Foreign Aid Bill Reverses Traditional Friends and Foes

By Lucille Barnes

"The Jewish Democrats voted with their party and with their black colleagues in opposing this bill, because in the end they knew it wouldn't affect aid to Israel if it didn't pass. It's inconceivable they'll do the same on the appropriations bill, where there's real money involved."

—Unnamed House staffer quoted by political columnist James Besser in The Jewish Week of New York, June 16, 1995.

The foreign aid bill being debated on Capitol Hill throughout May and June was only an authorization bill, setting out broad guidelines, rather than an appropriations bill. Because foreign aid appropriations bills actually lay out specific amounts for specific countries and projects, they often are debated but seldom are passed. (When Congress fails to pass a new foreign aid appropriations bill, the previous year's aid totals are repeated in the new fiscal year.)

Nevertheless, the debate reversed many of the verities of Israel-dictated domestic American politics. In June the government of Israel and its Washington, DC lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, lobbied hard for full funding of promised U.S. aid to, of all recipients, the Palestine Liberation Organization. The aid, which Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin of Israel deems important to continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian National Authority dialogue based on the Oslo accord, seemed certain of approval, thanks to the Israel lobby, despite determined efforts by U.S. supporters of Israel's Likud party and its opposition to a land-for-peace settlement.

The Israel Lobby also called for forgiveness of the last of Jordan's debt to the United States, an amount that seemed to be in jeopardy from Republican budget cutters. Again the amount seemed safely restored to the bill thanks to Israel and its supporters in Washington, assuring continued support from Jordan for its peace treaty with Israel.

Most perplexing for members of Congress was the debate over the foreign aid bill as a whole. For the first time since the vote to give war powers to President George Bush to force the Iraqi invaders out of Kuwait, most Jewish members of Congress broke with AIPAC recommendations. (AIPAC supported the Gulf war. At the last moment, however, many Jewish members of Congress voted against it. Skeptics said the Jewish congressmen cast their votes against the authorization of military action only to avoid the charge that the Gulf war was a "Jewish war" and only when the Jewish legislators were sure their votes were not needed to give Bush the war-making powers he had requested.)

In May 1995 members of Congress found themselves being lobbied by AIPAC to approve a Republican-drafted aid bill that gave Israel the same level of aid it had the previous year. They also were lobbied against aid for the Palestinians by some Jewish constituents on behalf of Likud and Jewish opponents of the peace process. And finally they were lobbied against the aid bill by some Jewish colleagues who insisted that what AIPAC was lobbying for was not what its members, and the Israeli government, really wanted. No wonder the situation still is confused.

The Cleverly Crafted Foreign Aid Bill

Republican budget cutters had cleverly crafted their foreign aid bill so that it preserved the previous year's level of funding for Israel, and for Egypt for keeping the peace with Israel, despite massive cuts of $900 million in the overall aid level for fiscal year 1996, and another $1.1 billion in fiscal year 1997.

Wrote political columnist Douglas Bloomfield in the Washington Jewish Week of May 25, "Republicans gave Israel virtually everything it wanted in this bill—$1.8 billion in military aid, $1.2 billion in economic assistance and other provisions estimated to be worth 'tens of millions' annually"—and now expect Israel's friends, who constitute the only significant domestic constituency for foreign aid, to work for passage by getting reluctant Democrats to vote for the bill."

However, Jewish members of Congress were unwilling to do so because, in the words of California Democratic Representative Howard Berman, "This bill sets Israel up for the fall in the future because when they want more cuts, there will be nowhere else to take them."

Berman is right. The Republican bill cuts development assistance by a third, African programs by 21 percent, Latin American and Caribbean programs by 25 percent, Russia and the newly independent states 18 percent, Eastern Europe 32 percent and contributions to international organizations by 14 percent.

The bill also contains provisions that many members of Congress called micro-managing of foreign policy, and abolishes three separate foreign affairs agencies, USAID, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and the U.S. Information Agency, by folding their diverse functions into the State Department. For all of these reasons, Jewish Democrats voted against the bill in its non-binding authorization form, but in so doing laid themselves open to AIPAC retaliation (unlikely) and also to attack by Republican opponents who could go to local Jewish communities in 1996 and say: "We voted for aid for Israel and the Democrats voted against it."

As columnist Douglas Bloomfield put it in the Washington Jewish Week of May 25: "The name of the game is Jewish money—not aid to Israel but political contributions, and both parties see this bill as essential to sell themselves to Jewish givers. Many pro-Israel contributors and voters rely on congressional voting records when deciding who to support."

It is for this reason that Bloomfield, Besser (quoted at the beginning of this article) and other Jewish political writers predict that, while Jewish Democrats were willing to vote against the foreign aid authorization bill on principal and to preserve a working relationship with Congressional Black Caucus members deeply disturbed at the aid cuts for African nations, when it comes to an authorization bill the Republicans will secure the Democratic and Jewish Democratic votes they need in Congress simply by leaving aid to Israel and Egypt intact while slashing all other foreign aid to the bone.

U.S. Aid to PLO Sails Through Congress

If the fight over the foreign aid bill as a whole seemed complex, the opposite was true on the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act, which permits the U.S. government to provide funds to the Palestine Liberation Organization. Congress had to renew the law by the end of June. In compliance with congressional requirements, the State Department issued a report saying that the PLO had complied over the previous six months with its agreements with Israel. Despite extensive lobbying by Likud-leaning American opponents of the peace process, which included a May visit to Congress by 40 Orthodox rabbis from New York, members of Congress voted to renew the act. The renewal permits the U.S. government to continue paying installments on the $500 million it has promised the PLO over a five-year period.

However, congressional opponents of the peace process, led by New York Republican Sen. Alfonse D'Amato, vowed to introduce legislation to replace MEPFA and cut off all direct funding for the PLO. AIPAC, following the line laid down by Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, rejected the D'Amato proposal just as firmly as it rejected any attempt to derail aid to the PLO.

"We are not supportive of legislation what would, in effect, cut off funding regardless of any improvement in behavior and performance," said AIPAC president Steven Grossman. "We believe MEPFA is working. Let's renew it..."

Bosnia Embargo Raises Tensions in Congress

Throughout the congressional debate on the foreign aid bill, a major source of tension was Senator Bob Dole's pledge to append to it legislation to lift the United Nations arms embargo that prevents the legitimate government of Bosnia from obtaining arms to defend its borders. In return, President Clinton vowed to veto the entire foreign aid bill if it contained such legislation. On this issue, Clinton had very little support even from his own party.

House Democratic Whip David Bonior of Michigan maintained that the embargo makes Americans "unwitting accomplices in mass genocide." Although Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN), minority leader of the House International Relations Committee, argued against lifting the embargo, an amendment to the foreign aid bill to lift the embargo was passed in the House by a vote of 318 to 99.