Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, September 1998, pages 23-25

Congress Watch

As Oslo Dies, Congress Tries to Keep a Low Profile

By Shirl McArthur

The 105th Congress has only about a month more of active life, and it is becoming increasingly unlikely that anything significant affecting the Middle East will be accomplished. For the most part Congress seems more concerned about the coming election and creating, or ducking, possible campaign issues than about dealing with the more difficult issues facing the nation and the world. With the Oslo process dead, and with the growing realization that blind, unswerving support for everything that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu does or says doesn’t always meet with approval even from most Jewish voters, some of Netanyahu’s more fervent congressional admirers have kept a lower profile over the summer.

For the remainder of the session, Congress is likely to be preoccupied with trying to get the appropriations bills passed; however, there are a couple of other bills that need to be watched carefully. Congressional leadership has periodically “suspended the rules” and passed a whole handful of bills by voice vote in a matter of minutes. This will no doubt happen regularly during the remaining days of the session, providing ample opportunity for congressional mischief, although this procedure is supposed to be used only for non-controversial bills and resolutions. Furthermore, as has happened in previous years, even the appropriations bills can include provisions affecting U.S.-Mideast relations.

Apart from legislation, more progress has been made in getting full freedom of travel to Lebanon by American citizens, an important letter to the president concerning the plight of Iraqi citizens as a result of economic sanctions is being circulated in the House, and several new U.S. ambassadors to Arab countries have been named.

Abu Ala’a Brings His Message to the Halls of Congress

Shortly after Secretary of State Madeleine Albright effectively drove the final nails in the coffin of the Oslo peace process, by telling Palestinian Planning Minister Nabil Shaath and Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat that the U.S. was unable to get Israeli approval of the American peace proposals and unwilling to follow through on its earlier threat to publicize those proposals, one of the architects of the Oslo agreement, Ahmed Qurei’a (Abu Ala’a) and a delegation of three other members of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) visited Washington to meet with members of Congress and Clinton administration officials. Clearly, their unstated message was that although the Oslo process might be dead, the Palestinians are unwilling to let the broader process toward peace die with it. Furthermore, they want to do everything possible to assure that the Palestinian side of the story is heard in the halls of Congress. As a Palestinian spokesman said, “We want to make sure they hear our story directly from us, and not from ‘some other source.’”

Palestinians want to assure their side of the story is heard.

As Speaker of the PLC, Abu Ala’a and his delegation met with House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and a small and unrepresentative group of members of the House of Representatives on July 22. The U.S. side did not include House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (D-MO), nor did it include any of Israel’s most fervent supporters. Of congressional Arab Americans, only Nick Rahall (D-WV) was invited. In addition to Gingrich and Rahall, the other members who met with the Palestinians were Republicans Jennifer Dunn (WA), Kay Granger (TX), and John Linder (GA), and Minority Whip David Bonior (D-MI) and Rahall.

The following day, the delegation met in an off-the-record session with Chairman of the House International Relations Committee Benjamin Gilman (R-NY) and 21 members of the committee. They also met separately with Rep. Sam Gejdenson (D-CN) and Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). Later they met with National Security Adviser Sandy Berger at the White House and with Assistant Secretary of State Martin Indyk, Middle East “mediator” Dennis Ross, and other State Department officials involved with Middle East affairs.

In the meeting with Gingrich, Abu Ala’a painted a dire picture of the life of the Palestinians and the problems they face. Gingrich said that he had some ideas for improving the lot of the Palestinians, but he gave no details. Abu Ala’a replied that such measures would be important, but first the most pressing problem must be addressed: restarting the peace talks.

Gingrich did not reply directly, but talked about building confidence on the basis of joint ideals. At this point Rahall agreed, saying that Israelis and Palestinians both must encourage their moderates to control and rein in the extremists on both sides. Gingrich did not reply.

