To return to the new Peace Now website click here.

APN Legislative Round-Up - September 26, 2008

I. Bills and Resolutions; II. Last Minute Maneuvering on Iran Sanctions; III. APN on the New Iran Sanctions Bill; IV. Israel in the Consolidated Appropriations Bill/Continuing Resolution; V. What's Up with the Arrow System?: VI. Update on APN Campaign: "Responsibility Over Rhetoric"

APN Legislative Round-Up for the week ending September 26, 2008

I.   Bills and Resolutions
II.  Last Minute Maneuvering on Iran Sanctions
III. APN on the New Iran Sanctions Bill
IV.  Israel in the Consolidated Appropriations Bill/Continuing Resolution
V. What's Up with the Arrow System?
VI.  Update on APN Campaign: "Responsibility Over Rhetoric"

[Note: The 110th Congress is scheduled to end at close of business today. However, it is possible and increasingly likely that it will remain in session over the weekend and into next week. It is also possible that Congress could reconvene for a "lame duck" session after the elections. As if this writing nobody knows for sure what will happen.]

==========================
I. BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS
==========================

(UNRWA) H. Con. Res. 428: Introduced 9/24/08 by Rep. Rothman (D-NJ) and 5 cosponsors, "Expressing the sense of Congress that the United Nations should take immediate steps to improve the transparency and accountability of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) in the Near East to ensure that it is not providing funding, employment, or other support to terrorists." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(DURBAN CONFERENCE) H. Res. 1361: Introduced 7/22/08 by Rep. Berman (D-CA) and having 24 cosponsors, "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should lead a high-level diplomatic effort to ensure that the Durban Review Conference serves as a forum to review implementation of commitments made at the 2001 Durban Conference to combat all forms of racism by defeating the campaign by some members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference to divert the United Nation's Durban Review Conference from a review of problems in their own and other countries by attacking Israel, promoting anti-Semitism, and undermining the Universal Declaration of Human Rights." Passed under suspension of the rules 9/23/08 by voice vote.

(PRO-PEACE NGOS) H. Res. 1369: Introduced 7/23/08 by Rep. Lee (D-CA) and having 35 cosponsors, "Recognizing nongovernmental organizations working to bring just and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians." Passed under suspension of the rules 9/23/08 by voice vote. This resolution was strongly supported by Americans for Peace Now. We applaud Rep. Lee for introducing it and commend her on its passage.

(IRAQI REFUGEES) S. 3541: Introduced 9/23/08 by Sen. Clinton (D-NY), "to address the impending humanitarian crisis and potential security breakdown as a result of the mass influx of Iraqi refugees into neighboring countries, and the growing internally displaced population in Iraq, by increasing directed accountable assistance to these populations and their host countries, facilitating the resettlement of Iraqis at risk, and for other purposes." Referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

And on a lighter note.

(JERUSALEM) H. Con. Res. 432: Introduced 9/25/08 by Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-CO) and 4 cosponsors, "Urging the expedient relocation of the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The Jerusalem embassy issue is a perennial favorite among those trying to score quick points on Israel. H. Con. Res. 432 is a particularly glaring case of this - a resolution introduced hours (or perhaps days) before Congress adjourns, supported by 5 members of Congress none of whom are traditional players on Israel-related issues, and drafted so hurriedly or so carelessly that from the title of the resolution it is not actually clear what the supporters are demanding. Taken at face value, the bill apparently calls for the "expedient" relocation of the embassy (synonyms for expedient: advisable, prudent) - not necessarily a problematic demand. On the other hand, it seems more likely that the drafters intended to demand the "expedited" or "expeditious" relocation (synonyms for expedited: prompt, hurried). This confusion will no doubt be resolved when the full text of the resolution becomes available.

==============================================
II. LAST MINUTE MANEUVERING ON IRAN SANCTIONS
==============================================

There is a list-ditch effort in the House to pass new Iran sanctions legislation before the end of the 110th Congress. The timelines and facts (such as they are) are presented here:

--- Late afternoon 9/24/08 rumors began swirling that a last-ditch attempt to pass Iran sanctions legislation in the 110th Congress was being prepared in the House, perhaps attached to a bill approving the U.S.-India nuclear cooperation agreement (a piece of legislation that is expected to pass before Congress adjourns).

