Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, October/November 1997, pg. 18

Congress Watch

Middle East Peace Facilitation Act Threatened

By Shirl McArthur

The Middle East Peace Facilitation Act (MEPFA), which allows official contacts with the PLO and Palestinian Authority (PA), as well as providing U.S. aid to the PA, was to expire Aug. 12, 18 months after the act was last renewed in early 1996. Legislation to renew it again required administration certification that the PA was meeting obligations under the Oslo agreements. No similar certification of Israeli compliance was required. But neither the executive nor the legislative actions appeared likely to happen in time to get the act renewed on schedule.

Legislators supporting what is left of the peace process seemed frustrated by the administration's unwillingness to provide leadership on this issue. There was even some feeling on Capitol Hill that the State Department was deliberately dragging its feet in order to create a sense of crisis.

Too late, some congressmen, notably Reps. John Dingell (D-MI) and Nick Rahall (D-WV), tried to push MEPFA forward. Dingell and Rahall wrote a "Dear Colleague" letter to other House members opposing the Saxton amendment to the appropriations bill (see below) and pointing out that "a freeze in relations with the PLO and suspension of urgently needed economic aid would effectively end the peace process." They also co-sponsored legislation that would provide for a six-month extension of the deadline.

It is possible that by the time this issue of the Washington Report reaches readers, some way will have been found to rescue MEPFA. If not, it is one more issue to be resolved when Congress reconvenes in September.

Foreign Aid Legislation

Before adjourning, the House and the Senate passed different versions of the foreign aid authorizations bill and the Senate has passed the foreign aid appropriations bill. The House began consideration of its bill, but delayed a final vote until after the August recess. The reconciled bills are not expected to be passed by both houses and sent to the president for signature until after the recess. In their present state, the four bills all contain items of concern to the Middle East, most of which could cause considerable mischief for U.S. policy in the region.

Over the past few years, Congress has failed to pass foreign aid authorizations bills, and has gone directly to the appropriations bills. An important distinction is that appropriations bills originate in the Appropriations Committees, where financial considerations are generally paramount, but the foreign aid authorizations bills originate in the Foreign Affairs Committees, where the respective chairmen—Benjamin Gilman (R-NY) in the House and Jesse Helms (R-SC) in the Senate—have other priorities. In the 105th Congress, Helms especially was determined to use the authorization process to accomplish his long-sought reforms of the U.N. and of the U.S. foreign policy agencies.

The Authorizations Bills

The House authorizations bill requires the secretary of state to report periodically to Congress on specific actions taken by the Departments of State, Defense, and Commerce "toward progress in resolving the commercial disputes between U.S. firms and the government of Saudi Arabia;" a provision prohibiting the president from granting Sudan an exception to the anti-terrorism act until he can certify to Congress that Sudan is not sponsoring or supporting terrorism; and a prohibition on foreign aid to any country that helps Libya circumvent U.N. sanctions. This last provision includes a clause, however, allowing the president to make an exception for "national security" reasons.

Perhaps the most mischievous provision is the one containing four clauses that "together reaffirm and strengthen U.S. policy...that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel," in the words of the committee report. This section (a) authorizes $25 million in fiscal year 1998 and $75 million in FY '99 for construction of a U.S. embassy in Jerusalem; (b) stipulates that no appropriated funds may be used to operate a consulate or other diplomatic facility in Jerusalem unless the facility is under the supervision of the U.S. ambassador to Israel; (c) requires that U.S. government documents that list countries and their capital cities must identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; and (d) states that, upon request, the birthplace on official documents of a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem may be given as Jerusalem, Israel (currently, no country is listed).

The two provisions that have received the most attention are the so-called Engel and Paxon amendments. The first, offered by Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), urges "that the United States should consider applying to Syria sanctions which are currently enforced against Iran and Libya...if the government of Syria does not eliminate its dangerous and destabilizing policies." The Paxon amendment, offered by Rep. Bill Paxon (R-NY), condemns the Palestinian death penalty for Palestinians selling land to Jews, and "demands that this practice of murder and racism be condemned and renounced by the Palestinian leadership and that it will end immediately. If it does not, the Congress should not permit the provision of direct aid to the Palestinian Authority when the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1995 is considered for reauthorization."

The House was not content with micromanaging in the Middle East on behalf of Israel — it also challenged America's European allies on behalf of Israel's participation in the U.N. The House bill requires the secretary of state to report to Congress within 90 days on the actions taken by U.S. officials to get Israel accepted into the Western European and Others Group at the U.N.

In the Senate, Helms was determined to push through his "Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act," so he trashed the entire House authorizations bill and replaced it with his Senate version. However, the Senate version, as passed, also contains several Middle-East related provisions, including one that is identical to the House provision regarding Jerusalem, described above. In addition, the Senate version includes an earmark of $2 million to fund radio broadcasts to Iran in the Farsi language. It also includes a provision aimed at Syria prohibiting any financial transactions with state sponsors of international terrorism; however, the provision also includes a clause allowing the president to make a "national security" exception. The bill further urges the administration to enforce the Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act of 1992 with regard to the acquisition by Iran of Chinese C-802 cruise missiles, and includes a provision regarding Israel and the U.N. that is similar to that in the House bill. Finally, the bill also condemns the Palestinian death penalty for persons selling land to Jews, but not quite so harshly as the House version.

