Aftermath

By Dennis J. Wamsted

Last fall it appeared that domestic budgetary problems would force Congress to cap aid to Israel at current levels—roughly $3 billion a year. However, while the US Treasury remains in the red, Congress last month voted in favor of an additional $650 million in aid for Israel.

The funds, included as part of the $15.8 billion supplemental measure approved by Congress to pay part of the costs associated with the war against Iraq, will be added to Israel's fiscal year 1991 economic aid package—bringing its total for the current year to $3.65 billion, split evenly between economic and military aid.

While the funds were approved, they were not unchallenged, particularly in the House, where several members questioned the fairness of raising Israel's aid package while the US struggles through a recession. The anti-aid forces were led by Rep. Tim Valentine (D-NC), who is now serving his fifth term in the House and who has played little previous role in Middle Eastern affairs.

Valentine, whose district is roughly 37 percent black, proposed removing all of the additional aid from the supplemental bill. Speaking on the House floor, Valentine said: "I do not believe that the majority of Americans share the wish of this Congress to grant to the Israeli government an additional appropriation of funds at a time when we are struggling under the weight of a recession ....

"I cannot understand how this nation can afford to be so forthcoming with funds that we do not have," Valentine continued. "We simply cannot afford to continue to support the economies of other nations when our own economy is stagnant."

While cognizant of the odds against his proposal, Valentine refused to back down. "I do not delude myself. I do not know how many votes we will get for this proposition. I might leave the floor myself on a stretcher, figuratively speaking. But many members of this House know in their heart that I am right."

One of the other members who publicly backed Valentine's proposal was Rep. Carroll Hubbard (D-KY), a 17-year House veteran whose district includes Ft. Campbell, the home base of the 101st Airborne Division. "The businesses in that area have suffered substantially because of the war and the fact that 20,500 soldiers from Fort Campbell are in the Middle East. Some of the area businesses have gone bankrupt. Many are closed at this point.

"We should be considering a supplemental appropriation today for the businesses close to Fort Knox, KY, or Fort Campbell, KY or Fort Stewart, GA, or the other places where our military has gone from," Hubbard added.

"How can the members of Congress go home this weekend and tell their mayors and elected officials of their cities, towns and counties that we do not have money for federal revenue sharing for the cities, towns and counties of the United States of America, but we do have an additional $650 million for a country to which we are now sending $3 billion a year?"

Despite these pleas, Valentine's amendment was rejected by a vote of 24 to 397. In addition to Valentine and Hubbard, those representatives voting against the aid package for Israel included:

Republicans

Richard Armey, TX

Larry Combest, TX

Thomas DeLay, TX

Willis Gradison, OH

Mel Hancock, MO

James Hansen, UT

Thomas Petri, WI

Pat Roberts, KS

James Sensenbrenner, WI

Bob Stump, AZ

Robert Walker, PA

Democrats

John Bryant, TX

Mervyn Dymally, CA

Charles Hayes, IL

Gerald Kleczka, WI

Carl Perkins, KY

Gus Savage, IL

Charles Stenholm, TX

Gene Taylor, MS

James Traficant, OH

Craig Washington, TX

Pat Williams, NIT

Following the vote, Rep. Traficant offered a series of amendments seeking to reduce the aid package to Israel first by $250 million, then by $50 million, and finally by $13 million. All three proposals were defeated by voice vote.

Obey's Explanation

Although Rep. David Obey (D-WI), the chair of the House Appropriations Foreign Operations panel, voted against the Valentine amendment, he made it clear that the $650 million was not an unconditional gift. "I ... think that the state of Israel has an obligation to us," he said during the floor debate over Valentine's proposal.

"I think Israel has an obligation, first of all, to make clear that they are willing to deal, and deal generously, on the issue of the Palestinians. Because in my judgment, until that issue is dealt with, there will be no peace in the Middle East, and until that issue is dealt with, we will not have guaranteed that Americans will not again have to shed blood in the Middle East.

"The second thing I think Israel has an obligation to do is to see to it that every Soviet Jew that is resettled in Israel, is resettled in an area which does not inflame the region ... I do not believe those additional refugees ought to be settled in what is now referred to as the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza."

Beyond these non-binding recommendations, Obey outlined an enforceable agreement barring anyone, either in Congress or the administration, from proposing any additional aid requests for Israel until after Sept. 1, 1991. (This does affect the regular foreign aid process, under which Israel will almost certainly be given another $3 billion for fiscal year 1992, which begins on October 1.)

"That is the way it ought to be," Obey said. "Everybody ought to stay off the administration's back while they try to put together this [regional security] package." As a practical matter, the delay is not likely to have much long-term impact, since it expires a full month before Congress is scheduled to adjourn this fall. In other words, Israel's congressional supporters will still have plenty of time to propose an additional aid package for Israel in September.

Questioning Arms Sales

The Bush administration early last month proposed a $1.6 billion package of arms for Egypt, in what could be just the first of many such sales in the years to come. As proposed, the package includes:

-46 F-16 fighter jets, manufactured by General Dynamics;

-80 air-to-ground Maverick missiles; and -1,528 bombs.

The sale is unlikely to be contested by Congress, which has 30 days to pass legislation to block the sale, particularly given Egypt's crucial role in the international coalition that ousted Iraq from Kuwait. And, even if Congress did vote to block the sale, the legislation could be, and almost certainly would be, vetoed by President Bush.

However, regardless of the outcome of this initial proposal, there is a rising chorus of congressional voices arguing against Significant new arms sales to the Middle East. This outcry has been triggered, at least in part, by the Javits report. Named after former Sen. Jacob Javits of New York, this annual, classified report outlines the arms sales to the Middle East the administration plans to propose in the coming 12 months. According to The Washington Post, this year's report includes $18 billion in new sales to five US allies in the region—Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Turkey. Out of this, roughly $10 billion is proposed for Saudi Arabia.

Traditional opponents of arms sales to America's Arab allies, such as Rep. Mel Levine (D-CA), are among those directing this chorus, but several other influential congressmen are also beginning to question the wisdom of substantial new sales to the Middle East. In particular, recently both Reps. Obey and Lee Hamilton (D-IN) have voiced concerns about the Middle East arms race.

Hamilton, the respected chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Europe and the Middle East Subcommittee, said back in January that "a worldwide moratorium on arms sales to the Middle East is worth serious consideration. " Speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, Hamilton added: "I am impressed that despite the large number of US arms sales, Saudi Arabia and the small Gulf states were simply not able to protect themselves against aggression."

Obey sounded a similar theme during a House floor speech in March. "If you really want to be constructive, if you want to see to it that the sacrifices made by Americans were not in vain in that region, then you need to use your personal influence to help bring about arms limitation in the region," he told his colleagues. "And I would suggest, frankly, that we ought to start with Egypt."

Although saying he believed the sale to Egypt would be approved, Obey urged House members to play a role in this debate in the months ahead. "We will see numerous requests from countries in the region, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia ... for arms sales and foreign aid to facilitate arms deliveries to the region. If you want to be constructive ... that is where you will draw the line. "

Dennis J. Wamsted is a free-lance writer specializing in the US Congress and Middle East affairs.