[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 78 (Tuesday, June 16, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4613-H4615]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




SPEAKER'S ACTION WITH RESPECT TO U.S. POLICY IN MIDDLE EAST COMES UNDER 
                                 ATTACK

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. OBEY. Mr. Speaker, I have great reverence for this House and 
great respect for the office of the Speakership. It is, after all, the 
third highest office in the land, and despite partisan attachment, the 
Speaker, as the leader of the legislative branch of government, serves 
as a symbolic representative of every Member. The manner in which he 
fulfills that role reflects, like it or not, on all of us.
  That is why I must express great regret about the recent action of 
Speaker Gingrich with respect to U.S. policy in the Middle East. In my 
view, this represents the most reckless and destructive undermining of 
an American peace effort that I have ever seen.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been closely involved with U.S. policy toward the 
Middle East since 1974, when I first began my service on the 
Subcommittee on Foreign Operations of the Committee on Appropriations. 
From 1984 until 1994, I chaired that subcommittee. I think it is fair 
to say that during that time, every effort by any American President to 
pull Arabs and Israel toward peace was supported on a bipartisan basis 
by our subcommittee and by the Congress as a whole.
  When President Carter, at great political risk to himself, pressured 
both the Egyptian and Israeli Governments to reach an agreement at Camp 
David, the Congress supported his action. When President Reagan and 
Secretary Shultz withheld debt restructuring from Israel until its 
government adopted economic reforms that were a necessary precondition 
for bringing rampant inflation under control, the Congress supported 
that tough medicine in a bipartisan fashion, and that enabled us to 
provide some crucial help to stabilize Israel's economy.
  When President Bush courageously withheld loan guarantees from Israel 
until Israeli policy on West Bank settlements no longer conflicted with 
long-standing American policy, those of us in positions of 
responsibility supported him, and the peace process moved forward.
  The historic ceremony that celebrated the Oslo Accords reached 
between Mr. Arafat, representing the Palestinians, and Prime Minister 
Rabin, representing the State of Israel and hosted by President 
Clinton, would never have occurred if it had not been for President 
Bush's courage.

                              {time}  1815

  Since that time the road to peace in the Middle East has been harmed 
because of foot dragging by the Syrian government, because of vicious 
terrorist activities by Palestinian extremists, the sometimes 
disingenuous actions of the Palestinian leadership and, most of all, 
because of the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin by a rabid anti-
peace Israeli citizen. The collapse of that peace process would have 
grave implications for every party in the Middle East. It also would 
have grave consequences for the United States, for our security, for 
our world influence and even for the safety of our citizens at home and 
abroad.
  Recognizing that fact after much patient hand holding with both 
sides, President Clinton, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, 
Assistant Secretary Martin Indyk and our tireless Mideast negotiator, 
Ambassador Dennis Ross, presented to both sides their best assessment 
of what interim steps needed to be taken to keep the peace process from 
collapsing. At that point the Speaker of this House took a number of 
actions, the result of which clearly undercut and undermined U.S. peace 
making efforts in the region and raised the risk of catastrophe.
  First, the Speaker described America's Secretary of State as being an 
agent of the Palestinians in negotiations. He then attacked President 
Clinton for turning America into a bully in the peace process because 
the President, acting as an honest broker between the parties, has 
courageously and frankly spelled out to both sides the best assessment 
by our negotiators of what minimum actions would be required to keep 
the Oslo process alive.
  The United States is not today and has never been a bully in the 
Middle East process. Quite the contrary. It has been an incredibly 
generous benefactor. The United States has provided Israel with $75 
billion in direct U.S. assistance and $10 billion in loan guarantees. 
Sixty-five billion dollars of that has been provided since 1977, and 
those numbers do not count various other packages of assistance that 
this Congress has provided through less direct and less obvious means. 
Under President Clinton alone Israel has received $18.7 billion in 
direct aid and $8 billion in loan guarantees plus a number of 
additional valuable items. For that kind of money the President has not 
just the right, but an obligation, to provide leadership toward a peace 
settlement especially when we have been invited by both sides to do so.
  Now a letter from the Speaker alleges that the administration's, 
quote, strong-arm tactics send a clear symbol to supporters of 
terrorism that the murderous actions are an effective tool in forcing 
concessions from Israel, end quote. In my view that kind of rhetoric 
completely ignores the facts and in my view is the worst kind of 
excess. President Clinton's record in fighting terrorism is exquisitely 
clear, strong and consistent, especially in the Mideast. In 1996, after 
a horrible series of attacks in March, President Clinton traveled to 
Israel and along with 20 other world leaders vowed to renew the fight