The Appropriations Bills

The foreign aid appropriations bills passed by the Senate and being considered in the House differ by about $1 billion, with the Senate bill totaling some $13.2 billion compared with some $12.3 billion in the House bill. However, aid for the Middle East is similar in both bills. The Senate bill requires "not less than" $1.2 billion in economic aid and $1.8 billion in military assistance for Israel; $815 million in economic aid and $1.3 billion in military assistance for Egypt; and $150 million in economic aid and $100 million in military assistance for Jordan. The House bill does not earmark specific amounts, but the accompanying Committee Report "recommends" the same amounts as the Senate bill for Israel and Egypt, and asks the administration to continue to help Jordan, without putting a dollar amount on it. Both bills also continue the $80 million to Israel for "refugee resettlement."

However, as with the authorization bills, both appropriations bills also include mischievous clauses affecting the Middle East. The Senate bill as passed and the House bill being considered both include sections prohibiting assistance to Cuba, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Sudan, or Syria; prohibiting bilateral assistance to any country supporting terrorism (however, there is also a provision for a "national security" or "humanitarian" waiver); prohibiting assistance to any country violating the U.N. sanctions against Iraq (again, with a "national interest" or "humanitarian" waiver provision); and prohibiting U.S. government use of funds "in any part of Jerusalem" to conduct official business with the PA. A section possibly relevant to the non-renewal of MEPFA (see above) says that if the president fails to make the certification required by the MEPFA, no aid may be given for the PLO for the West Bank and Gaza, in effect confirming that, in the event that MEPFA is not renewed, assistance can be given to the Palestinians only if it is provided through channels other than the PA. In addition, the Senate bill withholds funds from the PA unless the president certifies that (a) the PA is using its maximum efforts to combat terrorism and has ceased using violence; (b) President Arafat had no prior knowledge of the World Trade Center bombing; and (c) Arafat "did not authorize and did not fail to use his authority to prevent the Tel Aviv cafe bombing of March 21, 1997."

Attention in the House focused on the so-called Saxton amendment, after its sponsor, Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ). Among its many provisions, the Saxton amendment as proposed would delay U.S. assistance to the PA for three months, and then allow aid during the following six months only if the president provides a detailed report on Palestinian actions in six specific areas, including such human rights areas as prison conditions (where Israel has been faulted as much or more than the Palestinians by international human rights groups), and if both houses of Congress approve the president's report by a joint resolution.

Opposition to the Saxton amendment quickly surfaced. The State Department sent House members a set of "talking points" outlining why the Department "strongly opposes" the amendment. Before the House began considering the appropriations bill, Dingell and Rahall sent their "Dear Colleague" letter described above, and both spoke against the amendment when it was being considered on the House floor. Unfortunately, the vote on the amendment came on July 30, the same day as the terrorist bombing of the Machaneh Yehuda marketplace in Jerusalem, so opponents of Saxton's amendment didn't have a chance. The amendment was passed by a voice vote. However, opponents of the amendment may have had some effect, because in its present wording it no longer requires that both houses of Congress approve the president's report by a joint resolution.

Iran Press Conference

Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Gary Ackerman (D-NY) held a press conference on July 23 to announce "a new initiative" toward Iran. They were joined by Rep. James Traficant (D-OH) and Sarvi Chitsaz, U.S. representative of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCR), an organization founded in 1981 by veteran Iranian opposition leader Masoud Rajavi.

The "new initiative" was a one-page "Statement on Iran" signed by 222 members of Congress and alleging abuses by the Iranian government in the areas of human rights, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and calling on the U.S. government to encourage Europe to abandon its critical dialogue with Iran and join the U.S. in "a unified effort to isolate the Tehran regime."

In their opening statements, Ros-Lehtinen, Ackerman, and Traficant all condemned the policies of the current Tehran regime and said that these policies have not changed with the recent Iranian elections. Ackerman emphasized the need for unified action with America's European allies and said that the Congress must get the State Department to "show more backbone." Traficant accused the State Department of practicing a "policy of appeasement" of Tehran and of not telling the whole truth about Iran's transgressions. Both Traficant and Ros-Lehtinen urged the administration to begin working with "pro-democracy opposition groups" such as the National Council of Resistance.

When the floor was opened for questions, Kenneth Timmerman, director of the Foundation for Democracy in Iran, which supports the son of Iran's late shah, asked Traficant if he was aware that "the NCR is a front organization for the Mojahedin e-Khalq," which, Timmerman said, is on the State Department's list of terrorist organizations. Traficant replied that he was familiar with the association, that all of the alleged transgressions took place nearly 20 years ago (during the regime of the Shah), and that the NCR has no leaders identified with terrorism, past or present. Timmerman attempted to respond, but was cut off by Ackerman, who said that if Timmerman had anything further to say he should send a letter. Later the same day Timmerman wrote to Ros-Lehtinen saying that the three representatives had "fallen into a trap laid by a group that has been closely associated with the Tehran regime."

(In fact the group to which Timmerman referred, the People's Mojahedin, was one of the opposition groups that participated in the overthrow of the Shah. In the scramble to form a government to replace him, Mojahedin activists lost out to supporters of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Masoud Rajavi and the new regime's first president, Abol Hassan Bani Sadr, a former Khomeini supporter, later escaped together on an Iranian air force plane flown by a defecting Iranian military pilot who was a Mojahedin supporter. Bani Sadr and Rajavi subsequently had a falling out with each other.)

The lively press conference illustrated the complexities of mixing Iranian exile and congressional politics. Ackerman and Ros-Lehtinen are closely identified with Israel's U.S. lobby, while Traficant has been outspokenly critical of Israel. The NCR has increasingly found itself on the same side of issues as the Israel lobby in the U.S. Whether that association is causing a decline in support among Iranian Americans for the NCR is a matter of conjecture.