To return to the new Peace Now website click here.

APN Legislative Round-Up: Week Ending April 30, 2010

1. Bills and resolutions
2. Extensions of remarks on Israel's 63rd birthday
3. House-Senate conference opens on Iran sanctions bill
4. New Pro-Peace sign-on Letter in the House


1. Bills and Resolutions
 
(JERUSALEM) H. Con. Res 271: Introduced 4/29/10 by Rep. Wilson (R-SC) and currently having 30 cosponsors (all Republicans), "Commemorating the 43rd anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. This is a perennial piece of Jerusalem grandstanding legislation that, among other things, demands that the President assert Israel's right to all of Jerusalem and that he move the US embassy to Jerusalem immediately.  Notably, the only time in recent memory that such a resolution has actually passed was in 2007, on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the reunification of Jerusalem.  On that occasion, the whereas clauses and the resolved clauses were significantly altered from the perennial hard-line, anti-peace text, to remove elements that directly contradict longstanding US policy.  On that occasion the final resolved clause was also changed to urge the Palestinians and Arab countries "to join with Israel in peace negotiations to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, including realization of the vision of two democratic states, Israeli and Palestinian, living side-by-side in peace and security."
 
(WEST BANK) H. Con. Res. 270: Introduced 4/28/10 by Rep. Lee (D-CA) and currently having 3 cosponsors, "Calling on the United States Government to investigate the case of Tristan Anderson, a United States citizen from Oakland, California, who was critically injured in the West Bank village of Ni'lin on March 13, 2009, and expressing to Tristan Anderson and his family, friends, and loved ones during this trying time." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

2. Extensions of remarks on Israel's 63rd birthday
 
A number of members of Congress inserted extensions of remarks related to Israeli Independence Day. Some statements simply focused on the strength of the US-Israel relationship (Hoyer, D-MD;  Linda Sanchez, D-CA).  Some used the occasion to press the case for peace (Ellison, D-MN; Markey, D-MA). Others used the occasion to focus attention on Iran (Baca, D-CA) and to reiterate support for tough Iran sanctions (McMahon, D-NY).
 
Others used the occasion to directly or implicitly criticize the Obama Administration's policies.  Rep. Berkley (D-NV), after discussing the historically strong US-Israel relationship, noted that "...We must focus our attention not on minor irritants in our bilateral relationship, but on bringing the parties together to meet face-to-face for negotiations..."  Rep. Pitts (R-PA) accused the President of "causing problems for our ally" and made clear his support for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's view that East Jerusalem "will be part of Israel in any peace settlement considered" (unsurprisingly, Pitts is one of the cosponsors to H. Con. Res. 271, discussed in section 3, below).  Pitts also called on President Obama to "stop giving the cold shoulder to our friends in Israel."). 
 
3. House-Senate conference opens on Iran sanctions bill
 
House and Senate conferees (for full list see last week's round-up) met 4/28/19 in their first public conference to try to bridge the differences between/merge their respective versions of new Iran sanctions legislation (HR 2194 and S. 2799). 
 
As noted last week, the (non-binding) motion to instruct that accompanied the appointment of House conferees stated that conferees were "to complete their work and present a conference report and joint explanatory statement by no later than May 28, 2010."  Both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) have made clear that they plan on moving the legislation quickly after it emerges from conference.
 
In his opening statement, Representative Berman (D-CA), who along with Senator Dodd (D-CT) chaired the conference meeting, went to great lengths to make clear that the goal of the Iran sanctions legislation was not to undermine the Obama Administration's multilateral approach -- despite the fact that, if passed without significant amendments, that is precisely what it will do -- but in effect argued that time was running out and Congress was running out of patience.  He stated, "We should be supportive of the multilateral approach. A multilateral effort is certainly preferable to a strictly unilateral effort. Yet, time is not our friend, and, as we wait to secure multilateral support, Iran and its spinning centrifuges do not wait.  So, although we do not want our bill to undermine the Administration's efforts to achieve a multilateral sanctions regime, we can no longer wait for a Security Council resolution that has been under negotiation for months."  Indeed, Berman virtually placed the Administration on notice, stating that "we certainly could act more flexibly if the Security Council acts urgently and effectively to impose strong sanctions."
 