Washington PLO Representative Hasan Abdel Rahman, who attended the meeting, raised the subject of the status of the PLO representation in the U.S., since the present congressional authorization expires this fall (see the Washington Report January/February 1998 issue). Gingrich appeared to be sincere in saying the PLO office should be left alone, and said he would raise the subject with the administration. (He did not say that he would raise it with Gilman, who has been the major stumbling block in the House.) Bonior said there was no reason that this should have to be done every six months or every year, and that the arrangement should be permanent.

In all, Abu Ala’a and his delegation seemed pleased with the results of their visit. They felt that the meetings had been constructive and positive, and that they had advanced the direct dialog with Congress that began with the meeting in May between Gingrich and Palestinian President Arafat at Ramallah. If all goes as planned, the next step will be a congressional fact-finding trip to the area shortly after the U.S. elections, with as much time being spent in Palestine and talking with Palestinians as in Israel.

Travel to Lebanon Eased Further

On June 19, President Clinton issued a “determination” removing the restriction on selling tickets for air travel to Lebanon. This means that all travel agents can sell tickets to Lebanon and all travelers can buy these tickets in the U.S. However, the prohibition on direct flights to and from Lebanon remains in place.

This follows the lifting of the travel ban by Albright nearly a year earlier, in July of 1997. By lifting the travel ban, but keeping the ticketing and direct travel prohibitions in place, the administration only confused the issue for many travelers. Finally, after much prodding from Sen. Spencer Abraham (R-MI), Rahall, the American Task Force For Lebanon, and others, the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued a “clarifying memo” that only served to further confuse the issue. The memo was so poorly worded that many travel agencies and airlines actually tightened their ticketing restrictions, and there were some cases where airlines refused to board passengers or even voided tickets.

The DOT claimed that it was powerless to lift the ticketing restriction without additional authority from the State Department. The State Department said that, by lifting the travel ban, it had given the DOT all the authority it needed. Beginning late last year, Abraham and Rahall each wrote to Berger to urge that the White House instruct the DOT to correct the situation. Finally, in early June, Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) met at the White House with Berger to discuss the situation, and Berger reportedly expressed surprise that it had not already been taken care of. A week later, Clinton’s “determination” was sent to DOT.

Humanitarian Issues in Iraq

Reps. Bonior, John Conyers, and Carolyn Kilpatrick, all Michigan Democrats, have since early May been circulating a letter in the House regarding the humanitarian situation in Iraq. The letter points out the deterioration of the food, sanitation, and medical situation in Iraq since the Gulf war, and calls upon President Clinton to “look squarely at the economic sanctions, which have outlasted their political utility.”

The letter asks Clinton to lead the U.N. sanctions committee in allowing the importation of spare parts for the oil industry; to improve the monitoring and oversight mechanisms to provide quicker movement of relief supplies to civilians; and to change the stifling U.S. regulations that hinder the flow of humanitarian supplies to Iraq.

In June the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee sponsored a congressional briefing to publicize the letter. Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit spoke at the briefing and described the deplorable health conditions he found during his recent visit to Iraq. In July, the Arab American Institute (AAI) sponsored a similar congressional briefing, at which Khaled Elgindy of the AAI showed slides of his visit to Iraq and Carl LeVan of Representative Conyers’ office described the letter in detail and urged the staff members in attendance to encourage their congressmen to sign on. LeVan said that the letter will probably not be sent until October, so as to get as many signatures as possible.

So far, those signing the letter, in addition to Bonior, Conyers, and Kilpatrick, include Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Tom Campbell (R-CA), William Clay (D-MO), Eva Clayton (D-NC), Danny Davis (D-IL), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Diana DeGette (D-CO), William Delahunt (D-MA), Elizabeth Furse (D-OR), Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-IL), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), Bill Jefferson (D-LA), Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), John LaFalce (D-NY), James McGovern (D-MA), Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), James Oberstar (D-MN), John Olver (D-MA), Major Owens (D-NY), Lynn Rivers (D-MI), Ciro Rodriguez (D-TX), Bobby Rush (D-IL), Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Pete Stark (D-CA), Bart Stupak (D-CA), Bennie Thompson (D-MS), Maxine Waters (D-CA), Melvin Watt (D-NC), and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA).

