To return to the new Peace Now website click here.

APN Legislative Round-Up - May 23, 2008

I. Bills and Resolutions; II. FY08 and FY09 Supplemental (HR 2642) -- Senate action; III. Ackerman on Egypt; IV. House Debate on H. Res. 1194; V. Norpac on the Hill VI. Tributes to Israel at 60 Continue

APN Legislative Round-Up for the week ending May 23, 2008

I.   Bills and Resolutions
II.  FY08 and FY09 Supplemental (HR 2642) -- Senate action
III. Ackerman on Egypt
IV.  House Debate on H. Res. 1194
V.   Norpac on the Hill
VI.  Tributes to Israel at 60 Continue

[Note: Congress is in recess next week]
 
=================================
*I.  BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS*
=================================
 
*(**IRAN**) H. Con. Res. 362:* Introduced 5/22/08 by Reps. Ackerman and Pence (R-IN), Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the
Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.  "Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the
vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit
of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony, and for other purposes."
Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.
 
*(**SAUDI ARABIA**) H. J. Res. 87*: Introduced 5/21/08 by Rep. Weiner
(D-NY) and no cosponsors, "Limiting the issuance of a letter of offer
with respect to a certain proposed sale of defense articles and defense
services to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia."  Referred to the House
Committee on Foreign Affairs.
* *
*(**LEBANON**) H. Res. 1194:*  Introduced 5/14/08 by Rep. Berman (D-CA), "Reaffirming the support of the House of Representatives for the
legitimate, democratically-elected Government of Lebanon under Prime
Minister Fouad Siniora." Considered on the House floor 5/20/08; passed
5/22/08 by a vote of 401 - 10, with 2 voting Present.  Voting "no"
were:  Abercrombie (D-HI), Baldwin (D-WI), Hinchey (D-NY), Jones (R-NC), Kucinich (D-OH), Lee (D-CA), McDermott (D-WA), Moore (D-WI), Stark (D-CA) and Woolsey (D-CA).  Voting "present" were DeFazio (D-OR) and Watt (D-NC).  For details of the debate over this resolution, see
Section IV, below.
 
*(ENERGY) HR 6074*:  Introduced 5/15/08 by Rep. Kagen (D-WI) and having 19 cosponsors, "To amend the Sherman Act to make oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal and for other purposes."   Passed by the House under suspension of the rules 5/20/08 by a vote of 324-84.
 
*(AID FOR WEST BANK, **JORDAN** AND **LEBANON**) HR 2642*: On 5/20/08 and 5/22/08, amendments to HR 2642 "Making appropriations for military construction, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2008, and for other purposes," were debated on the Senate floor.  On 5/22/08, the Senate agreed to S. Amdt.4803, offered by Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) in the nature of a substitute (i.e., the delete the House text in question and replace it with Senate text).  The amendment passed by a vote of 75-22.  For details of the Middle East-related provisions in the Senate version of
the bill, see Section II, below.  
 
(*IRAN*) *HR 5658*: Introduced 3/31/08 by Reps. Skelton (D-MO) and
Duncan (R-TN), "To authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2009 for
military activities of the Department of Defense, to prescribe military
personnel strengths for fiscal year 2009, and for other purposes." 
Passed by the House 5/22/08 by a vote of 384 - 23.
 
As noted in last week's edition of the Round-Up, the Committee mark-up
of the bill included extensive discussion about Iran, and the bill, as
passed by the Committee, includes several Iran-related provisions.  For
details of these provisions, see:
http://irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/iran-in-hasc-committee-report-on-fy09.html.
 