Berman also hinted at some of the amendments that might be made to the bill in conference.
 
Human rights:  Berman noted that "there are certainly measures we want to add to the bill, especially those dealing with Iran's human rights abuses. We should support measures that would sanction Iranian human-rights abusers and would enhance Iranian citizens' access to the internet and other communications services.

Limited Exemption:  With respect to the Obama Administration's main reservation about the bill, Berman stated: "In order to spur its multilateral diplomacy, the Administration has asked us to include in our legislation the possibility of an exemption from sanctions for companies domiciled in so-called "cooperating countries" - that is, countries that generally cooperate with and contribute to multilateral efforts to isolate Iran economically and politically and to end its nuclear-weapons-related programs. In my view, there is indeed a certain logic to such an exemption, provided it isn't too broad.  Whether our bill includes such an exemption - and the form it should take - will be one of the crucial questions this Conference will decide."  Some members made clear that they would oppose such an exemption, as detailed in this excellent report by Josh Rogin in the Cable.  Further recommended reading: Washington Times and Global Security Newswire.

New Sanctions on Companies that Aid Iran's Energy Sector:  Berman suggested that additional sanctions would be considered, targeting companies "that support Iran's energy sector - beyond its domestic refining capacity - through sales of technology, goods, services, or information."
 
New Financial Sector Sanctions:  Berman suggested that additional sanctions would be considered to "increase Iran's isolation from the international financial sector. Several Iranian financial institutions have been sanctioned over the years because of their connection to money-laundering for purposes related to terrorism and development of weapons of mass destruction. But we now understand that virtually every Iranian financial institution, starting with the Central Bank of Iran, is involved in these types of activities."
 
New Ban on US Contracts with Sanctions Companies:  Berman suggested that additional sanctions would be considered to "put an end to US government contracts for foreign companies that support Iran's energy sector.
 
Compelling the Executive to Take Action and Report:  Berman suggested there could be language added to the bill to change current Iran sanctions law, in order to compel the Executive Branch to implement already existing sanctions. "Our bill should require the President to investigate all reasonable reports of sanctionable activity, make a determination as to whether the reported activity is sanctionable, and, if it is, to go ahead and either impose sanctions or, if he chooses, waive sanctions." Berman noted that in the 14 years since the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act was passed, there has been only one instance where an investment was labeled "sanctionable" (in 1998, by President Clinton), and in that case the sanctions were waived.  He implied that this was simply no longer tolerable for Congress (though it was apparently tolerable under the Bush Administration, which was responsible for 8 of the past 12 years of non-sanctioning).  And he noted that Congress had concerns about "whether or not the Executive Branch will 'faithfully execute the law, as expressed by Congress'" - an interesting concern, given that President Obama has been in office for only just over a year, while Congress evinced no similar concern (or demand to change the law) during the 8 years of the Bush Administration when no sanctionable activity was reported.  It is worth noting that last week, as reported by Laura Rozen in Politico, Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Affairs Rich Verma wrote a letter to Rep. Klein (D-FL) in response to Klein's concerns that the Administration was not implementing existing sanctions.  Verma assured Klein that the Administration takes its responsibilities under the Iran Sanctions Act very seriously and that the Administration continuously monitors for sanctionable activities.
 
Other statements from the hearing were released by Reps. Ackerman (D-NY) and Pence (R-IN).  For further excellent reporting from the Cable, see here, and from NIAC see here.  Further recommended reading:  "Is Sanctions Debate Justifying the Military Option", op-ed by Patrick Disney.  
 
4. New Pro-Peace Sign-On Letter in the House
 
On Wednesday, a Dear Colleague letter (text below) was circulated by Reps. Kind (D-WI), Delahunt (D-MA), Price (D-NC) and Snyder (D-AR), urging members to add this names to a letter (text also below) to President Obama "in support of enhancing the security of both Israel and the United States through strong U.S. leadership in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict."  APN strongly supports this letter.
 
