Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 1998, Pages 24-25

Congress Watch

Administration Requests 1999 Foreign Aid Increase And Full Funding for Israeli Military and Economic Aid

By Shirl McArthur

Apart from the occasional glance toward Iraq, most congressional activity concerning the Middle East during this session of Congress has been in connection with the budget and appropriations process. To be sure, a few new bills were introduced, and some pro-Israel letters were written, but, for the most part, the second session of the 105th Congress has been notable so far for what it has not done regarding the Middle East. There has been no further action regarding the pending bills, reviewed in our March issue, that would impose sanctions on countries supplying missile technology to Iran; would cut off financial transactions against “countries supporting terrorism”; and would impose sanctions on countries engaging in religious persecution. Several other issues discussed in our “Congressional Preview” in the March issue have been raised, mostly in connection with the budget hearings, but they, too, have made no legislative progress.

The Budget

On Feb. 2, President Clinton submitted his fiscal year 1999 budget proposals to Congress. They include some $20 billion for foreign affairs spending, about $1 billion more than was appropriated for FY-98. Of this total, some $14 billion—about $800 million more than in FY-98—is for bilateral foreign aid and for contributions to international institutions such as the Export-Import Bank. These amounts do not include the $1 billion or so the administration is asking for payment of arrears owed to the U.N. That money will be requested as a separate supplemental appropriation. The requests for the Middle East remain about the same as last year. For Israel: $1.2 billion economic aid, $1.8 billion military aid, and $70 million ($10 million less than last year) for “refugee resettlement.” For Egypt: $815 million economic aid and $1.3 billion military aid. For Jordan: $150 million economic aid and $75 million military aid (including $25 million in military supplies and services from the Department of Defense). For the Palestinians: $100 million. As was the case last year, the budget assumes that Israel and Egypt will each contribute to the “Middle East Peace and Stability Fund” that will be used to finance part of Jordan’s aid. Clinton also requested funding for a Middle East Development Bank, which Congress previously has refused to approve.

Aid to Israel to Decline? Israeli Finance Minister Ya’acov Neeman surprised many observers by suggesting that Congress phase out the $1.2 billion economic aid to Israel over the next 10 to 12 years, while at the same time increasing military aid by $600 million. Neeman’s proposal came during meetings with House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bob Livingston (R-LA) and foreign operations subcommittee Chairman Sonny Callahan (R-AL) during a visit to the U.S. the last week of January. Although this was not reflected in the president’s budget submission, there has been some talk in Congress of beginning the program this year by cutting $200 million in economic aid, presumably with a parallel $100 million increase in military aid.

Nobody is saying what prompted Neeman’s proposal at this time. The Israeli Embassy and AIPAC both say that it is simply the fulfillment of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s pledge in 1996 to reduce and eventually to end Israel’s dependence on U.S. economic aid. However, as we mentioned in the “Congressional Preview” article in our March issue, Livingston and Callahan have grumbled that the Middle East gets too large a share of U.S. aid. It is possible that Netanyahu wanted to make this relatively inexpensive initiative as a way to further shore up relations with Congress at a time when his standing with the Clinton administration is relatively rocky.

Details of Neeman’s proposal have yet to be worked out, and are not likely to be until the appropriations committees begin developing their FY-99 appropriations bills, which will not happen until after Congress returns from its Easter recess in late April. In the meantime, there are no answers to such questions as: If economic assistance to Israel is cut, will economic aid to Egypt be reduced proportionally? (Most observers seem to believe the answer is yes.) Will Congress re-impose the cap on total aid to the Middle East that it put in last year’s appropriations bill? If so, will total aid to the Middle East be reduced by the amount that aid to Israel and Egypt is reduced? (Again, most people say yes.) Finally, if military aid to Israel is increased by some amount, will that amount be added to the $475 million currently authorized to be spent in Israel for “defense articles and defense services” (in other words, a direct U.S.-taxpayer subsidy of Israel’s defense industry)? This question is still up in the air, but the answer may be no because of the effect on U.S. jobs in an election year.