In anticipation of consideration of the bill on the House floor, several
Iran-related amendments were introduced.  These included an amendment by Rep. Franks (R-AZ), to add to the bill a sense of Congress stating that the Department of Defense should develop and maintain a viable military option to prevent Iran from successfully developing or deploying a nuclear weapons capability (this appears to be similar or identical to the amendment he offered in Committee, which was amended with his consent).  This and the other Iran-related amendments are summarized at:
http://irannuclearwatch.blogspot.com/2008/05/summary-and-links-to-text-of-major.html

All but one of these amendments were ruled out of order by the Rules
Committee, the one "in order" amendment being the one offered by Rep.
Spratt (D-SC), which would require the Director of National Intelligence
to submit an annual update to Congress of the November 2007 Iran
National Intelligence Estimate.  His amendment would also require the
President to notify Congress in writing within 15 days of determining
that Iran has met or surpassed any major milestone in its nuclear
weapons program or that Iran has undertaken to accelerate, decelerate,
or cease the development of any significant element within its nuclear
weapons program.
http://www.rules.house.gov/110/amendments/hr5658/spratt128.pdf.  The
Spratt amendment (H. Amendment 1068 to HR 5658) was passed by the House
5/22/08 by voice vote.
 
=======================================================
*II.    FY08 AND FY09 SUPPLEMENTAL (HR 2642) -- SENATE ACTION*
=======================================================
 
As noted above, on 5/20/08 and 5/22/08 the Senate considered its own
version of the FY08 Supplemental Appropriations Bill (HR 2642), which
also includes "bridge" funding for FY09.  On 5/22/08, the Senate passed
S. Amdt. 4803 by a vote of 75-22.  Like the version passed by the House
last week (and covered, in detail, in last week's edition of the
Round-Up), S. Amdt. 4803 includes FY08 and FY09 for the Middle East, as
follows (along with language from the accompanying explanatory text):
 
Fiscal Year 2008 Supplemental Appropriations for the Middle East
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* *
*West Bank*:
 
 >>>$200 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF) [the House version
recommended $100 million]
Explanation:  "The Committee recommends not more than $200,000,000 for economic assistance for the West Bank, which is the same as the request. The Department of State is directed to provide a report to the
Committees on Appropriations not later than 90 days after the enactment
of this act on how United States economic assistance for the West Bank
supports the larger Palestinian Reform and Development Plan as well as a
description of other donor support of this plan. The report should
describe how assistance from the United States and other donors will
improve conditions in the West Bank, including through job creation and
housing programs."

>>>$25 million in funding for International Narcotics Control and Law
Enforcement (INCLE) [same as House version]
Explanation:  "The Committee provides $25,000,000 for ongoing training
of vetted units of the Palestinian National Security Forces, which is
the same as the request."
 
*Jordan*:
 >>>$150 million in ESF [same as House version]
Explanation:  "/'/The Committee recommends $150,000,000 for economic
assistance to Jordan, which is $150,000,000 above the request. The
Government of Jordan remains a key ally and has played a leading role in
supporting peace initiatives in the Middle East. Programming of these
funds should be done in consultation with the Government of Jordan and
refugee relief organizations and should be used to meet the needs of
Iraqi refugees. The Committee directs the Secretary of State, after
consultation with the Government of Jordan, the United Nations, and
international organizations and non-governmental organizations with a
presence in Iraq, to submit a report to the Committees on Appropriations
not later than 45 days after enactment detailing (1) short and medium
term options the United States and other countries and organizations
could pursue to assist Iraqis in Jordan maintain their educational and
vocational skills and earn income; and (2) longer-term options that the
United States and the Government of Jordan can take to address the
economic, social, and health needs of refugees from Iraq, including the
feasibility of extending temporary residence status for Iraqis
registered with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees."
 
Fiscal Year 2009 Supplemental "Bridge" Appropriations for the Middle East
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*West Bank*:
 >>>$150 million in ESF
(no explanatory language included)
 >>>$50 million in INCLE [the House did not specify an amount, but
included INCLE for the West Bank]
Explanation:  "The Committee recommends $151,000,000 for International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement activities in Iraq, Afghanistan, the West Bank, and Africa." [the bill text stipulates that of this amount, "not more than $50 million shall be made available for security assistance for the West Bank."
 