--- At 1:09am on 9/25/08 the House schedule for the day was published. It included 17 suspension bills -- bills to be brought to the House floor with normal rules suspended (i.e., bypassing the normal committee referrals and consideration) and to be considered under very strict conditions (limited time for debate, no amendments permitted, and a 2/3 majority of votes required for passage). Number 16 on the list was the cryptic description: "H.R. __ - A bill related to Iran sanctions and divestment (Foreign Affairs)." Throughout the day rumors continue to fly about the legislation and what it might include, but no text was ever produced and by late afternoon it was clear that the bill would not be considered during this business day.

--- At 1:46am on 9/26/08 the House schedule for the day was published. It includes 27 suspension bills. Number 5 on the list is: "H.R. __ - A bill related to Iran sanctions and divestment (Rep. Berman - Foreign Affairs)."  At 9:54am, a Dear Colleague was sent to all House offices by House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Berman (D-CA), stating: "Later today, the House will consider the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act of 2008 under suspension of the rules. I urge you to join me in supporting this important measure." The Dear Colleague included a brief description of the bill and an attachment that gave a summary of the bill (but no bill text). Based on this summary, it appears the bill is similar to the Dodd amendment offered last week to S. 3001, the Defense Authorization bill. The amendment was in effect a combination of a new sanctions bill (the Dodd-Shelby bill, S. 3445) with the Obama divestment bill (S. 1430). According to latest rumors and published reports, the plan now is not to combine Iran sanctios measure with the India-US nuclear cooperation bill, but rather to pass it in the House and send it to the Senate as freestanding legislation.

--- At 11:00am on 9/26/08, APN sent a message to all House offices, expressing out opposition to the new bill. That message is copied below.

--- At around 12:30pm on 9/26/08, text of the bill began circulating. The 36-page bill (HR 7112), as expected, appears to be largely identical to the Dodd amendment to the Defense Authorization bill. It does include one significant, and very positive change: it includes a new Section (Section 2) entitled "Support for Diplomatic Efforts Relating to Preventing Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons." This section includes a statement that "the United States should use diplomatic and economic means to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem" and "the United States should continue to support efforts in the International Atomic Energy Agency and the United Nations Security Council to bring about an end to Iran's uranium enrichment program and its nuclear weapons program."  It also states that "Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force or the use of the United States Armed Forces against Iran."

--- It is expected that the bill will be brought to the floor for a vote later today.

==============================================
III. APN on the New Iran Sanctions Bill
==============================================

Clarification: As noted above, APN sent the following message to all House offices expressing our opposition to the new Iran sanctions bill. As the timeline above indicates, we sent this out before text of the bill began to circulate. Since we did not know when text would be made public, and since we were receiving a great number of inquiries from House staff regarding our position, we did not feel we could wait. If we had seen the text, we still would have opposed the bill, for the reasons stated below. We also would have commended Chairman Berman for including the very positive language in Section 2, discussed above.

---------------

Dear XXXX,

It appears that your boss will soon be asked to vote on a piece of major sanctions legislation. I want to let you know that Americans for Peace Now (APN) opposes this bill and urges members to press their leadership to not bring it to the floor under suspension of the rules. If it is indeed brought to the floor without proper scrutiny, APN urges members to vote against it. APN is a Jewish, Zionist organization committed to peace and security for Israel.

The text of this legislation is not yet available, but based on the summary that was circulated this morning, it appears to be similar to S. 3445, a bill introduced by Senator Dodd that includes both new sanctions elements as well as divestment elements (similar to the Obama divestment bill, S. 1430). This is major sanctions legislation that demands real scrutiny and debate, both at the committee level and on the House floor. This is not the kind of non-controversial measure that should be brought up and voted on under suspension of the rules.

Like Congress, APN views with grave concern Iran's determination to expand its nuclear program, the concomitant threat that Iran might produce nuclear weapons, and the danger a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to the national security interests of both the U.S. and Israel. APN has supported and continues to support targeted economic sanctions against Iran.

We also recognize, and we urge Congress to recognize, that while sanctions can be a valuable tool for putting pressure on Iran, sanctions alone cannot replace diplomacy as a means of resolving differences between nations. Addressing the challenge of Iran requires a comprehensive strategy -- combination of sanctions and diplomacy, carrots and sticks -- and strong U.S. participation and leadership. We are not suggesting that diplomatic efforts will be easy nor that their success is a foregone conclusion; we are suggesting that a credible, sustained diplomatic effort is indispensable if the U.S. is serious about dealing with the threat posed by Iran.

