Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, October/November 1998, pages 28-30

Special Report

Clinton Scandal Causes Uncertainty on Capitol Hill

By Shirl McArthur

With the 105th Congress in its final scheduled month of life and scandal surrounding the White House, the watchword is uncertainty. What effect this uncertainty will have on legislation concerning the Middle East can most easily be seen in the appropriations process.

The Appropriations Bills

Of the eight appropriations bills still wending their way through the congressional process, six include what Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) has called “poison pills,” designed to invite a presidential veto. Two of those six directly affect the Middle East: appropriations for the Commerce, Justice, and State Departments, and foreign aid appropriations.

The Commerce/Justice/State bill includes funding for the Bureau of the Census, and the administration and congressional leadership are locked in a battle over whether the 2000 census should use statistical sampling techniques.

The foreign aid bill—at least the House version—will probably include an anti-abortion provision similar to the one that probably scuttled the earlier Foreign Affairs Reform bill. Furthermore, the current bill is $1.1 billion less than the administration requested, and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has said she will recommend a veto unless the funding level is increased. (For details of these bills’ provisions affecting the Middle East, see box.)

Some congressional staffers believe that these differences will prove to be intractable and that Congress will be unable to agree on at least some of the appropriations bills before adjournment. Although there has been some speculation that this could lead to at least a partial shut-down of the government, the consensus in Washington seems to be that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats want to risk being seen as causing it.

The most likely result, therefore, will be that the appropriations bills that have not been signed into law when Congress is ready for adjournment, scheduled for Oct. 9, will be lumped into a “continuing resolution” to fund those programs and agencies at current levels until some time after the new Congress convenes next January.

Other Pending Legislation

The same uncertainty surrounds other pending bills affecting the Middle East. The bill with the best chance of passage is the Freedom from Religious Persecution Act, which has already passed the House as H.R. 2431. This bill would place unilateral, mandatory sanctions on any country found to be practicing religious persecution, as defined in the bill.

In the Senate, a less severe version has been proposed by Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK), as S.1868. Although it is more moderate than the House bill, the administration has expressed serious reservations over some of its provisions. Furthermore, other senators, such as Rod Grams (R-MN) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE), have expressed their opposition to sanctions in general and this bill in particular, and some Christian groups have expressed fears that it would do them more harm than good. However, the Republican leadership apparently feels committed to passing an anti-religious-persecution bill, and Nickles’ office has been working with the administration in an attempt to develop a bill both sides can support.

Three bills affecting the Middle East have been passed by the House, and could easily and quickly be passed by the Senate and sent to the president for signature.

The first of these three bills, now called the “Theater Missile Defense Improvement Act” (H.R. 2786), originally was introduced as the “Iran Missile Protection Bill.” It authorizes new money for the Defense Department, including $10 million “to improve the interoperability of the Israeli Arrow” missile defense system with U.S. systems, to “counter the emerging threat” to the U.S. and its allies of Iranian ballistic missiles. This bill passed the House on March 30, and has been sitting in the Senate Armed Services Committee since then.

Another Iran-related bill that has passed the House is the “Iran Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Act” (H.R. 3743), which would withhold voluntary U.S. contributions to the International Atomic Energy Agency for programs and policies in Iran. It passed the House on Aug. 3 and was referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Aug. 31.

The House also passed on May 5 a concurrent resolution “regarding American victims of Terrorism” (H.Con.Res. 220). The resolution expresses the sense of the Congress that the U.S. should demand the prosecution of all suspected perpetrators of Palestinian terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens and should seek the Palestinian Authority’s cooperation in the prosecution of these cases. The resolution also says that “the suspects should be tried in the U.S. unless it is determined that such action is contrary to effective prosecution.” An identical companion bill, S.Con.Res. 100, was introduced in the Senate by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) on June 2.

Just how quickly these pending bills can be dealt with was illustrated by the quick passage of Senate Joint Resolution 54, which finds the Iraqi government “in unacceptable and material breach of its international obligations,” and urges the president to “take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States” to bring Iraq into compliance. The resolution was reported to the Senate by the Foreign Relations Committee on July 27; passed by the Senate on July 31; considered and passed by the House on Aug. 3; sent to the president on Aug. 10; and signed on Aug. 14.