*Jordan*:
 >>>$100 million in ESF [included in the regular ESF section of the bill]
(no explanatory language included)
 >>>$100 million in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) [included in the
regular FMF section of the bill]
Explanatory text:  "The Committee recommends $145,000,000 for the
Foreign Military Financing Program, of which $100,000,000 is for
assistance for Jordan..."
 >>>$100 million in additional ESF [included in a special section of the
bill, Sec. 1413, entitled "Jordan"; not included in the House version of
the bill]
 >>>$200 million in additional FMF [also included in a Sec. 1413, and
not in the House version of the bill]

Explanatory text: "SEC. 1414. Provides an additional $300,000,000 for
assistance for Jordan for border security, refugee, and reform
programs."  The bill text also stipulates that the $300 million for
Jordan will be funded through the rescission of $300 million of the
unexpended balances of funds previously appropriates for the Millennium
Challenge Corporation.  The text also stipulates that Sec. 8002 of title
VII of the bill shall not apply to this section.  This section of the
bill stipulates that "Each amount in each title of this Act is
designated as an emergency requirement and necessary 17 to meet
emergency needs pursuant to subsections (a)  and (b) of section 204 of
S. Con. Res. 21 (110th Congress), the concurrent resolution on the
budget for fiscal year 2008."
 
*Lebanon**:*
 >>>no funds are provided for Lebanon in the bill text.  However, under
FMF, the bill notes that "section 3802(c) of title III, Chapter 8 of
Public Law 110-28 shall apply to funds made available under this heading
for assistance to Lebanon."  The referenced law states that "Prior to
the initial obligation of funds made available in this Act for
assistance for Lebanon under the headings 'Foreign Military Financing
Program' and 'Nonproliferation, Anti-Terrorism, Demining and Related
Programs', the Secretary of State shall certify to the Committees on
Appropriations that all practicable efforts have been made to ensure
that such assistance is not provided to or through any individual, or
private or government entity, that advocates, plans, sponsors, engages
in, or has engaged in, terrorist activity."

Explanatory text:  "The Committee recommends $145,000,000 for the
Foreign Military Financing Program, of which...$45,000,000 is for
assistance for Lebanon."
 
======================================
*III.  ACKERMAN ON **EGYPT** *
======================================
 
On 5/21/08 the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the
Middle East and South Asia convened a hearing entitled "The
U.S.-Israel-Egypt Relationship: Shoring Up the Foundation of Regional
Peace."  Chairman Ackerman's opening statement is included here, in full:
 
"My district in New York is famous in literature as the setting for one
of America's greatest novels, F. Scott Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby.
The novel describes not only the complex relationships and longings of
its central characters, but it evokes a sense of time and place that has
made it iconic in American literature.  One passage in particular stands
out for those of us who labor in the world of foreign policy rather than
the art of the English language:  "They were careless people...they
smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness, or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made."  There's a warning for us in these words. 
 
"About thirty years ago, when the United States was not in the business
of smashing things up and leaving it for others to clean up our messes,
we helped bring Egypt and Israel together to make peace. It was a
different time, and America's relationship with the Middle East was
still a mostly unwritten story, and one whose theme was focused on the
Cold War.  Egypt, the clear leader among the Arab states, had been for
many years, a somewhat unreliable part of the Soviet camp, and its
foreign policy goals appeared to have little in common with those of the
United States. Israel at the time was anything but a regional power.
Though it had survived wars in 1948, 1956, 1967 and, with enormous U.S. aid, in 1973, it was isolated and, frankly, right to be concerned for
its continued survival.
 
"But in the wreckage and slaughter of the 1973 Yom Kippur war American
diplomacy found fertile ground. With bold, strong leaders in Egypt and
in Israel who were not only ready for peace, but ready to make the
sacrifices necessary to achieve it, the Camp David Accords were signed
on September 17, 1978.

Since then the Middle East has been a very different place, clearly a
much better one for ourselves and, I would argue, even more so for Egypt and for Israel. From our perspective, the peace made at Camp David has
linked the two most important militaries in the region to the goodwill
of the United States; it has prevented any further Arab-Israeli
state-to-state conflicts, though the problem of non-state proxies has
grown; and, most importantly, the peace between Israel and Egypt shifted
the political center of gravity in the region toward peace with Israel,
versus the prior consensus for continual war against the Jewish State.
The Camp David Accords also cemented America's role as the architect of any future Arab-Israeli peace, and as the guarantor of international
security in the Middle East.
 
