions are included in the foreign operations appropriations. In this regard, Rep. Sonny Callahan (R-AL), chairman of the Foreign Operations appropriations subcommittee, has already said that he expects the foreign operations appropriation to be about the same as this year’s, at about $12.3 or $12.4 billion. Incidentally, Callahan categorically denies rumors that he has threatened to cut aid to Egypt while maintaining aid to Israel at the same level.

In January, Callahan led a bi-partisan congressional delegation consisting primarily of members of the Foreign Operations subcommittee on a visit to Israel, Jordan, and Egypt. The trip coincided with the signing of the Hebron withdrawal agreement, which added to the trip’s value in the eyes of delegation members. Callahan said they were very well received in all three countries, and that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, King Hussein of Jordan, and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak were able to meet with them, even though they were preoccupied with the Hebron negotiations. While the trip demonstrated the value of U.S. operations in the Middle East, Callahan believes that he cannot agree to increase foreign operations spending at the expense of domestic programs, especially at a time when polls continue to show that most Americans are convinced that foreign aid consumes somewhere between 15 and 20 percent of government spending. Callahan says it is up to the administration to do a better job of educating the people on the value of foreign spending.

Human Rights Violations in Lebanon

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) on Feb. 10 sent a letter, signed by 24 other congressmen, to Secretary Albright urging her to protest the increased human rights abuses in Lebanon carried out by the Syrian army and Syrian-directed Lebanese security forces. The letter’s signers say that it is in the interest of the United States as well as of Lebanon’s people that Lebanon recover economically from its civil war, and that the signers support in principle the U.S. and international development assistance program being prepared by the Friends of Lebanon (see March 1997 issue). However, the signers urge that the U.S. and other Friends of Lebanon “take all necessary steps to ensure that the aid is not channelled through the Syrian-dominated Lebanese government.” Engel claims that he was prompted to write the letter by a December 1996 report (based on July 1996 information) by Human Rights Watch that details Syrian human rights violations in Lebanon, including abductions and detentions without charge. While we cannot question Engel’s sincerity in decrying Syrian human rights abuses, we wonder whether undercutting the government of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri might not also have been a motive for the congressional signers.

Lebanon Travel Ban Extended

In our March issue we reported Washington speculation that former Secretary of State Christopher would lift the ban by U.S. travelers to Lebanon prior to his leaving office Jan. 20 so that Secretary-designate Madeleine Albright would have one less contentious issue to deal with after taking office. There also was hope among friends of Lebanon and those supporting U.S. interests in Lebanon that both Christopher and Albright would simply do nothing, thus letting the travel ban lapse.

Instead, however, Christopher extended the travel ban until next July 31. Congressional members who support removing the ban therefore plan no legislative action for now, but will continue trying to convince the administration to lift the ban in July. We are not very hopeful that such efforts will be any more successful this year than they have been in the past.

In a seemingly unrelated action, Rep José Serrano (D-NY) has introduced a bill called the “Freedom to Travel Act of 1997” which he says is intended to “protect the constitutional right to travel to foreign countries.” However, Serrano obviously has travel to Cuba in mind and, if passed, the bill would not affect the ban on travel to Lebanon. In fact, a key provision of the bill would exempt freedom of travel “where there is imminent danger to the public health or the physical safety of United States travelers.” This is almost identical language to that contained in the present passport law, which the State Department cites as justification for the Lebanon travel ban.

Possible Relief for Gulf War Evacuees

Congressman Nick Rahall (D-WV) has introduced a bill (H.R. 793) to grant permanent residence status to certain stateless Palestinians who were evacuated from Kuwait after the Iraqi invasion. Most of the 200 or so families who were evacuated already have received permanent residence status in the U.S. Forty-seven families have not, however, and, since President Clinton did not extend their “deferral” past its Dec. 31, 1996 expiration date, they face imminent deportation unless Rahall’s bill passes. Since Kuwait will not take them back, they probably would be deported to Jordan, which already is home to several thousand other Palestinians who left Kuwait during the war. It is still too early in this session of Congress to assess H.R. 793’s prospects.