Jerusalem Embassy. During the budget hearings in both the Senate and the House, Secretary of State Albright was asked about the administration’s intentions regarding the 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, which requires that “the U.S. Embassy in Israel should be established in Jerusalem no later than May 31, 1999.” In the House International Relations Committee hearing, Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), one of Israel’s more dependable congressmen, said that it is obvious that the State Department is ignoring the law, and he asked how the department plans to deal with “the very real sanctions” called for by the law if the move to Jerusalem doesn’t happen (the law says that 50 percent of State’s “acquisition and maintenance” appropriations shall be withheld until the move happens). In the Senate Commerce, Justice, State appropriations subcommittee hearing, Sen. Dan Inouye (D-HI) (one of Israel’s totally faithful senators), backed up by subcommittee chairman Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), asked Albright to explain why the president’s budget included no funds for moving the embassy.

In response, Albright was civil, but she barely concealed her disgust at congressional heavy-handedness represented by the Embassy Act. She said that she would surely inform the Congress “should the president decide to establish an embassy in Jerusalem,” which must have irritated those congressmen who feel they are responsible for conducting foreign relations. Albright sidestepped answering the questions directly, saying that the issue of Jerusalem is a final status issue, and the administration has decided “to keep our options open.” Of course, Albright is fully aware that the law includes a renewable six-month waiver provision giving the administration a legal way to postpone implementing the Jerusalem Embassy Act, but she obviously chose to not wave that particular red flag at Sherman and Inouye.

Foreign Affairs Reform and Payment of U.N. Arrears. This subject came up at each of Albright’s budget hearings. As we said in our “Congressional Preview” in the March issue, this measure was hung up last year 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—the so-called “Mexico City language.” The impasse remains, and apparently both the administration and the Republican congressional leadership have stubbornly dug in their heels.

Both sides say either that the other side refuses to compromise or has reneged on a previously agreed compromise. To each committee, Albright repeated the administration’s line that the abortion issue is important and should be separated from foreign affairs reform and payment of U.N. arrears. In each case the committee or subcommittee chairman said that, whether or not she was right, it just will not happen, so if the administration really wants this legislation, it will have to bend on the abortion issue. Apparently both sides have decided that domestic politics takes priority over national interest in an election year. The White House does not want to alienate its pro-abortion constituency, and the congressional leadership does not want to alienate its anti-abortion constituency.

Iran. During Albright’s budget hearing before Sen. Jesse Helms’s (R-NC) Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the subject of Iran was raised in the context of the discussion about Iraq. Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN) noted that the “dual containment” policy against Iraq and Iran obviously was not working, and he asked her whether the administration was reviewing the policy, especially regarding Iran.

Albright did not answer directly, but said that the election of President Mohammed Khatami was obviously a positive development. However, she said, the administration still is concerned about Iran’s lack of support for the peace process, its support for terrorism, and its efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

That prompted Lugar to ask when the administration was going to make up its mind about whether or not to apply sanctions on the French oil company Total and the Russian company Gazprom for investing in Iran’s South Pars gas field, in violation of the 1996 Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA), sponsored by Sen. Alfonse D’Amato (R-NY). Albright said only that the matter is still under review. Obviously, to enforce the ILSA against Total and Gazprom would damage relations with Russia and the European Union at a time when the U.S. needs all the support from the EU and Russia that it can get. The real answer would be for D’Amato to admit that ILSA was a mistake. That won’t happen.

Israel and the U.N. In questioning Albright about the Jerusalem embassy issue (see above), Sherman also asked her why Congress should support funding for the U.N., when the U.N. doesn’t treat Israel “fairly.” Albright turned the question around, and said it is hard to get the U.N. to do anything the U.S. wants when the U.S. won’t pay its bills.

Subsequently, Sen. Daniel P. Moynihan (D-NY) and Rep. Steven Rothman (D-NJ) introduced similar bills in the Senate and the House, respectively, that urge the U.S. to take all necessary steps to end Israel’s exclusion from any of the U.N.’s regional blocs. Moynihan’s bill had 43 co-sponsors, and Rothman’s had 63 co-sponsors. However, it is unlikely that either bill will be enacted. They were created only to provide another election-year opportunity for certain congressmen to reaffirm their pro-Israel credentials.

Extradite Palestinian Terrorists! Albright’s budget hearing before the House International Relations Committee was interrupted by an outburst from Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) who said that the U.S. is repeating the mistakes it made in Iraq by supporting another despotic regime—that of President Yasser Arafat. He said that he is still waiting for an answer to the Jan. 20 letter he and Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) had written her, cosigned by four senators and 27 other representatives, demanding that the administration make all efforts to guarantee that the “Palestinian terrorists” accused of killing nine Americans in Israel since 1993 be transferred to Israel or the U.S. for trial. Albright replied that every time senior administration officials meet with Arafat they raise this issue.