Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, January-February 2008, pages 23-25

Congress Watch

Congressional Letter Provided Positive Backdrop to Annapolis Conference

By Shirl McArthur

In a rare display of congressional constructiveness, the Nov. 26-27 Annapolis conference was preceded by a Nov. 19 bipartisan letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, originated by Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Charles Boustany (R-LA) and signed by 133 other House members. The letter commended Rice for her “efforts to reinvigorate the Israeli-Palestinian peace process” and suggested that additional near-term measures will be necessary. In addition to urging “robust, hands-on U.S. leadership and diplomacy,” it recommends a reorientation of U.S. project-focused assistance programs to meet the immediate needs of the Palestinian people and to leverage international support “for financial and personnel reforms in the Palestinian Authority, for housing or other labor intensive projects, for the effective operation of a Palestinian police force and an independent Palestinian judiciary, and for long-term economic development and job creation programs.” It also urges engaging “with Israel to coordinate a remittance schedule for Palestinian tax monies and to improve access and movement.”

While the letter itself was significant, equally significant is the list of its signers and the support it received from a broad range of organizations. Boustany is one of the House’s four Arab-American members, all of whom signed the letter, and Ackerman is Jewish and a strong supporter of Israel. He was joined in signing the letter by 11 other Jewish House members, including Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), who has long been one of Israel’s most fervent supporters. (The full list of signers can be found on the Web site of Churches for Middle East Peace’s [CMEP]: <www.cmep.org/alerts/2007Nov20.htm>.) Organizations giving strong support to the letter included Americans for Peace Now, the American Task Force on Palestine, the Arab American Institute, Brit Tzedek v’Shalom, CMEP, and the Israel Policy Forum. AIPAC even gave luke-warm support—not actively lobbying for it, but telling members of Congress, if they asked, that AIPAC is “on board.”

The Ackerman/Boustany letter stands in stark contrast to the previous Senate letter to Rice, described in the December 2007 issue of the Washington Report. Initiated by Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), strongly promoted by AIPAC, and signed by 79 senators, it was designed to assure that Arab states would not attend the conference by urging strict conditions on their attendance. Another negative letter was sent to Rice on Oct. 25 by Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), one of Israel’s more rabid supporters. She said she “could not disagree more” that it is time to establish a Palestinian state, and that it is a “myth” and a “cynical ploy by Middle East autocrats” that the road to stability in the Middle East must go through the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The Annapolis conference and the Ackerman/Boustany letter seem to have taken the steam out of Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) S.Res. 321, which would reaffirm the Senate’s “commitment to a true and lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” and to Rep. Susan Davis’ (D-CA) H.Res. 143 “urging the President to appoint a Special Envoy for Middle East Peace,” both of which were described in previous issues of this magazine. Each having gained only one co-sponsor, S.Res. 321 now has 37 and H.Res. 143 now has 53.

Some Members of Congress Alarmed at Expanded Iran Sanctions

President George W. Bush’s Oct. 25 announcement that he was imposing new, far-reaching and punitive sanctions against Iran prompted concern from some Democrats in Congress that this ratcheting up of tensions with Iran was part of a buildup toward military action. It is known in Washington that Bush has been consulting with such hard-liners as neocon Norman Podhoretz, who was a major force driving the invasion of Iraq and who told London’s Sunday Times in late September that he had urged Bush last spring to bomb Iran. (Podhoretz is also a senior foreign policy adviser to Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani.) Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) said the announcement “not only echoes the chest-pounding rhetoric which preceded the invasion of Iraq in 2002, but also raises the specter of an intensified effort to make the case for an invasion of Iran.”

The sanctions announced by Bush include designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps as a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction and designating the al-Quds Force as a supporter of terrorism. The sanctions also include calling on other countries and companies to stop doing business with three of Iran’s largest banks, Bank Melli, Bank Mellat, and Bank Saderat.

Singling out the Revolutionary Guard echoed the amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, passed by the Senate on Oct. 1 and described in the previous issue of the Washington Report, giving the sense of the Senate that “the U.S. should designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a foreign terrorist organization.” At that time, Sens. James Webb (D-VA) and presidential candidate Joe Biden (D-DE) spoke on the Senate floor against the amendment, with Biden saying, “this administration cannot be trusted.” Other Democratic presidential candidates criticized Sen. Hillary Clinton’s (D-NY) vote for the amendment, saying that she hadn’t learned the lessons from 2002.