Unfortunately, the various sanctions bills that Congress has considered -- including the one that the House is considering at this time -- do not embody this kind of comprehensive strategy. Rather, they only perpetuate and escalate the existing sticks-only approach. APN urges members of Congress to recognize that the best interests of both the U.S. and Israel demand direct, sustained, and unconditional U.S.-led diplomacy and engagement with Iran. A bipartisan group of five former Secretaries of State, speaking together at a September 15, 2008 forum, agrees:

** Madeleine Albright (who served under President Bill Clinton): "I believe we need to engage with Iran. I think the whole point is you try to engage and deal with countries you have problems with...I think it's one of the most important relationships that we need to work on. We are not gaining anything by this [current approach]..."

** Gen. Colin Powell (who served under President George W. Bush): "...we should start to talk to them. Don't wait for, you know, a letter coming from them. Start discussions."

** Warren Christopher (who served under President Bill Clinton): "...our relationship with Israel needs to be strong enough so we can say to them 'Look, we want to have a comprehensive dialogue with the Iranians.' We can't be complacent about the nuclear possibilities in Iran, but nevertheless we cannot afford not to have a comprehensive dialogue to see if it can't be stopped, because, frankly, the military options here are very, very poor..."

** James Baker (who served under President George H.W. Bush): "We ought to engage. Yes... We're all saying that you [the next U.S. President] ought to engage..."

** Henry Kissinger (who served under Presidents Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford): "...I am in favor of negotiating with Iran..."

(Source: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0809/20/se.01.html)

APN urges members of Congress to support and demand such a policy, and to reject the counterproductive approach to Iran embodied in this current sanctions legislation.

If you have any questions or need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I have also included (below) an op-ed by APN President and CEO Debra DeLee, published earlier this week, dealing with Iran.

Sincerely,

Lara Friedman Director of Policy and Government Relations Americans for Peace Now Tel: 202-728-1893 LFriedman@peacenow.org

=======================

http://jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20080921DeLeeIran09212008.html

Op-Ed: U.S. must engage in diplomacy with Iran by Debra DeLee Published: 09/21/2008

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Few people will be moved or impressed by the now predictable denunciations and protests set to greet Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad when he arrives Monday to New York. The political campaigns will try to score points for their candidates and administration officials will talk tough. Jewish community groups have organized their due-diligence demonstrations.

All the while, Ahmadinejad revels in his role of "defiant bad guy," further irritating and outraging the world.

Everyone is playing his and her expected roles, obediently repeating their lines and emoting on cue, reducing a key foreign policy question of our time -- nuclear proliferation in the Middle East -- to second-rate political theater.

Iran's nuclear ambitions are a serious matter, so why is the response so reckless? How is it that nearly a year after the publication of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iran -- a report that underscored the fact that there has long been a potential opening to engage directly and constructively with Iran -- U.S. policy has not evolved?

An Iran armed with nuclear weapons represents a dangerous and alarming scenario, one that neither the U.S. nor Israel can afford to ignore, and one that the U.S. and the international community should be exerting all efforts to avoid. How the United States deals with Iran has an especially important impact on Israel. A nuclear-armed Iran poses a potential existential threat to Israel, and an unchecked rogue Iran will only continue to use support for terrorist groups to destabilize the region and threaten Israel.

In the absence of an effective international strategy to deal with Iran, domestic pressure for Israel to take matters into its own hands will continue to grow.

Unfortunately, instead of an orchestrated international effort to negotiate a solution, we have an American-led strategy based on the notion that the world can (and should) cajole, threaten and sanction Iran into submission. This policy hasn't stopped Iran's nuclear program.

Worse yet, it may be having the opposite effect: Just as American politicians routinely bolster their patriotic credentials by talking tough about Iran, Iranian hard-liners -- including Ahmadinejad -- burnish their own nationalist credentials with pledges to stand up to American bullying. Indeed, such nationalist rhetoric is today one of the only planks Iranian hard-liners have left to run on, given the domestic economic and social challenges facing their country.

It should surprise no one that pushed into a corner, many Iranians -- including those who don't support Ahmadinejad -- have come to view the nuclear program as a symbol of national honor and pride.

Ahmadinejad is a populist rabble-rouser whose anti-American, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel rhetoric is repugnant. His country's support for terrorist groups throughout the region is abhorrent.

Nobody is suggesting America should embrace the guy.