Nevertheless, it appears increasingly unlikely that there will be any 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. The major focus on sanctions reform remains centered on the bipartisan Senate Task Force on Sanctions co-chaired by Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Joseph Biden (D-DE). However, Senate staff members say that Lugar still has not given up on his sanctions reform legislation, and is considering trying to attach it to one of the remaining appropriations bills.

Possible Veto Overrides

Two other bills of interest have been passed by both houses of Congress but not signed by the president. The first is the Foreign Affairs Reform Bill (H.R. 1757). It consolidates and streamlines foreign affairs agencies and authorizes $926 million in arrearage payments to the U.N., both of which are strongly desired by the administration.

It also contains several provisions concerning the Middle East, including one regarding Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. However, the bill also includes language prohibiting U.S. funding for family planning organizations that perform abortions or promote liberalized abortion laws. This language is objectionable to some of the women’s groups that have been among the Democrats’ key constituents, and the White House has threatened to veto the bill in its present form.

Because the House and Senate passed the conference report back in March and April only by narrow, non-veto-proof margins, the bill has not been sent to the White House for President Clinton’s signature or veto. However, committee staffers believe that Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC), the driving force behind the legislation, very much wants to force the president’s hand.

If the bill is finally sent to the White House, it is likely that Clinton will veto it, and a veto would likely be sustained. Then both sides would have an election issue to wave before their pro- and anti-abortion constituencies.

The second of these bills is the Iran Missile Sanctions Bill (H.R. 2709), which was vetoed by Clinton on June 23. It would require that sanctions be imposed on any “foreign person” found to have transferred goods or technology, or provided technical assistance or facilities, that contributed to Iran’s efforts to acquire, develop, or produce ballistic missiles.

The bill also includes the text of an unrelated bill, which the Senate has already passed, implementing the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. In early July, Clinton announced that sanctions would be administratively imposed on Russian entities transferring missile technology to Iran.

This took the steam out of congressional threats to override the veto. Nevertheless, since the bill passed both houses of Congress with large margins, it is very possible that the congressional leadership will take this opportunity to further embarrass Clinton by overriding the veto.

SIDEBAR

What’s in the Pending Appropriations Bills

The appropriations bills most affecting the Middle East are the one for the Commerce, Justice, and State (CJS) Departments and the one for “foreign operations,” which includes funding for export financing programs, certain international organizations, and for foreign aid. As this issue of the Washington Report is being written, the Senate and the House each have passed different CJS appropriations bills, so the two must be reconciled in conference. The Senate has passed its foreign operations appropriations bill, but the House has not. However, the House Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee has about completed its work, so the likely outlines of the House bill are known (but without the pesky amendments that will be tacked on once the bill reaches the House floor).

Foreign Operations Appropriations

The big news in the foreign aid bill is that, for the first time since the Camp David agreement, aid for Israel and Egypt has been cut. Both the Senate bill as passed, and the House bill as it emerged from committee, include cuts of $120 million in economic assistance to Israel and $40 million to Egypt. The cut for Israel is partially offset by an increase of $60 million in military aid. However, there is no corresponding increase in military aid for Egypt.

The adjustments for Israel are in line with the plan first proposed by Israeli Finance Minister Yaakov Ne’eman last January. The plan, as agreed to by House Foreign Operations Appropriations subcommittee chairman Sonny Callahan (R-AL), calls for a 10-year phase-out of economic aid to Israel, with reductions of $120 million per year. Half of the savings, $60 million per year, will be added to Israel’s military aid. The new numbers for Israel, as agreed to by the Senate and proposed by Callahan’s subcommittee, are $1.08 billion economic aid; $1.86 billion military aid; and $70 million (a reduction of $10 million from the FY-98 appropriations) in “refugee resettlement assistance.” In addition, the amount of military aid that Israel is allowed to spend in Israel is increased to about $490 million, to keep the percentage at 26.5 percent of total military aid.