The same day as Bush’s Oct. 25 announcement, Sens. Richard Durbin (D-IL) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced S.Res. 356 “affirming that any offensive military action taken against Iran must be explicitly approved by Congress before such action may be initiated.” The resolution has 11 co-sponsors, including Durbin and Sanders (and also including Clinton). On Nov. 1 Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), with no co-sponsors, introduced S.J.Res. 23 “clarifying that the use of force against Iran is not authorized by the Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Iraq, any resolution previously adopted, or any other provision of law.”

Previously in the House, on Sept. 25 Rep. Walter Jones (R-NC) introduced the broader H.J.Res. 53, which would “amend the War Powers Resolution to ensure the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the initiation of hostilities by the Armed Forces, the continued use of the Armed Forces in hostilities, and the participation of the Armed Forces in military operations of the United Nations.” The resolution has seven co-sponsors. And the previously described H.R. 3119, introduced by Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) in July, which would prohibit the use of funds for military operations within or above Iran’s territory without congressional authority, has gained 20 co-sponsors, and now has 26, including Udall.

The anti-Iran bills described in previous issues of the Washington Report basically are stalled. H.R. 1400, the “Iran Counter-Proliferation” bill passed by the House in September, which would impose more sanctions on Iran, was referred to the Senate for its approval and now languishes in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The bill’s Senate counterpart, S. 970, introduced in March by Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), has gained no co-sponsors and still has 68. H.R. 2880, to amend the Iran Sanctions Act to add to the list of sanctionable actions investing in Iran’s petroleum sector or providing Iran with refined petroleum resources, has gained four co-sponsors and now has 27. S. 1430, which would authorize state and local governments to prohibit state and local assets from being invested in companies having more than $20 million in investments in Iran’s energy sector, has gained one co-sponsor and now has 20. H.R. 1357, which would require divestment by U.S. public and private pension plans and mutual funds of companies having made more than $20 million in investments in Iran’s energy sector, has gained three co-sponsors and now has 80.

Taking a different approach, on Nov. 13 Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), with four co-sponsors, introduced H.Con.Res. 257, which expresses “strong concern” over Russia’s sales of arms to Iran and Syria, and urges the president to impose sanctions on the Russian entities engaged in such arms sales.

Senate Republicans Again Block Legislation Calling for Iraq Withdrawal

On Nov. 16 the Senate once again failed to close debate on a bill that would have required Bush to begin a phased withdrawal of troops from Iraq. The bill, H.R. 4156, was passed by the House on Nov. 14 by a vote of 218-203. It would have provided $50 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next four months, but also included a provision that troop withdrawal should begin within 30 days of the bill’s passage, with the military mission in Iraq shifting to specific missions, such as protecting diplomatic missions and helping Iraqi security forces. It included a “goal” that the withdrawal should be completed by Dec. 15, 2008. (Bush requested $196 billion for all of 2008, including $410 million for Palestinian aid; see below.)

The vote in the Senate to close debate was 53-47, seven short of the 60 required to close debate, with Republican Sens. Susan Collins (ME), Chuck Hagel (NE), Gordon Smith (OR), and Olympia Snowe (ME) voting with the Democrats, and Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) voting with the Republicans. Also on Nov. 16, by the same 47-53 vote, the Senate rejected S. 2340, the Republican alternative that would have provided $70 billion with no strings attached.

However, on Nov. 8 Congress passed H.R. 3222, the $471 billion Defense Appropriations bill, which included no provision prohibiting the administration from using some of the money in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Capitol Hill publication Roll Call reported on Nov. 5 that congressional Democrats planned to allow much of this money to be diverted.

Other bills attempting to limit the administration’s actions have made little or no progress. On Oct. 10 Rep. David Price (D-NC) introduced H.R. 3797, which would require the president to “seek to institute a regional diplomatic plan for the Middle East.” It has 33 co-sponsors, including Price. Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA), with no co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 3863 on Oct. 17. It would require troop withdrawal to begin within three months, with a goal of no troops in Iraq within 20 months. On Oct. 23 Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), with two co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 3938, which would repeal the authorization for the use of force in Iraq and require the withdrawal of troops from Iraq be completed by Jan. 20, 2009, when Bush’s successor is to be inaugurated.