"For Egypt, the peace made at Camp David freed their nation to pursue
economic development and political reform without the continual
intrusion and disruption of war. In 30 years of war, Egypt lost thousands of its sons, and hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted on a military competition that served no national requirement or interest. Egypt led the Arab states in making peace, and today continues in that role.
 
"Israel, which had never before in its entire existence had even one
completely peaceful and quiet border, probably gained the most. In exchange for the return of the Sinai peninsula, Israel saw the united Arab front against it shatter; its day-to-day defense requirements were dramatically reduced; its partnership with the world's pre-eminent state was strengthened; and, as a consequence of its own investments combined support from the United States, the IDF has become the most powerful armed force in the Middle East, and a clear and compelling deterrent to aggression against the Jewish State.
 
"As I noted at a hearing two weeks ago, the total cost of the almost 30
years of peace forged at Camp David is about $150 billion, which even in
Washington, DC is still considered a lot of money. But, by comparison,
that same $150 billion has bought us just 1¬ years of war in Iraq.

Clearly, the peace made at Camp David is one of the finest achievements
of American diplomacy in the 20th century, even if it did involve Jimmy
Carter.  Unfortunately, over time, Americans, Egyptians and Israelis
have all lost sight of the singular importance of the peace made at Camp
David, and the massive strategic benefits each nation has silently
accrued as a consequence every day since. This oversight is more than
just a shame, it is a strategic risk. Imagine for a moment a Middle East
where Israel and Egypt are not at peace; where Egypt--perhaps ruled by
the Muslim Brotherhood--rather than working to limit the damage done by
Hamas was actively supporting it; where transit through the Suez canal,
both for the U.S. Navy and commercial shipping, was a matter of some
uncertainty or even a flat impossibility; where Israel faced the threat
not just of rockets but of massive invading armies, and a never ending
arms race drained the life from its economy, and kept that small nation
perpetually on the cusp of another major war.
 
"To this tableau of chaos, instability and horror, add in the rising
threat to the region from Iran, and the surpassing importance of
U.S.-Egyptian-Israeli cooperation becomes undeniably clear. Each nation
needs this relationship a lot more than their top leaders have been
willing to acknowledge--at least in public. And that is the first place
to begin when it comes to shoring up this foundation for regional peace;
it starts at Camp David and with the relationships formed there.  Each
nation has its complaints and these are not trivial, nor imagined. When
we in the United States complain about human, civil, and political
rights in Egypt, we are not fabricating grievances in order to accrue
bargaining leverage. When the United States or Egypt calls for an end to
Israeli settlement growth, and the removal of unauthorized outposts, no
one should write this position off as mere boilerplate. Likewise,
American and Israeli concerns about the smuggling of arms into Gaza can
not be dismissed as a problem for others to deal with. And when Israeli
leaders express interest in negotiations with Syria, their serious
political impediment shouldn't be the President of the United States.
 
"Over time it is easy for us as human beings to take each other for
granted, and the same can be said about the relationships between
nations. But in the Middle East today, the risks are too great to allow
this pattern to persist in the trilateral relationship. The security of
all three nations depends on our re-remembering what made peace so
important thirty years ago. Failing to do so, and falling into the trap
of seeing only the outrage du jour, and issue of the moment will leave
us like Fitzgerald's hapless characters, 'boats against the current,
borne back ceaselessly into the past.'"
 
*=======================================*
*IV.  HOUSE DEBATE ON H. RES. 1194*
*=======================================*
 
As noted in Section I (above) on 5/20/08, H. Res. 1194 was brought up on
the House floor and passed under suspension of the rules.  Speaking in
strong support for the resolution, and arguing that it was an important
expression of support for Prime Minister Siniora and the forces of
freedom and democracy in Lebanon, were Reps. Ackerman (D-NY), Manzullo (R-IL) and LaHood (R-IL).  Other members who inserted statements of support for the resolution into the record were  Murphy (D-CT), and Berman (D-CA).
 