But just as clearly, demonizing Ahmadinejad while constantly reminding him that "all options are on the table" does not constitute the basis for a responsible or effective Iran policy. Addressing the challenge of Iran requires a smart strategy -- combining carrots and sticks, diplomacy and sanctions -- and strong U.S. participation and leadership. Sanctions are indeed a potentially powerful tool for putting pressure on Iran, but they simply will not suffice as a replacement for diplomacy in resolving our differences. And clearly the option for military action is always available, but that option and even its threat must be reserved as the option of truly last resort.

Finally, while it is true that the United States has offered to engage Iran in a limited manner, such engagement has been preconditioned on Iran first freezing its nuclear program. This approach, in which as a precondition to negotiations Iran is required to take an action that from its perspective should more appropriately come as the outcome of negotiations, has been unsuccessful because it does not constitute real diplomacy.

Ahmadinejad deserves, and probably welcomes, the hostile reception waiting for him in New York.

But scorn cannot replace policy. The United States does not have to like Ahmadinejad to engage in real diplomacy with his country, and engaging Iran in order to safeguard vital U.S. national security interests is not appeasement. Rather it is the kind of sensible and responsible foreign policy that is long overdue.

Such a diplomatic effort will not be easy; indeed it will be a long and arduous process. Nor is its success a foregone conclusion. But such an effort is indispensable if the United States is serious about dealing with the threat posed by Iran.

(Debra DeLee is the president and CEO of Americans for Peace Now.)

==========================================================
IV. ISRAEL IN THE CONSOLIDATED APPROPS BILL/CONTINUING RESOLUTION
==========================================================

The Consolidated Appropriations Bill/Continuing Resolution passed by the House 9/24/08 and by the Senate 9/25/08 (HR 2638) includes some important Israel-related elements. These are:

The Continuing Resolution
------------------------------------

In a very technical fix, the bill includes language increasing the amount of FY08 foreign military funding (FMF) to Israel that Israel is permitted to spend in Israel. Generally, U.S. assistance must be expended in the U.S.; a special provision in the annual foreign operations appropriations bill permits Israel to expend a significant portion of its FMF in Israel. This portion represents a fixed percentage of the assistance but is expressed as a dollar amount (rather than a percentage). The "fix" in the HR 2638 addresses the fact that this percentage was thrown off by the $170 million in FMF provided for Israeli earlier this year in the FY08 Supplemental (aid provided to raise Israel's FY08 aid to the level promised in the August 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between Israel and the U.S.). To achieve this, HR 2638 in effect amends the previous appropriations bill (HR 2764, signed into law 12/26/07) to raise the dollar amount that Israel may spend in Israel from $631.2 million to $670.65, restoring this amount to its traditional percentage of total annual FMF.

Explaining this on the House floor 9/25/08, Rep. Lowey (D-CA), Chair of the Appropriations Committee's Foreign Operations Subcommittee, stated: ".on August 16, 2007, the U.S. Government signed a new Memorandum of Understanding, MOU, with Israel to establish the security assistance framework for $30 billion in U.S. military assistance to Israel over the next decade. This agreement reflects the unshakable U.S. commitment to maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge in the region and increases assistance to help Israel meet its security needs in the face of growing threats in the region. I am a staunch supporter of this agreement which continues the strategic relationship between the U.S. and Israel and will help guarantee the security of both Israel and the United States. Today, with the passage of the Continuing Resolution, Congress has declared its support for meeting our obligation for the first year of the MOU by approving a total of $2.55 billion in FY 2009 for Israel in Foreign Military Financing. The $2.55 billion in FMF funding includes $170 million in the FY 09 'bridge-funding'' in the FY08 supplemental (P.L. 110-161) and the FY 2008 funding level of $2.38 billion. The Continuing Resolution also adjusts the funding level for Israeli Offshore Procurement to reflect the current percentage of Israel's FMF at $670,650,000, a longstanding provision that has proven critical to ensuring Israel's qualitative military edge. The congressional support for this agreement and the security of Israel is clear and unequivocal."