Sanctions Attacks Escalate

Although it probably will not help the average Iraqi citizen, at least not in the near future, the campaign to reform U.S. unilateral economic sanctions policy, as reported in previous issues of the Washington Report, has picked up increasing steam. Senators and representatives have observed that U.S. exporters, especially agricultural exporters, are being hurt more than the regimes the sanctions are aimed at.

Most of the recent activity in this area has concerned sanctions on the export of agricultural products. A bill called the “Agricultural Export Relief Act of 1998” was introduced in the Senate on July 9, passed by the Senate that same day, passed by the House on July 14, and signed into law by the president also on July 14. This bill exempts financing and credits for the sale of food or other agricultural products, including fertilizers, and medicines and medical equipment from sanctions imposed under the Arms Export Control Act. Going even further, the Senate version of the FY 99 Agriculture Appropriations Bill includes an amendment proposed by Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) that exempts food, other agricultural products (including fertilizer), medicines, or medical equipment from any “existing or future unilateral economic sanctions imposed against a foreign government.” Since the House version of the bill does not contain this clause, it remains to be seen whether or not the provision will survive the conference committee.

There has been no further action on the two major sanctions reform bills previously described in the Washington Report, S. 1413, sponsored by Senator Lugar, and H.R. 2708 sponsored by Reps. Lee Hamilton (D-IN) and Philip Crane (R-IL), which would reform the process by which both the Congress and the executive branch would consider economic sanctions, and, once imposed, the sanctions would be terminated after two years unless specifically reauthorized. S. 1413 now has 37 co-sponsors, and H.R. 2708 now has 69 co-sponsors.

The major focus on sanctions reform, at least in the Senate, now centers on the bipartisan Senate Task Force on Sanctions recently formed by Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MO). The task force is co-chaired by Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Joseph Biden (D-DE), and there is widespread optimism among Senate staff members that it will be able to develop workable, and enactable, proposals, although those proposals will likely not be developed before the beginning of the next congressional session.

Legislation to Watch

Most attention during the remaining days of the 105th Congress will be on the various appropriations bills. However, final passage of the bills of most interest to the Middle East—appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State and the foreign operations (foreign aid and international organizations) appropriations—is likely to be held up over other issues until just before adjournment in October.

Action is still pending on two bills that have passed both houses of Congress but have not been signed by the president. The Iran Missile Sanctions Act, which would require sanctions on any foreign person or entity found to have helped Iran’s missile effort, was indeed vetoed by President Clinton on June 23, on the grounds that the bill would hurt U.S. “cooperation with Russian government agencies in other vital areas.” As of late July, neither house had voted to override the veto, although an override is expected.

In early July, Clinton announced that sanctions would be administratively imposed on Russian entities transferring missile technology to Iran. This infuriated House International Relations Committee Chairman Benjamin Gilman (R-NY), who issued a press release saying that the administrative imposition of sanctions was “shameful” and “a cynical effort to head off an override” of the veto.

The other bill, which has been neither signed nor vetoed, is the Foreign Affairs Reform Act, which includes the provision proclaiming Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel. It is still widely expected that Clinton will veto it because of family- planning issues, and that the veto will not be overridden.

A third pair of bills that bear close attention are those calling for sanctions on countries accused of religious discrimination. As previously mentioned, the inflexible and harsh bill sponsored by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA) has passed the House, but in the Senate a more flexible bill sponsored by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) seems to have the inside track. However, there are several objections to the bill, not least from those senators opposed to unilateral economic sanctions (see above), so its future is still in doubt.

Two resolutions of special interest to Arab Americans are likely to die before being acted on during this Congress. The first, sponsored by Senator Abraham and titled “A Resolution Supporting the Religious Tolerance Toward Muslims,” declares that Congress condemns anti-Muslim intolerance and discrimination and “resolves to uphold a level of political discourse that does not involve scapegoating an entire religion or drawing political conclusions from religious doctrine.” So far, only nine senators—all liberal Democrats—have signed on to co-sponsor the resolution. Obviously, the Arab- American community has not told its senators how strongly it feels about this issue.