For Egypt, the original plan was to reduce economic aid by $80 million and increase military aid by $40 million. But, as a result of an amendment proposed by Reps. Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Joseph Knollenberg (R-MI), military aid was left at the FY-98 level and economic aid was decreased by just $40 million. Thus, the new numbers for Egypt are $775 million economic aid and $1.3 billion military aid.

Additionally, Jordan is earmarked $150 million in economic aid (the same as FY-98) and $48 million military aid (down from $75 million in FY-98). This year’s bill also earmarks $7 million in military aid to Tunisia, plus $5 million in drawdown of Defense Department stocks and provision of military education and training and other services.

The administration had requested an additional $25 million for the West Bank and Gaza, over the $75 million currently allocated, but this request was turned down by the appropriators. The bill as passed by the Senate does include the same clause as last year’s bill that allows aid to the Palestinian Authority, if the president certifies that it is in the U.S. national security interest. Such waiver is valid for six months, renewable for an additional six months.

Finally, as usually happens, once the Senate bill reached the Senate floor, several Middle East-related amendments were tacked on. Most of the amendments give the “sense of the Senate” regarding some issue, and they are most likely to disappear in the conference report reconciling the House and Senate versions, but several of Israel’s staunch supporters have at least had the opportunity to demonstrate to the voters where their primary allegiance lies. These amendments include provisions that (1) the U.S. should urge the U.N. General Assembly to impose a multilateral oil embargo on Libya if Libya does not turn over the two accused Pan Am bombers to the Netherlands for trial by Oct. 29, 1998; (2) the U.S. should take all steps necessary to assure that Israel is accepted into the Western Europe and Others Group U.N. regional bloc; (3) the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) should maintain vigorous inspections within Iraq and the U.S. government should oppose any efforts to ease those inspections; and (4) there should be no easing of U.S. policy toward Iran until there is “credible and sustained evidence” of change in Iran’s policies.

However, there are two substantive amendments in the Senate bill that may survive the conference report. The first of these, sponsored by Sen. John Ashcroft (R-MO), is a prohibition against any funds being used to provide any kind of assistance to the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation (see “Congress Watch,” page 25). The second amendment that may survive the conference is one sponsored by Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) that earmarks $10 million for the “Iraqi democratic opposition.” The amendment specifies that, of the $10 million, no less than $3 million should go to the Iraqi National Congress, and no less than $3 million should be for Iraqi opposition activities inside Iraq.

Commerce/Justice/State Appropriations

As usual the Congress, Justice and State appropriations bills do not include nearly as many interesting provisions as the foreign aid bills. The House bill includes an amendment offered by Rep. Jim Saxton (R-NJ) that says that no funds can be used by U.S. government agencies to intervene against a claim for attachment of property upon a judgment brought under the Antiterrorism Act of 1996. This act allows certain “victims of state-sponsored terrorism” (victims of Israel-sponsored terrorism are not included) to sue foreign governments in U.S. federal court for damages. The family of a New Jersey woman who was killed by a suicide bomber in Israel sued under the act and won a judgment against the government of Iran, on the grounds that Iran had sponsored the bombing. When the family tried to attach Iranian properties (including the ornate Iranian Embassy building) in Washington, DC, the State and Justice Departments intervened, saying the Iranian assets were protected by federal law and international agreements. This is obviously true, so it is highly unlikely that this provision will survive the conference committee.

The Senate bill contains two provisions that bear watching. The first provision is almost identical to the one in the Senate’s CJS appropriations bill, described above, prohibiting funds to be used to provide assistance to the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation. This provision may well survive the conference committee.

The second provision—really three provisions—consisted of amendments sponsored by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) that are very similar to previous “Jerusalem provisions” that have not been signed into law. The three provisions, which could also survive the conference committee, say that (1) no funds can be used for the U.S. Consulate in Jerusalem unless it is under the supervision of the U.S. ambassador to Israel; (2) any official U.S. publication or document listing countries and their capital cities must list Jerusalem as the capital of Israel; and (3) for registration of birth, certification of nationality, or issuance of a passport of a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem, the place of birth should be recorded as Israel, if so requested by the citizen.—S.M.