The Consolidated Appropriations Bill
---------------------------------------------------

Among other things, HR 2638 includes FY09 Appropriations for the Defense Department. The Defense Appropriations bill annually includes substantial funding for U.S. procurements from Israel and for joint U.S.-Israel research and development. The FY09 funding includes:

"Israel Cooperative Programs": $177,237,000  This amount includes > $72,895,000 for the Short Range Ballistic Missile Defense (SRBMD) program; > $30,000,000 for "an upper-tier component to the Israeli Missile Defense Architecture," and > $74,342,000 for the Arrow Missile Defense Program, of which the bill stipulates that $13,076,000 "shall be for producing Arrow missile components in the United States and Arrow missile components in Israel to meet Israel's defense requirements." Notably, the bill also stipulates that funds available for production of missiles and missile components "may be transferred to appropriations available for the procurement of weapons and equipment, to be merged with and to be available for the same time period and the same purposes as the appropriation to which transferred." This provision means that, in effect, this $13.076 million can become additional FMF.

Other Miscellaneous Procurements > $16 million for the Airforce to procure Litening Targeting Pod Upgrades (produced jointly by a U.S. and Israel company) >$5 million for the Navy to procure AN/AVS-7 Day Heads-Up Display (produced by an Israeli company) > An unknown amount for programs under the Counter Terrorism Technical Working Group.

========================================
V. WHAT'S UP WITH THE ARROW SYSTEM?
========================================

For a number of years the U.S. and Israel have been cooperating on the development and coproduction of the Arrow Weapons System. Hundreds of millions of U.S. dollars have been invested in the effort. However, language included in the Joint Explanatory [i.e., joint House and Senate] statement that accompanies S. 3001 -- the FY09 Defense Authorization bill -- seems to reveal emerging disagreement over what direction the program should be taking in an area known as its "upper-tier follow-on." The language, which is unusually direct in its concerns and implied disapproval, states:

"The United States is engaged in a cooperative program with Israel to provide an upper-tier follow-on to the Arrow Weapon System for Israel. There are two systems being pursued under this cooperative program: a land-based version of the existing Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) using an AN/TPY-2 forward-based X-band radar, and the development of a new Arrow-3 interceptor. The SM-3 interceptor and the AN/TPY-2 radar, which is derived from the radar for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, have already been developed and demonstrated. The Arrow-3 has not yet been developed, and its design has changed several times.

"After a number of changes to Israeli requirements and the planned performance of the Arrow-3 missile, the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) has chosen to pursue development of the Arrow-3 as the primary approach to developing an upper tier missile defense capability for Israel. However, this would be a technically challenging undertaking, involving a number of critical and complex technologies that Israel has never produced previously. Consequently, it is not certain that Israel can succeed in the development of all the Arrow-3 technologies in time to meet Israel's required fielding schedule.

"We are concerned that MDA has chosen a technically risky path forward, and is not providing sufficient risk mitigation through the land-based SM-3 option. MDA has indicated it intends to pursue an Arrow-3 development strategy based on knowledge points, with the stated intention of being able to curtail or stop the program if it does not meet its knowledge points on schedule.

"However, MDA has not demonstrated an ability to reduce funding for other programs that have not met their knowledge points on schedule. This suggests that an Arrow-3 development program could continue to be the primary path even if it does not meet its knowledge points or its schedule, thus precluding the option of having the proven SM-3 and AN/TPY-2 technology serve as a suitable upper tier option on schedule.

"Therefore, we direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics to review MDA's proposed approach and submit to the congressional defense committees, no later than April 15, 2009, a report providing a plan for risk mitigation for the U.S.-Israel upper tier program of cooperation that provides a cost-effective path to providing an upper tier missile defense capability for Israel."

====================================================
VI. UPDATE ON APN CAMPAIGN: "RESPONSIBILITY OVER RHETORIC"
====================================================

On 9/11/08 APN launched a new initiative, aimed at the Obama and McCain campaigns, entitled "Responsibility over Rhetoric." APN believes that Israel and related issues have a legitimate place in the debate and discourse of a U.S. election. This place is as part of a serious discussion of how, if elected, the candidates would advance the non-partisan goals of promoting Israeli-Palestinian and Arab-Israeli peace. Unfortunately, during U.S. elections there are often people who want to play politics with the issue - using Israel and related issues to score political points. This is a cynical tactic that comes at the expense of the best interests of both the U.S. and Israel.

The first installment of this campaign (issued 9/11/08) addresses the U.S. role in the quest for Israeli-Arab peace.  The second installment (issued 9/18/08) addresses the U.S. and the Israel-Syria peace track. The latest installment (issued 9/24/08) addresses the challenge of Iran.

To view all parts of this campaign, please visit the special APN Campaign 2008 section of our website: http://www.peacenow.org/campaign2008/index.asp


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