The other resolution, more obscure but almost equally important to the Arab-American community, urges the secretary of commerce to ensure that ancestry data is included as part of the next census. It was introduced in the House by Rep. Connie Morella (R-MD), and so far has 33 co-sponsors.

Finally, an intriguing bill was introduced in late June by one of Israel’s more dependable representatives, Brad Sherman (D-CA), and co-sponsored by most of the usual suspects. It would require that funds for the construction of the U.S. embassies in Berlin and Jerusalem be spent “in such a manner as to ensure comparable rates of construction and occupation of the two facilities.” Since the State Department has ignored (technically, “waived”) the earlier law requiring the U.S. Embassy in Israel to move to Jerusalem, Sherman apparently decided to try to make that choice as painful as possible.

New Ambassadors to the Middle East

The Senate has acted with remarkable speed on all of President Clinton’s ambassadorial nominees to the Middle East. The nominations of Ryan Crocker as ambassador to Syria and William Burns as ambassador to Jordan, reported in the May/June issue of the Washington Report, were approved by the full Senate on May 21.

In mid-June, Clinton nominated four more ambassadors to the Middle East: John Craig as ambassador to Oman; Ted Kattouf as ambassador to the UAE; Elizabeth McKune as ambassador to Qatar; and David Satterfield as ambassador to Lebanon. All four are career foreign service officers with extensive experience in the Middle East. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the nominations on July 16, and approved them for full Senate action on July 23. It is likely that the Senate will approve the nominations before this issue reaches our readers.

Correction

In the July/August issue of the Washington Report we incorrectly listed two senators and one representative as having accompanied Gingrich on his May trip to Israel. Sens. Joe Biden (D-DE) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), and Rep. John Cooksey (R-LA) were on the original list but, for one reason or another, did not go.

“Passenger Profiling” Draws Congressional Attention

Arab Americans have increasingly become concerned about the discriminatory way that the airlines have applied the “passenger profiling” system, devised by the FAA but implemented by the airlines, to improve aviation security by focusing “on the small percentage of passengers who may pose security risks.” The Arab American Institute (AAI), American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have documented enough cases to establish that, in practice, “profiling” has singled out Arab Americans and Muslim Americans for discriminatory treatment. Recently, some members of Congress, in particular Rep. Ray LaHood (R-IL) and House Minority Whip David Bonior (D-MI), have expressed their concern to the FAA.

On March 12, Bonior wrote to FAA Administrator Jane Garvey, saying that the system must be changed to eliminate discrimination and stereotyping. He complained that the FAA has said that the problem is not the system, but the way the airlines are implementing it; but the airlines say they are just following FAA requirements. He also met with Garvey on May 20 to express his concerns personally.

On May 14 the House Transportation Committee Aviation Subcommittee held a hearing on aviation security, during which LaHood sharply questioned Department of Transportation Deputy Inspector General for Aviation Alexis Stefani. Stefani assured LaHood and the committee members that the new Computer Assisted Passenger Screening (CAPS) system being implemented was completely non-discriminatory, but LaHood remained skeptical.

AAI president James Zogby, testifying at the hearing, also expressed skepticism about the new CAPS system. He said that, although the system is in place, “our problems have still not been solved. Rather, what seems to have occurred is that a flawed system has now been automated.” Later, at a press conference, Zogby said, “Frankly, I don’t believe the FAA when they say we are not targeted.”

Also on May 14, the General Accounting Office (GAO) released a report on aviation security which said that, although no airlines had implemented the CAPS system by the end of 1997, three airlines had done so by February 1998. The report says that the Justice Department (DOJ) has determined that the CAPS system does not discriminate, “because it does not record or give any consideration to the race, color, national or ethnic origin, religion or gender of passengers.” At his press conference, Zogby said that he is confident that he and the other Arab-American groups are receiving serious attention at the DOJ. This may soon be tested, because the GAO report also says that, to assure that the new system is run in a nondiscriminatory manner, it will be reviewed periodically by the FAA and the DOJ.