[[Page H4614]]

against terrorism and pledged an additional $100 million to assist in 
that effort. To make matters worse, after the Speaker wrote his letter, 
he then traveled to Israel and gave Israeli leaders the clear message 
that in any disagreement between the Clinton administration and the 
Israeli government that they and not the President could count on the 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, the Logan Act provides as follows:
  Quote: Any citizen of the United States who carries on any 
intercourse with any foreign government with intent to influence its 
measure of conduct in relation to any dispute or controversies with the 
United States shall be fined or imprisoned not more than 3 years or 
both.
  I will not suggest that the Speaker violated the Logan Act by 
imposing U.S. policy in conversations with the leaders of other 
governments, although he, in fact, years ago did accuse a previous 
Speaker, Speaker Wright, myself and a number of others of doing so. 
What raised Mr. Gingrich's ire at the time was a much more limited 
action which consisted of our simply writing a letter to the then 
President of Nicaragua. In the letter we indicated that even though we 
were publicly known to be opponents of U.S. military aid to the Contras 
we nonetheless urged him to support the principle of open and fair 
elections in his country, and when he did, by the way, he was voted out 
of office.
  No, I will not accuse the Speaker of that action although there is 
one clear difference between our actions and that case and the actions 
of the Speaker in this one. Our letter asks Mr. Ortega to do something 
that was fully consistent with U.S. policy, to support such elections. 
In contrast, Speaker Gingrich's counsel to Israel was to feel free to 
resist U.S. policy.
  When Mr. Gingrich was attacking Mr. Wright, he told the House during 
the course of debate, quote, it is not the business of the legislative 
branch to be engaged in negotiations with foreign leaders, to be 
talking directly with people as though they were the executive branch. 
The history is clear over and over that that is precisely what they, 
the Founding Fathers, were terrified of because of the Articles of 
Confederation, end quote.
  It should be noted that the letter that Mr. Gingrich attempted to 
bring into question was consistent with this Nation's foreign policy 
not only with respect to what it requested of Nicaragua, but also with 
respect to other comments which it might have contained but did not. 
Unlike the Speaker's present actions, our letter made no criticism of 
any U.S. official, diplomat or negotiator representing our Government 
in the region. It certainly contained no offer or indication that the 
Congress, acting separately from the executive, would respond with any 
assistance or other incentive if its separate policy conditions were 
met. By contrast, Mr. Gingrich is openly critical of the offers made 
and the positions taken by those whose responsibility it is to 
negotiate on behalf of the United States. He has virtually invited a 
foreign government not to take the deal that his own government has 
offered. His actions undercut the ability of the Secretary of State to 
pursue peace in the region.
  Mr. Speaker, the actions and utterances of Speaker Gingrich can 
produce downright dangerous results. If any of us contribute to the 
illusion that there can be any long term security for Israel or anyone 
else with interests in the region so long as there is no progress on 
the peace front, we invite tragedy.
  As Tom Friedman, the respected Pulitzer Prize winning columnist from 
the New York Times, said recently, quote, believe it or not, there is 
still a Middle East. Out there pressure is mounting to bring Iraq back 
into the Arab fold. Saudi Arabia is trying to organize an Arab 
conference. It would probably freeze Israel-Arab relations as long as 
the peace process is frozen. The Hamas leader, Sheik Yassin, has just 
completed a triumphant money-raising tour of Arab capitals as part of 
his goal to wipe out Yasser Arafat, and then Israel, and Jordan is 
terrified that Mr. Netanyahu is going to reject the U.S. plan and make 
it impossible for Jordan to sustain its relationship with Israel. Mr. 
Friedman then goes on to say, we have seen this sort of pro-Israel 
muscle beach party before where everyone thinks that the only reality 
is U.S.-Israel politics and that everyone else is a paper tiger. It was 
15 years ago when on May 17, 1983, the Reagan team in Israel's Likud 
government crammed down the throats of the Lebanese an unbalanced, 
totally pro-Israel plan for the withdrawal of most, but not all, 
Israeli troops from Lebanon. But the May 17th agreement was never 
implemented. The U.S. marine compound in Beirut was blown up 5 months 
after it was signed, and both the marines and Israel had to pull out of 
central Lebanon unilaterally at great cost and leaving an enormous 
mess.