Two members spoke out to express reservations about the resolution: 
Reps. Kucinich (D-OH) and Paul (R-TX).
 
Rep. Kucinich noted:  "...We have to be very careful about how we
dictate a certain policy in Lebanon for its effect on Lebanon and for
its effect on the region. So, therefore, I must reluctantly oppose this
resolution, as well intended as it might be, because I'm concerned that
it will be seen by some as the United States trying to instigate more
civil unrest in Lebanon at the same time that we say that we're
supporting the central government.  I have met with Prime Minister
Siniora. He has been a good friend of the United States. But he had to
sit by while the United States either looked the other way or
encouraged, depending on whose story you accept, the continued bombing of Lebanon, which actually undermined his government.  So we have a condition in Lebanon that really has been going on now for over 25 years, with Lebanon having only tenuous control of their own affairs, with the interference of so many outside governments.  We should be
doing everything we can to strengthen a process of dialogue in Lebanon. I don't believe that this resolution accomplishes that. I think it
accomplishes the opposite.   Again, I'm in support of whatever we can do to stabilize Lebanon. I just have my doubts that this resolution will
accomplish that. I appreciate the concern of the sponsors. I think we
need to have more of a discussion..."
 
Rep. Paul noted:  "Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H. Res. 1194, mainly because this legislation reads like an authorization to use force
in Lebanon. As the key resolved clause of H. Res. 1194 states: 'Resolved, That the House of Representatives-- (6) urges-- (A) the United States Government and the international community to immediately take all appropriate actions to support and strengthen the legitimate
Government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.'  This
language is eerily similar to a key clause in the 2002 Iraq war authorization, H.J. Res. 114, which read:  '(a) Authorization--The
President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as
he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend
the national security of the United States against the continuing threat
posed by Iraq.'
 
"I find it outrageous that this legislation, which moves us closer to an
expanded war in the Middle East, is judged sufficiently 'non-controversial' to be placed on the suspension calendar for consideration on the House Floor outside of normal parliamentary order.

Have we reached the point where it is no longer controversial to urge
the President to use 'all appropriate actions' --with the unmistakable
implication that force may be used--to intervene in the domestic affairs
of a foreign country?   Mr. Speaker, the Arab League has been mediating
the conflict between rival political factions in Lebanon and has had
some success in halting the recent violence. Currently, negotiations are
taking place in Qatar between the Lebanese factions and some slow but
encouraging progress is being made. Regional actors--who do have an
interest in the conflict--have stepped up in attempt to diffuse the
crisis and reach a peaceful solution. Yet at the critical stage of
negotiations the U.S. House is preparing to pass a very confrontational
resolution endorsing one side and condemning competing factions. In
threatening to use 'all appropriate actions' to support one faction, the
United States is providing a strong disincentive for that one faction to
continue peaceful negotiations. Passing this resolution will most likely
contribute to a return of violence in Lebanon.
 
"This legislation strongly condemns Iranian and Syrian support to one
faction in Lebanon while pledging to involve the United States on the
other side. Wouldn't it be better to be involved on neither side and
instead encourage the negotiations that have already begun to resolve
the conflict? Afghanistan continues to sink toward chaos with no end in
sight. The war in Iraq, launched on lies and deceptions, has cost nearly
a trillion dollars and more than 4,000 lives with no end in sight. Saber
rattling toward Iran and Syria increases daily, including in this very
legislation. Yet we are committing ourselves to intervene in a domestic
political dispute that has nothing to do with the United States. 
 
"This resolution leads us closer to a wider war in the Middle East. It
involves the United States unnecessarily in an internal conflict between
competing Lebanese political factions and will increase rather than
decrease the chance for an increase in violence. The Lebanese should
work out political disputes on their own or with the assistance of
regional organizations like the Arab League. I urge my colleagues to
reject this march to war and to reject H. Res. 1194."
 
