[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 87 (Friday, June 20, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6020-S6021]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                EGYPT AND THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE PROCESS

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the Republic of Egypt has been an 
outstanding leader in the Arab world in bringing an historic 
reconciliation between the state of Israel and its neighbors, including 
the Palestinians. Egyptian leaders, including President Sadat as well 
as the present leader, President Mubarak, have dedicated substantial 
energy toward such a reconciliation. There has been constant, difficult 
opposition to this process in the region. President Sadat's tireless 
and courageous dedication to peace in the Middle East cost him his 
life. He paid the supreme sacrifice at the hands of an assassin. And he 
left a lasting legacy in fashioning the Camp David Accords together 
with Prime Minister Begin of Israel, through the good offices of 
President Jimmy Carter.
  In the Middle East it has always taken three to tango. Advancing the 
process of making peace has required the dedication of the leaders of 
all three countries, Israel, Egypt and the United States. What is so 
dangerous about the current period is the apparent flagging of this 
dedication on the part of the government of Prime Minister Netanyahu, 
which has promoted the construction of new, and entirely unnecessary 
Jewish settlements in Arab portions of Jerusalem, a development sure to 
engender violence and the disruption of the peace process. Indeed, as I 
have said before on this floor, it was just when there appeared to be 
hopeful momentum toward resolving the outstanding issues between Israel 
and her neighbors that the right wing in Israeli politics initiated 
settlement construction activities and pulled the rug out from under 
this momentum. Unfortunately, attempts by President Clinton to revive 
this process were less than successful, in part, because of deep 
inconsistencies in the approach of the United States which appeared 
only half-heartedly--only halfheartedly--to protest the settlement 
construction activity on the part of the Netanyahu government. 
Unfortunately, the United States vetoed United Nations Security Council 
Resolutions protesting the settlement construction, which has, in 
effect, taken the United States out of the strong intermediary role 
that it needs to play for lasting progress to be made.
  It was precisely at this point--with the Israeli right acting to put 
the brakes on the peace process, and only a perfunctory attempt, only a 
half-hearted attempt by the United States Administration to revive the 
peace process--that Egypt has stepped in again to use its influence to 
infuse new energy into the complicated dance steps of the Middle East 
peace process. President Mubarak arranged for meetings last month at 
Sharm el-Shiek between Palestinian and Israeli leaders and has shown 
himself to be in the Egyptian tradition in exercising courage and 
creativity to bring the parties together again. Indeed, President 
Mubarak has assigned a key aide to act as a troubleshooter and 
intermediary between the Israelis and Palestinians, and has sponsored 
an ongoing dialogue which has been praised by U.S. and Israeli 
officials alike. This Egyptian initiative, in fact, appears to be the 
only game in town at this time.
  So I think it is very unfortunate that just at the time when Egypt is 
playing this central and responsible role, the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee has chosen to take the 
extraordinarily unfair and puzzling step of removing the earmark of 
funds in the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for Egypt, while at 
the same time preserving the earmark for Israel. As my colleagues are 
aware, those earmarks have been the practice ever since the Camp David 
Accords, the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, were signed in 
1979.
  I was at the signing, and I had had the pleasure and the privilege of 
talking with President Sadat, the President of Egypt, in 1978, in 
Egypt. A courageous man, President Sadat, was leader in breaking the 
ice, and thus giving peace a chance, a chance in the Middle East.
  So, the subcommittee action, now, sends precisely the wrong signal to 
the Egyptians, whose assassinated leader was the pioneer in this peace 
process, who gave his life that there might be peace in the Middle 
East.
  Egypt should be commended for its diplomatic actions vis-a-vis the 
Palestinians and Israelis, not seemingly punished for her courage. Is 
Israel to be symbolically rewarded for the unnecessary and provocative 
action it has taken in building entirely unnecessary housing 
settlements in sensitive Arab lands? To add insult to this injury, the 
subcommittee has also taken the controversial step of approving $250 
million for Jordan out of what is understood to be Egypt's account in 
the bill. While I certainly do not take issue with rewarding Jordan and 
King Hussein for signing the 1994 peace treaty with Israel and for 
helping on the matter of Israeli partial withdrawal from the West Bank 
city of Hebron earlier this year, it is far preferable and much more 
fair that the money for Jordan come equally from both Egypt's and 
Israeli's earmarks.
  Madam President, I do not agree with the concept of earmarks of the 
very large magnitude that we have been making for both Israel and 
Egypt.
  In my view, too much money goes to both nations--too much money. For 
years, this has been considered as something that was due them.
  I think such a foreign entitlement program should eventually be 
phased out and eliminated. But if we are going to give such earmarks as 
a tool of American diplomacy and foreign policy, at the very least they 
must fairly reflect this Nation's goals.
  These earmarks have been looked upon virtually as entitlements by 
both nations, Egypt and Israel. And while we in this Chamber struggle 
annually over the budget deficits in attempts to get them under 
control, while we cut discretionary spending for America, for the 
American people, while both the administration and the Republican 
regime on Capitol Hill continue to reduce discretionary spending, 
discretionary caps, and to ratchet down the spending for programs and 
projects beneficial to the American people, the taxpayers of this 
country, and help to build infrastructure in this country, all kinds of 
questions are asked and the game of one-upmanship is played as to who 
can cut the most.
  I am an admirer and supporter of Israel. But are there any questions 
asked when it comes to funding programs in Israel? Are there any 
questions asked when it comes to this being looked upon as an 
entitlement figure for Israel and Egypt? No questions asked.
  Are the American taxpayers fully aware that Congress and the 
Administration, every year, without any questions asked--no questions 
asked--provide $3 billion to Israel and $2 billion to Egypt, no 
questions asked, while we cut funding for water projects, sewage 
projects, highways, harbors, bridges, education, health, law 
enforcement, and Indian programs? We cut those programs. But no 
questions are asked when it comes to this entitlement of $3 billion 
annually for Israel and $2 billion annually for Egypt.
  I am against those earmarks, but if we are going to have them, at 
least they must fairly reflect the Nation's goals.