  Now, Mr. Speaker, both the Arab world and Israel have lost great 
leaders, have literally given their lives for peace. I remember talking 
to President Sadat in Egypt shortly after Camp David. In a long 
conversation I asked him if he thought that the new agreement at Camp 
David represented a separate peace between Israel and Egypt or whether 
it would be the first step in a comprehensive peace process that would 
address the Palestinian problem. I do not know, he replied, but if it 
is not the latter, I will be dead within 5 years. And he was.
  The last time I saw Yitzhak Rabin, whom I had grown to love and 
respect over 20 years, he asked me two things. The first was to do my 
best to keep Congress from interjecting itself into relations between 
the executive branches of our two governments. He felt strongly, going 
back to the time of his negotiations with President Nixon, that 
negotiations should be between the two executives. The second was to 
prevent well meaning but misguided friends of Israel in the Congress 
from taking actions that would prevent the U.S. Government from dealing 
directly with the PLO. ``If you cannot deal with them,'' he said, ``you 
lose your unique position as the only party in the world who can serve 
as an honest broker in our neighborhood, and if you cannot deal with 
the PLO, then there is only Hamas, the extremist militant 
rejectionists, and that would be disaster.''
  Shortly thereafter the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hamilton), the 
ranking Democrat on the House Committee on International Relations, was 
exploring opportunities to obtain a unanimous consent agreement on the 
House floor to bring up legislation that would have renewed the 
authority for the U.S. Government to deal with the PLO. It was made 
clear by a junior Member on the Republican side of the aisle that an 
objection would be lodged if that request were offered. At that point I 
approached Mr. Gingrich on the House floor, and I said, ``Newt, please. 
You can't let this happen. It will make it harder for Rabin to move the 
peace process forward.''
  He looked at me and said, ``Dave, you have to understand. I am 
Likud.''
  Shortly thereafter Rabin was assassinated. After that, the objections 
disappeared, and the legislation was passed, and some of the same 
politicians who on this floor blocked action before Rabin died 
scrambled to then climb on board after he died, and their action 
brought to mind, at least to me, Will Rogers' observation that nothing 
is quite as pitiful as the sight of a flock of politicians in full 
flight from their own responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, there are human lives on the line. Our taxpayers have 
invested countless billions and a major portion of our total storehouse 
of foreign-policy resources, military, economic, diplomatic toward the 
goal of preventing future wars in this region and alleviating the 
tensions that result on an almost weekly basis in deaths from terrorism 
and organized military action. At this particular moment that 
investment is seriously at risk. The last thing the United States needs 
is a loose cannon rummaging around the Middle East making an 
uncoordinated and unauthorized representation of U.S. policy or 
legislative policy. Mr. Gingrich on this issue does not speak for the 
U.S. Government, he does not speak for the State Department, he does 
not speak for the United States Senate, and he does not speak for this 
House. He is certainly entitled to voice his views on foreign policy 
publicly, even if they are contrary to the policy of the U.S. 
Government. The Constitution gives every American, including Members of 
Congress, the right to be wrong. It even gives them the right to make 
fools of themselves.