Dear Colleague:
 
Please join us in sending the attached letter to President Barack Obama in support of enhancing the security of both Israel and the United States through strong U.S. leadership in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 
 
Congress has spoken with a unified voice about the unbreakable and mutually beneficial nature of the special relationship that exists between the United States and Israel.  As Israel continues its quest for a negotiated settlement that will ensure its survival as an eternal homeland for the Jewish people, it is critical that we reinforce this affirmation with a clear statement that the risks the Israeli people are taking for peace serve the security interests of both of our countries. 
 
The attached letter highlights the considered opinions of two military leaders who have devoted a lifetime of service to securing their countries:  General David H. Petraeus, the Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), and former Israeli Prime Minister and current Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Israel's most decorated military veteran.  These distinguished commanders believe that the perpetuation of the status quo in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has negative security implications for both countries, with Minister Barak characterizing the threat to Israel as an existential one.  The fact that the views of these distinguished leaders have been deliberately misquoted by some who oppose the U.S.-Israel special relationship is all the more reason for those of us in Congress who support Israel to set the record straight.
 
If you share our commitment to Israel's long-term security and would like to join us in this statement of support for the Administration's efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, please contact Celia Richa with Rep. Delahunt at 6-6434 or Kevin Warnke with Rep. Kind at 5-5506.
 
Sincerely,
 
Ron Kind
Bill Delahunt
David Price
Vic Snyder
 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
 
Dear Mr. President:
 
As steadfast advocates of the unbreakable U.S. commitment to the security of Israel, we write in support of your strong commitment to a Middle East peace process that results in Israel and a Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security.
 
Distinguished leaders with decades of military service in both the United States and Israel have concluded that the continued lack of resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict threatens the security interests of both countries.   General David H. Petraeus, Commander of U.S. Central Command, presented compelling testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March on the impact that, in his words, "insufficient progress toward a comprehensive Middle East peace" has had on American security interests in the Middle East and Central Asia. 
 
Specifically, General Petraeus stated that "The enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance [U.S.] interests in the [region].... The conflict foments anti-American sentiment...Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples in the [region] and weakens the legitimacy of moderate regimes in the Arab world.  Meanwhile, al-Qaeda and other militant groups exploit that anger to mobilize support.  The conflict also gives Iran influence in the Arab world through its clients, Lebanese Hezbollah and Hamas."
 
Senior national security leaders in Israel have expressed similar views.  Former Prime Minister and current Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Israel's most decorated military leader, has stated that "The lack of a solution to the problem of border demarcation within the historic Land of Israel...is the most serious threat to Israel's future."  In the words of Defense Minister Barak, "the reality is that there is a profound need, which stems from Israel's interests to ensure its future and its identity.  We have an interest in drawing a border line which includes a solid Jewish majority for generations, and beside it an economically and politically viable Palestinian state.  The agreement on this line will come hand in hand with protecting Israel's security interests."
 
As legislators tasked with safeguarding America's security - and as friends of Israel committed to our ally's survival and prosperity - we share the views of these decorated military leaders and urge you to continue your strong efforts to bring U.S. leadership to bear in moving the parties toward a negotiated two-state solution.  A just and sustainable end to this conflict will not only secure Israel's future as a democratic, Jewish homeland - it will also enhance our ability to confront the threats posed by Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and other actors in the Middle East, and advance critical U.S. security interests in the region more broadly.
 
Thank you for your time and attention, and we look forward to your response.
 
Sincerely,
 
========================================
Don't forget to check the APN blog for breaking news and analysis about issues related to Israel, the Middle East, and the Hill.
========================================

Past editions of the Round-Up are archived and available online.
 
Americans for Peace Now promotes Israeli security through the peace process and supports the Israeli Peace Now movement.   For more information, visit the APN website or contact Lara Friedman, APN Director of Policy and Government Relations.