Foreign Aid and Domestic Terrorism

By Dennis J. Wamsted

Foreign Aid Meets Gramm-Rudman

On July 31 the House Appropriations Committee voted to cut President Reagan's total foreign aid request for fiscal year (FY) 1987, which begins October 1, 1986, by $2.5 billion to $12.98 billion. Not surprisingly, this action, which had long been predicted by a number of influential Congressmen, prompted an immediate veto threat from the Administration. What are the specifics of the bill and what happens next?

The Administration's original proposal for FY 1987 totaled $15.4 billion—including $6.675 billion in foreign military sales (FMS) loans and military assistance program (MAP) funds, as well as $4.094 billion in Economic Support Fund (ESF) loans and grants. In testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee when the Administration's request was first submitted to Congress back in February, Secretary of State George P. Shultz defended the aid program, saying: "We seek a level of resources adequate to meet our international commitments and to pursue aggressively our national security interests." Despite Shultz's plea, key House and Senate leaders immediately indicated that foreign aid—like virtually every other government program—would almost certainly have to be reduced if Congress and the Administration were to meet the deficit-reduction targets established by the Gramm-Rudman balanced-budget act. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Dante Fascell (D-FL) said the chances for an increase in foreign aid were "slim and none." Likewise, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard Lugar (R-IN) said that attempts to increase foreign aid in fiscal 1987 would invite "catastrophe" for the entire program.

The most vocal critic of the Administration's request, however, was Representative David Obey (D-WI), the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations (the subcommittee that establishes the guidelines for all foreign aid appropriations). Beginning in February and continuing throughout the spring, Rep. Obey warned that foreign aid would have to be cut drastically and that, if the Administration was unwilling to propose an alternative, his subcommittee would act unilaterally. In Rep. Obey's words: "...if we can't continue to pay our own bills we can't afford foreign aid." The proposal which ultimately emerged from Rep. Obey's subcommittee maintains the Administration-proposed aid levels to Israel, Egypt and Pakistan (the so-called earmarked funds in the aid program),while deeply slashing the program's unearmarked funds.

Specifically, under Rep. Obey's proposal:

Israel (population ca. 4 million) would receive $3.0 billion in FY 1987 ($1.8 billion in EMS credits and $1.2 billion in ESE grants)
Egypt (population ca. 50 million) would receive $2.115 billion ($1.3 billion in EMS grants and $815 million in ESE grants); and
Pakistan (population ca. 85 million) would receive $590 million ($340 million in EMS loans and $250 million in ESE monies).

To maintain aid levels for these three countries, the money available for all other countries worldwide was cut drastically. In particular, the unearmarked portion of the FMS program was reduced by $1.8 billion, from the President's requested level of $3.325 billion to the Appropriations Committee pproved level of $1.525 billion. Similarly, the unearmarked segment of the ESF program was slashed almost 50 percent, from $1.829 billion as proposed by the Administration to $937 million as approved by the Appropriations Committee.

Put in other terms, Israel, Egypt and Pakistan have been allocated almost 70 percent of the total international security assistance portion (which includes the FMS, MAP and ESF programs) of the U.S. foreign aid budget. Even more striking, Israel will receive almost 37 percent of the total available aid. (In FY 1986 Israel's share of the total U.S. foreign aid budget amounted to just over 33 percent). Even when money is tight, pro-Israel Congressmen manage to arrange the best possible deal for Israel.

The next step is full House consideration of the committee's action; a move that is expected in mid-August. If adopted by the full House, the bill would then go to the Senate for consideration. At present, however, the bill's future is uncertain. House Republicans—led by Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), who recently said "there is no way in my view that this bill can go anywhere"—have vowed to seek changes in the bill when it is brought up for consideration on the House floor. In addition, even if the measure is adopted by both the House and Senate, there remains the threat of an Administration veto. The only thing that can be said with reasonable certainty is that aid to the three "earmarked" countries—Israel in particular—will remain at the levels adopted by the House Appropriations Committee.

Domestic Terrorism?

For the first time ever, a congressional hearing was held July 16 to discuss the twin issues of increasing reports of violence against Arab Americans and continuing, albeit more subtle forms of discrimination and stereotyping of the Arab-American community. The hearing was held under the auspices of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Criminal Justice which is chaired by Representative John Conyers (D-MI). The hearing included testimony from a variety of sources including:

Representatives Mary Rose Oakar (D-OH) and Nick J. Rahall II (D-WV)—the two Arab-American members of the House of Representatives;
FBI Assistant Executive Director Oliver Revell;
American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) National Chairman and former senator James G. Abourezk; and
National Association of Arab Americans Executive Director David Sadd. [Excerpts of testimony of this hearing are printed on page 7]

The hearing's focus was the unsolved murder in 1985 of ADC's West Coast regional director, Alex Odeh. As such, the FBI's Revell was confronted with a barrage of questions concerning the bureau's progress in resolving this crime. He responsed that the Odeh case was the "top priority" for the FBI's domestic terrorism unit; that the bureau had identified a number of suspects; and that the investigation had gone beyond the borders of the U.S. Finally, toward the end of his testimony, Revell stated flatly: "This case will not be terminated, it will be solved."

The rest of the hearing was devoted to issues that, by and large, are already on the public record. For example, Ms. Rema Simon testified about an incident that occurred on a Delta Airlines flight in which she was told not to read a book entitled Palestine Is, But Not in Jordan aboard the plane because it was disturbing to other passengers. Bonnie Rimawi and Michael Smith testified about a pattern of harassment directed against Rimawi when she opened an ADC regional office in New York City. Sayed Gomah, the president of the Islamic Society of Greater Houston, testified about damage done to the Dar Us-Salaam Mosque in Houston and other efforts to intimidatemembers of the Islamic community in the Houston metropolitan area.

The importance of the hearing cannot be understated. Conyers' willingness simply to call for such hearings represents a giant step forward for Arab-Americans and Arab-American organizations: This was the first time that such Arab-American grievances and concerns had been heard by members of Congress.

Dennis J. Wamsted is News Editor of the Washington Report.