Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, Pages 28-29

Congress Watch

Health Care Has Center Stage, but Iran, Afghanistan Draw Congressional Attention

By Shirl McArthur

During late summer and early autumn members of Congress were mostly preoccupied with the health care debate, but some still found time to react to developments in Afghanistan and Iran.

Congressional Democratic voices were largely muted while President Barack Obama and his advisers were extensively re-evaluating American involvement in Afghanistan, to decide what the best next course of action should be. With public opposition to the military action in Afghanistan increasing, congressional liberals have been generally opposed to increasing troop levels, as recommended by Commander of U.S. Forces in Afghanistan Gen. Stanley McChrystal. Most, however, have hesitated publicly to question Obama’s policies, since he and they are of the same party. All, including Obama, agreed that simply pulling U.S. forces out of Afghanistan is not an option at this time. Most Democrats apparently have favored a variation of McChrystal’s recommendations that would rely on expedited training of Afghan soldiers, increased Predator drone attacks against al-Qaeda targets, and support for Pakistan in its fight against the Taliban, but would keep the current troop levels.

Those Democrats who did speak out did so in terms of opposing an expanded military presence in Afghanistan. Even such long-time anti-war activists as Reps. Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Maxine Waters (D-CA) and co-chair of the 83-member Congressional Progressive Caucus Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) did not urge pulling troops out of Afghanistan at this time. McGovern on Sept. 8 issued a statement opposing sending additional troops and urging that the administration develop an exit strategy for Afghanistan. Later he sent a variation of that statement in a letter to Obama signed by 57 House members. In the Senate, Armed Services Committee chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) and Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA) argued for taking other measures before committing more forces to Afghanistan. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) urged concentrating on disrupting al-Qaeda.

On the other hand, Senate Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), and including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), seemed inclined to give McChrystal what he asked for.

In any case, any new resources for Afghanistan above the $128 billion for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan included in the Defense Appropriations bill (which has been passed by both houses of Congress but not yet reconciled by a conference committee) will have to be approved by Congress, which could mean that Obama will have to rely on Republican support.

Meanwhile, two new measures regarding Afghanistan were introduced in the House. On Oct. 1 Lee, with 22 co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 3699, which would “prohibit any increase in the numbers of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan.” Also on Oct. 1, after widespread allegations of fraud in the recent Afghanistan elections, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), with two co-sponsors, introduced H.Res. 794, “calling for a runoff election in Afghanistan between the two top finishers.”

Iran Sanctions Bills Gain Traction After Jewish Lobbying Effort

A Sept. 10 so-called “fly-in” by a coalition of Jewish groups to lobby for the passage of new, “crippling” sanctions on Iran resulted in a burst of co-sponsors for the two AIPAC-pushed bills that would increase the level of financial penalties against Iran and would include as sanctionable activities aiding in the development of Iran’s petroleum resources or providing or facilitating the export of refined petroleum resources to Iran. Since Sept. 10, H.R. 2194, introduced by House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) chairman Howard Berman (D-CA), has gained 33 co-sponsors and now has 328, including Berman. S. 908, introduced by Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), has gained three co-sponsors and now has 76, including Bayh.

Also on Sept. 10, Berman issued a statement on Iran, followed on Sept. 26 by an expanded version as an “op-ed” piece in The Washington Post in which Berman said, among other things, that he has “no illusions” about whether Obama’s efforts to engage Iran’s leaders diplomatically can succeed, and that “absent some compelling evidence as to why I should do otherwise,” he would “mark up” (have his committee take action on) H.R. 2194 in October.

