An interview with Rep. Benjamin Gilman

Benjamin Gilman is one the most senior members of the House of Representatives. A congressman from Orange County, New York, Gilman has been chairman of the powerful House International Relations Committee. His panel sets the congressional agenda on foreign policy and foreign aid.

Gilman is a mild-mannered man but he says he's determined to cross President Bill Clinton on the issue of Iran. He sponsored a bill that would impose sanctions on Russian companies that helped Iran but Clinton vetoed it. Gilman did not press the issue. This year, he says, Iran has continued to develop ballistic missiles and nonconventional weapons thanks to Moscow's help. As a result, Gilman will press for another bill that will pass Congress and override a Clinton veto.

Gilman was interviewed during his current Middle East tour by Steve Rodan.

Q. Do you think a new bill on sanctions for companies that help Iran's missile and nonconventional weapons program can pass Congress?

A. We're trying to focus on the companies that are doing business with Iran as well as to focus on the government that allows this. We're trying to draft a new bill that would put more teeth into sanctions.

Q. Why didn't you try to override a sanctions bill last year after President Clinton vetoed it?

A. They begged us to hold off. When the president and the secretary of state appeal to you to let them work things out, it's hard not to be cooperative. But they didn't work things out. As far as we know, there has been a substantial improvement in the development of the Iranian intermediate-range missile.

Q. Is there enough support in Congress to overrride a presidential veto?

A. We're introducing the sanctions bill when we get back to Washington from our current trip abroad. We haven't resolved some issues, especially the use of multilateral applications. There is a shift in Congress against sanctions. But there is plenty of support for it. Senator [Jesse] Helms has put a piece together explaining why sanctions are important.

Q. In the past, you have demanded that the Palestinian Authority demonstrate transparency in accounting for spending of U.S. aid. Have you been satisifed with PA efforts?

A. We put a $10 million hold on the U.S. contribution to the Holst Fund because we wanted the PA to open its books. The PA refused, so we held back the money. The Clinton administration then gave that money to Jordan. So, at least we were helping the king. There is always a question of transparency with the PA.

Q. The Wye River accords provides $1.9 billion to Israel, Jordan and the PA. The White House wants to take about $200 million of the funds from allocations for anti-missile defense. How will Congress resolve this?

A. We're getting all the points together on this and we'll be negotiating the issue over the next few weeks. There is heightened support for anti-missile defense, especially with the lastest assessments that North Korea has missile technology that can lead to a missile that will strike the United States.

Q. How do you see the U.S. intervention in Kosovo? Some Europeans complain that the president was wrong in thinking that Yugoslav President Milosevic would back down by threats alone.

A. I think the president was up front that this would not be a simple operation. This involves a human rights operation, a prevention of ethnic cleansing and the danger of being drawn into a wider conflict. Congress has been supportive of NATO and our allies have been supportive. I don't think the president has misled them.

Q. Does Congress support a ground offensive in Kosovo?

A. There's a great deal of reluctance on this. We'll have to see.

Q. How do you envision U.S. aid to America's Middle East allies such as Israel and Egypt in fiscal year 2000?

A. Military aid to Israel will remain the same. We have a House budget resolution that calls for deep cuts. But the speaker will have to resolve this and I think the aid levels will continue. We are confronted with offsets and the need to provide aid to many areas of the world. We're going to have to work this out.