H.R. 3087, passed by the House in October, was referred to the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has given no indication that it will be brought to the Senate floor. The bill would simply require the secretary of defense to transmit to Congress “reports on the status of planning for the redeployment of U.S. armed forces from Iraq.” H.R. 2605, which would “sunset” the 2002 authorization for use of military force in Iraq 180 days after H.R. 2605’s passage, has gained two co-sponsors, and now has 25.

Palestinian Aid Requested, Israeli Military Aid Approved

As mentioned above, Bush’s $196 billion emergency supplemental request for 2008 includes $410 million for Palestinian aid. The request is divided into three categories: migration and refugee assistance, $35 million; narcotics control and law enforcement, $25 million, and economic support funds, $350 million. Of the economic support funds, $280 million is for economic growth, $40 million is for “governing justly and democratically,” $20 million is for “investing in people,” and $10 million is for program support.

Meanwhile, the Defense Appropriations bill signed by Bush in early November includes an earmark of $155.6 million for Israeli missile defense programs, mostly the Arrow long-range missile defense system. However, according to AIPAC’s Web site, the total for so-called U.S.-Israeli joint projects, including earmarked and non-earmarked programs, is triple that amount, at $450 million. This is in addition to the $2.4 billion in Israeli military aid included in the foreign aid appropriations bill.

Congress Remains Concerned About Syrian Interference in Lebanon

The House and Senate have both passed bills condemning Syrian interference in Lebanon. On Oct. 15, Ackerman, with three co-sponsors, introduced H.Res. 738 regarding “Syria’s continued interference in the internal affairs of Lebanon.” It was passed the same day, under “suspension of the rules.” Sen. John Sununu (R-NH), with 17 co-sponsors, on Oct. 18 introduced S. Res. 353 “regarding the importance of a sovereign, democratic, and prosperous Lebanon and the need for free and fair presidential elections in Lebanon without intimidation or foreign interference.” It was passed unanimously the same day.

On Nov. 15 Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ), with one co-sponsor, introduced H.Res. 835 “condemning Syria for its destabilizing actions in the Middle East region and calling on Iraq not to reopen its oil pipeline to Syria.” Also, H.R. 2332, introduced in May by Ros-Lehtinen to expand and broaden the sanctions already passed into law by the “Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act of 2003” has gained 33 co-sponsors and now has 113, including Ros-Lehtinen.

However, H.Res. 674, introduced in September by Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL) and described in the previous issue, defending Israel’s unprovoked Sept. 6 attack on a target in Syria, has gained only one co-sponsor and now has 15, including Wexler.

Now There’s a “Saudi Arabia Accountability” Bill

On Oct. 25, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), with two co-sponsors, introduced S. 2243 “to strongly encourage the Government of Saudi Arabia to end its support for institutions that fund, train, incite, encourage, or in any other way aid and abet terrorism, to secure full Saudi cooperation in the investigation of terrorist incidents, [and] to denounce Saudi sponsorship of extremist Wahhabi ideology.” After 18 “findings” describing alleged Saudi transgressions, including an extraneous one concerning the boycott of Israel, the bill would give the “sense of Congress” that Saudi Arabia should take several described steps to rein in organizations and individuals deemed to be supporting terrorism, and that the president should report to appropriate congressional committees when he or she determines that has been done.

On Nov. 15, Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY), with two co-sponsors, introduced H.Con.Res. 262 “expressing the sense of Congress regarding Saudi Arabia’s policies relating to religious practice and tolerance, including Saudi Arabia’s commitment to revise Saudi textbooks to remove intolerant and violent references.”

Regarding Bush’s proposed arms sales to Gulf countries, described in the November issue of the Washington Report, Reps. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Christopher Carney (D-PA) originated a letter to Bush, signed by 188 representatives and sent on Nov. 15, saying that “the administration must guarantee to Congress’ satisfaction that selling JDAMs [joint Direct Attack Munitions] to Saudi Arabia will not harm U.S. forces or our democratic ally Israel. Without such assurances, we will oppose the sale.”

Of the other measures targeting Saudi Arabia and described in the November issue of this magazine, two have made slight progress. H.Con.Res. 194, introduced in July by Rep. Peter King (R-NY), which bemoans the slow progress of education “reform” in Saudi Arabia, has gained a co-sponsor and now has two, including King. H.Con.Res. 202, introduced in August by Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA), which notes the absence of human rights as a topic in the U.S.-Saudi strategic dialogue, has gained nine co-sponsors and now has 13, including Delahunt.

Shirl McArthur, a retired U.S. foreign service officer, is a consultant based in the Washington, DC area.

< Prev		Next >