[[Page H4615]]

                              {time}  1830

  However, Mr. Speaker, the Speaker of this House is not entitled to 
act unilaterally as an independent emissary representing his own 
personal foreign policy; he is not entitled to act like the Secretary 
of State in waiting. I would like to continue to believe that he is not 
putting domestic politics above the national interest.
  Mr. Speaker, as Pat Holt, writing for the Christian Science Monitor 
wrote last week, quote, ``One of the so far unsurmountable difficulties 
is that neither most Jews nor most Palestinians are willing to admit 
that the other side has always suffered legitimate grievances. If 
either group could see their dispute through the eyes of each other, 
the peace process would take a giant leap forward.''
  Instead, in my view, the Speaker's actions are likely to make that 
leap more difficult.
  Mr. Speaker, U.S. Presidents have consistently exerted pressure on 
Israel as a friend and ally in the context of obtaining diplomatic 
solutions to complex problems. In 1973 under President Nixon, the 
United States threatened to reassess Israeli relations in order to 
secure withdrawals in the 1973 war. President Carter exercised his 
influence over Menachem Begin at Camp David to grant concessions on 
giving the Sinai Peninsula back to Egypt. He also exercised his 
influence over Anwar Sadat to not insist on concessions beyond Camp 
David to the Palestinians. Both of those actions were necessary to move 
the process forward. President Bush took a courageous stand in 1991 to 
withhold support for U.S. loan guarantees to Israel until 
understandings on Israeli settlements were reached.
  These were all tough actions taken by U.S. leaders to help a friend, 
and Israel is a friend, while at the same time protecting U.S. national 
interests. What the Speaker has done, in my view, is to make it more 
difficult for Israel to make tough decisions that it needs to think 
through and make for their own long-term interests.
  That is no doubt why the column written about this episode by Thomas 
Friedman in The New York Times was headlined, ``Brainless in Gaza.'' It 
is also probably why Richard Cohen of the Washington Post wrote, quote, 
``Whatever the case, the Speaker is playing with fire. Netanyahu is a 
notoriously unpredictable fellow who vacillates between accommodating 
the Palestinians and rebuffing them. He has an inflated view of his 
standing in Congress. (The Israeli press quoted him as vowing to 'burn 
down Washington' if Clinton publicly blamed him for scuttling the peace 
process), which Gingrich has done precious little to correct. His 
political allies are some of the most reactionary and fanatical 
elements in Israeli society, zealots who want land more than peace. 
They know what God intends. Others, though, are less sure. In fact, a 
good many Israelis think there will be no security until Israel and the 
Palestinians reach an agreement about land. Gingrich has now 
complicated that process, encouraging Netanyahu in his intransigence 
and Arab radicals in their bitterness.''
  Mr. Speaker, I would add parenthetically, it also makes it easier for 
cynical Palestinian rejectionists to undercut any willingness displayed 
by the PLO leadership to live up to their promises.
  Richard Cohen then concluded his column as follows: Quote, ``If the 
Nobel Committee gives a booby prize for peace, this year's winner is a 
foregone conclusion. Newt, take a bow.''
  Mr. Speaker, the world's Jews and Israelis in particular have paid a 
terrible price for the world's intermittent fits of insanity. Israel 
would not have been created without the actions of the United States 50 
years ago in trying to create a place that would be a sanctuary for 
that insanity.
  Because we helped create the State of Israel, we have a special 
obligation to stand by it and to assure its survival. But with that 
obligation comes a concurrent obligation to be frank and truthful with 
them and the world about what steps we believe are necessary to change 
the Middle East into a neighborhood that is safer for Israel's 
survival. For any American President to be silent in the face of 
Israeli indecision or miscalculation would be the ultimate failure of 
friendship. The President and our negotiators, who long ago have 
demonstrated their concern for Israel's future, have courageously 
recognized that.
  Now, ultimately, the hard decisions that need to be made are Israeli 
and Palestinian decisions. The President and our negotiators have long 
ago demonstrated that they understand that too. Let them make those 
decisions in honest dialogue in partnership with the steady and 
knowledgeable American hands who have worked with them under Republican 
and Democratic administrations alike. Let them not be misled by new-to-
the-scene kibitzers in Congress who, despite their bravado, do not 
really know the territory or the sensitivities and cross-currents and 
intricacies that shape it.
  It may be popular for individual Members of Congress to issue 
pronouncements that tell our friends at home and abroad what they want 
to hear, but that is not what dangerous situations require. They 
require thoughtful, measured and judicious cooperation between the 
executive and legislative branches of government. That, unfortunately, 
has not been forthcoming from this congressional leadership on this 
issue. It is about time that it is.

                          ____________________