In addition, the bills that would “authorize state and local governments to direct divestiture from, and prevent investment in, companies with investments of $20,000,000 or more in Iran’s energy sector” have gained co-sponsors. H.R. 1327, introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), has made progress. H.R. 1327, introduced by Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), was passed by the House under “suspension of the rules” on Oct. 14. When passed, it had 258 co-sponsors, including Frank. S. 1065, introduced by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), has gained five co-sponsors and has 35, including Brownback. However, the two measures described in the November issue of the Washington Report that would “prohibit the heads of executive agencies from entering into or renewing procurement contracts with persons that export certain computer or telecommunications technologies to Iran” have lagged. H.R. 3284, introduced by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) in July, has gained six co-sponsors and now has nine, including Sherman. But S. 1475, introduced in July by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), still has only one co-sponsor besides Schumer.

In the Senate, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) on Sept. 29 announced that he was preparing to introduce a new, comprehensive Iran sanctions bill, to give the president “the ability to impose tough, targeted sanctions if Iran does not respond to our final diplomatic effort in the coming weeks.” According to a press release on his Web site, Dodd’s bill would basically encompass all the measures described above, including expanding the range of financial sanctions; imposing new sanctions on entities involved in exporting certain refined petroleum products to Iran or helping build Iran’s petroleum-refining capacity; imposing a broad ban on direct exports and imports to and from Iran; authorizing divestiture from companies investing in Iran’s energy sector, and strengthening export controls to stop the illegal export of sensitive technology to countries like Iran.

Following Iran’s Sept. 21 disclosure of its uranium enrichment facility near Qom, Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) introduced the non-binding H.Res. 782, “demanding that the Government of Iran immediately disclose the existence of any additional nuclear-related facilities and provide unfettered access to its Qom enrichment facility.” The measure has 53 co-sponsors in addition to Johnson.

Other Iran and Syria Sanctions Bills Make Limited Progress

Even the two bills introduced by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) back in February to strengthen and toughen sanctions against Iran and Syria have gained a few co-sponsors. H.R. 1208, which would amend the Iran Sanctions Act to, among other things, expand the list of sanctionable activities and sanctionable persons has gained seven co-sponsors and now has 121, including Ros-Lehtinen. H.R. 1206, which would strengthen sanctions against Syria and “enhance multilateral commitment to address [Syria’s] threatening policies,” has gained three co-sponsors and now has 84.

One new bill affecting Iran and Syria was introduced. On Sept. 22 Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced H.R. 3611 “to restrict the diplomatic travel of officials and representatives” of countries designated as state sponsors of terrorism, which would include Iran and Syria. It is more restrictive than other similar measures, in that it would limit the travel of delegates and other officials of these countries attending meetings of the United Nations to no more than one-half mile of the U.N. complex between 42nd and 48th streets in New York City, with exceptions for direct travel to and from JFK airport and to and from their lodgings. The bill includes a presidential waiver provision. It has 48 co-sponsors, including Broun.

A New Anti-Arab-Boycott Bill, but Jerusalem Bill Gains No Support

On Sept. 15, Graham, with two co-sponsors, introduced S. 1671 to expand reporting requirements on the Arab League trade boycott of Israel. It would require the U.S. trade representative to send to Congress a nine-part report on each country participating in a formal or informal boycott of Israel. However, the Jerusalem bill described in the November Washington Report, H.R. 3412 introduced in July by Reps. Dan Burton (R-IN) and Ros-Lehtinen, still has only three co-sponsors. It would remove the presidential waiver authority from the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995, and, if the U.S. Embassy in Israel isn’t established in Jerusalem by January 2012, would withhold some State Department funding.

Goldstone Report Draws Predictable Congressional Condemnation

The release of the Goldstone report condemning Israel (and Hamas) of “war crimes as well as possible crimes against humanity” during Israel’s December/January assault on Gaza prompted a righteous condemnation from Israel’s congressional defenders. Among House members condemning the report (and, in some cases, the U.N.) were Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Shelley Berkley (D-NV), Burton, Eliot Engel (D-NY), Gary Peters (D-MI), Ros-Lehtinen, and Todd Tiahrt (R-KS).

In the Senate, Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) sent a letter, signed by 29 other senators, to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sept. 29 urging that the U.S. “work very hard to block any punitive actions against Israel that this report mentions.”