[[Page S6021]]

  What has been done as of yesterday on this matter by the subcommittee 
is flagrantly unfair and does a disservice to Egypt, to the United 
States, as well, and to our national interests in the basic process of 
making peace in the Middle East. I strongly oppose this action, and I 
hope that it can be corrected when the bill gets to the full 
Appropriations Committee next week, and if it isn't corrected there, 
then the attempt will be made at least to correct it on this floor. The 
action has not gone unnoticed.
  The Ambassador from Egypt and I have discussed this matter. He came 
to my office a couple of days ago, and then we have been in discussions 
since on the telephone. I received a thoughtful letter from him which I 
may wish to share with my colleagues. The Ambassador is disappointed 
and perplexed by the subcommittee action, as am I, and as true friends 
should be, true friends of Israel and Egypt should be. I hope it can be 
corrected before even more damage is done.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me, this 
date, from the Honorable Ahmed Maher El Sayed, the Egyptian Ambassador, 
be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    Embassy of the


                                       Arab Republic of Egypt,

                                                    June 20, 1997.
     Hon. Robert Byrd,
     U.S. Senate, Senate Hart Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Byrd: It was, as usual, an intellectual 
     delight to talk to you last Wednesday to share with you the 
     lessons of wisdom from the Bible and ancient Greece, and 
     their meaning in the present circumstances. I particularly 
     appreciate your giving me so much time, in a very busy 
     schedule, so that I may appreciate again your sense of 
     objectivity and fairness, as well as your deep insight of 
     things.
       Unfortunately, action was taken by the Foreign Operations 
     Subcommittee to strike the earmark for assistance to Egypt, 
     while keeping it for Israel.
       While I know your general position regarding the aid 
     program to Egypt and Israel, I also know that your sense of 
     fairness would not support treating Egypt in such a 
     discriminatory manner.
       I would also like to set the record straight concerning 
     Egypt's position in response to certain allegations which 
     were made:
       1. The non-attendance by President Mubarak, of the summit 
     held in Washington last September was based on his assessment 
     that Prime Minister Netanyahu was not ready, at this meeting, 
     to take steps conducive to the advancement of the cause of 
     peace. President Clinton clearly understood the motives of 
     President Mubarak, and King Hussein of Jordan was quoted, 
     after the meeting, as saying that in, hindsight, President 
     Mubarak was justified in not attending.
       2. The role of Egypt in reaching an agreement on Hebron was 
     crucial. It was an Egyptian proposal which constituted the 
     basis of the agreement. The Jordanian officials have 
     recognized publicly that their proposal which led to the 
     agreement is built on an Egyptian suggestion of a 
     compromise. The American Peace Team recognized the 
     Egyptian vital contribution to the solution.
       3. Egypt did not lead an effort to reimpose the boycott on 
     Israel. What happened is that at a regular meeting of the 
     Arab League at its seat in Cairo, a unanimous decision was 
     taken to revise steps taken toward normalization with Israel 
     if it persisted in policies clearly contradicting its 
     obligations. The resolution did not include countries bound 
     by Treaties with Israel, i.e. Egypt and Jordan.
       4. Relations between Egypt and Israel are normal, which 
     does require neither subscribing by one party to the policies 
     of the other, nor mandatory trade and travel. There exists on 
     our part no restriction on trade and travel to Isreal, and 
     far from stagnating, the two fields have seen in the last 
     years, significant progress. A warm relation is one that is 
     built through the years given the right circumstances; what 
     is required, and in existence, are normal relations. It is 
     not an unusual state of affairs that relations between 
     countries fluctuate with the acuity of political problems. 
     Egypt and Israel are bound by 16 agreements and protocols 
     which have been implemented or being normally implemented.
       5. I would like to remind you that Egypt out of its deep 
     commitment to peace in the region, has embarked on a major 
     effort to create conditions to bring the Palestinians and the 
     Israelis back to the negotiating table. President Mubarak is 
     personally involved in this effort. He has met with Prime 
     Minister Netanyahu in Sharm El Sheikh, and since then 
     contacts have been maintained both with the Israelis and 
     Palestinians.
       6. Our ties with Libya are normal relations between 
     neighbors in the context of the respect of UN Resolutions. 
     Our influence has been a moderating one.
       All these points have been clearly explained by President 
     Mubarak to distinguished members of Congress he met on 
     various occasions, and thereofre, I do not believe that there 
     is any justification in raising from the dead arguments and 
     misrepresentations that had been laid to rest by the reality 
     as recognized by most Egypt has been and continues to be a 
     pioneer of peace, an anchor of stability in the Middle East, 
     and a fierce defendant of the rule of law and legitimacy for 
     which we fought side by side. Without its contribution and 
     its courageous stands, as well as its cooperation with the 
     US, it would not be envisageable to move towards achieving 
     our common goals of peace and prosperity, and overcome the 
     hurdles which Egypt is working very hard to overcome.
       Best and warm regards,
           Sincerely,
                                             Ahmed Maher El Saved.

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMS addressed the Chair.

                          ____________________