=====================================
*V.  NORPAC ON THE HILL*
=====================================
 
On 5/21/08, supporters of NORPAC (www.norpac.net
<http://www.norpac.net/>) were on the Hill for their annual mission to
Washington.  Their talking points focused mainly on aid to Israel
(supporting), aid to the Palestinians (opposing), and Iran (making the
case that stronger sanctions legislation is needed).  Specifically:
 
*On aid to **Israel**, NORPAC asked members of Congress:  *"Will you
support the annual Fiscal Year 2009 foreign aid bill which includes
$2.55 billion in aid for Israel?"  And, "In the event that the budget
moves forward by Continuing Resolution [which would mean that all
budgets, including all domestic spending,  are continued at current
levels from the previous year], will you support a supplemental
appropriation to bring the aggregate foreign aid figure for Israel up to
$2.55 billion in accordance with the agreed upon Memorandum of
Understanding?"
 
On aid to the Palestinians, there is no "ask" specified, but Talking
Points provided by NORPAC make a case opposing aid to the Palestinian
Authority.  These talking points appear to make no distinction between
the Abbas-run PA, which it is US policy to support, and the Hamas-run PA
of the previous era (or between the PA-ruled West Bank and the
Hamas-ruled Gaza).  In these talking points, NORPAC argues that "Israel
has demonstrated that it is willing to take risks to achieve peace.  It
has continued to meet with Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian
Authority, and has removed road blocks and barriers in order to allow
freer movement of Palestinians, even though Palestinian terrorists
operate with few impediments, Palestinian media still release
anti-Israel propaganda and the schools use anti-Israel texts."  This
section concludes that "Foreign assistance (except humanitarian aid)
should not be provided to the Palestinian Authority until it takes
concrete steps to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and ends
anti-Israel incitement."
 
The talking points go on to discuss the evils of Hamas and the need to
prevent foreign assistance (except humanitarian assistance) from
reaching Gaza.  They also strongly defend Israel's response to Hamas,
noting that a "proportionate" attack to Hamas rockets would have been
"firing rockets indiscriminately at Palestinian population centers," but
instead, Israel "has demonstrated extreme restraint."  The points also
argue that despite everything, "Israel continues to facilitate
humanitarian relief efforts for the people of Gaza" and notes that
"Hamas has been charged with withholding fuel from hospitals and
clinics" and "the European Union has condemned Hamas's obstruction of
humanitarian efforts."
 
*On other issues:*  In the House, NORPAC asked members to co-sponsor HR 2880, the Iran Sanctions Enhancement Act (covered in the 6/29/07 edition of the Round-Up) and to support $20 million in appropriations to fund implementation of the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act, passed as part of HR 6, the Energy Independence and Security act of 2007.  In the Senate, NORPAC asked members to co-sponsor S. 970, the Iran
Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (covered extensively in past
Round-Ups, most recently on 4/25/08); to co-sponsor S. 1430, the Iran
Sanctions Enabling act of 2007 (covered in the 5/18/07 edition of the
Round-Up); and to support $20 million in appropriations to fund
implementation of the U.S.-Israel Energy Cooperation Act, passed as part
of HR 6, the Energy Independence and Security act of 2007.  In both the
House and Senate, they thanked Members for supporting the Israel at 60
resolutions passed last month.  It is perhaps worth noting that of the 9
pages of talking points provided by NORPAC to participants, four pages
focused on the danger of Iran and on making the case for specific pieces
of Iran sanctions legislation.
 
=======================================
*VI.  TRIBUTES TO **ISRAEL** AT 60 CONTINUE*
=======================================
 
Biggert (R-IL) 5/20/08
Campbell (R-CA) 5/20/08
Honda (D-CA) 5/20/08
Lamborn (R-CO) 5/20/08
Rangel (D-NY) 5/21/08
Linda Sanchez (D-CA) 5/19/08
 


For more information contact Lara Friedman, APN Director of Policy and Government Relations, at 202/728-1893, or at lfriedman@peacenow.org.