To return to the new Peace Now website click here.

APN Legislative Round-Up for the Week Ending January 29, 2010

1.  Senate Passes Iran Sanctions Bill - S. 2799 
2.  Text of Senate floor "discussion" of S. 2799 
3.  APN Hill Event on Jerusalem 
4.  Berman (D-CA) on the record at APN event in LA

1.  SENATE PASSES IRAN SANCTIONS BILL (S. 2799)
 
In a move that surprised almost everyone, late on Thursday afternoon (just before 6pm) Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) brought S. 2799 - the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2009, which includes the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act - to the Senate floor where, after around 5 minutes of discussion (not debate), it was passed by a voice vote in its original form (with no amendments).
 
The move was a surprise in part because two days earlier, speaking on the Senate floor, Reid had implied that the bill would be brought to the floor in the near future, but did not indicate that the near future was quite so near.  It was also a surprise because for weeks sources have been telling people that before coming to a vote the bill would likely be amended to address concerns raised by the Administration.
 
Speculation is rife as to why Reid chose to take this action, given the fact that the bill, in its current form, is clearly opposed by the Obama Administration.  Indeed, the Administration offered specific amendments to the bill (referred to by Senator Dodd, D-CT, on the Senate floor last night), that it hoped would be made before the bill was passed.  And Senator Dodd himself noted that "...multilateral sanctions are likely to be more effective than those we impose unilaterally."
 
It was also clear from the comments made by Senate Minority leader McConnell (R-KY) that the intention - at least of some - in passing the bill is to deliberately defy the President.  McConnell said, "If the Obama administration will not take action against this regime, then Congress must. That is why we are proposing the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act."  McConnell also made clear in his remarks that he disdains the President's multilateral approach, saying "This measure...is crafted in such a way that it could actually become effective, with America alone not having to depend on the cooperation of the other countries..."
 
So why did Reid move the bill in this manner, and only a day after the State of the Union - in effect giving the President of the United States the middle finger on a key foreign policy issue?  Why did Senate Democrats feel that it was impossible to hold firm in support of the President, even though they managed to stand firm - with Republicans - during the 8 years of the Bush Administration as a similar coalition of forces (then, as now, led by elements in the Jewish community), pressured for far-reaching Iran sanctions that were opposed by President Bush?
 
Answers offered to this riddle include:  a sense of defeatism among Democrats; a blind faith that the bill will be improved in conference, coupled with the (probably misplaced) belief that going that route will be less costly in terms of political capital than amending it in the Senate first; and (more popularly) the view that Senate Majority Leader Reid is facing a brutal re-election challenge and preferred to cement the backing of S. 2799 supporters over backing the President. 
 
And as much as blame is being focused on Senate Democrats, a fair share of blame is being placed, appropriately, on the Administration, for failing to manage the bill effectively on the Hill.  Indeed, the fact that the Administration kept silent as the House passed its version of IRPSA, and only weighed in after the Senate began to take action, made the issue much harder for Senate Democrats.  The failure of the Administration to issue a clear Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the bill is indicative of its less than robust efforts in this arena.
 
With respect to what happens (or could happen) next, Senate sources - as well as Senator Dodd, speaking on the Senate floor last night - are suggesting that the bill could still be amended in conference to address the Administration's key concerns.  This suggestion provides at best limited comfort to those who view the legislation as irresponsible and harmful to US national interests.  Given that both the House and Senate passed versions of IRPSA that contain the worst language (mandatory sanctions, blacklists, impracticably low sanctions triggers, etc.) it seems implausible (though by no means impossible) that the "compromise" between the two will be much of an improvement. It is also worth noting that Republicans are already saying they will fight any Administration efforts to "water down" the bill in conference - so the idea that there would be less political capital spent getting changes in conference versus doing this before it passed is clearly wrong. 
 
And while some pundits are saying that the conference process could be deliberately stalled to give the President time to pursue his preferred multilateral course, Senator Reid seemed to make clear last night that this was not his plan, saying "there will be a vote when this matter comes back from conference, and I am committed to getting it back just as quickly as we can..."
 
Finally, in an almost comedic twist, it is being reported (brilliantly, in the Cable) that Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) - whose bizarre "for-all-practical-matters-a-Republican-but-still-caucusing-with-the-Democrats" position in the Senate many expected to be diminished after the Massachusetts election - played the starring role in the drama that led to the passage of S. 2799.  Reportedly Lieberman took on the role of negotiator between Reid, who wanted to pass the bill quickly - with no amendments or real debate - and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who wanted to offer an amendment (adding additional language to impose sanctions human rights abusers).  Reid apparently feared that if McCain offered his amendment, other amendments (including amendments reflecting the Administration's concerns about the bill) would also be offered, leading to a floor debate and votes he did not want.  Lieberman convinced McCain to not offer the amendment, and reportedly there have been quiet assurances that McCain's text will be considered in conference.
 
2.  TEST OF SENATE FLOOR "DISCUSSION" OF S. 2799
 
Below is the ENTIRE text of the floor "discussion" that accompanied the adoption of the most sweeping package of Iran sanctions ever proposed in the Senate - sanctions never discussed or debated on the floor or in any committee other than the Banking Committee - taking up about 5 minutes of the Senate's time.
 
COMPREHENSIVE IRAN SANCTIONS, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND DIVESTMENT ACT OF 2009 -- (Senate - January 28, 2010)
 
Mr. REID. Madam President, this has been a long time in coming--I think 7 or 8 months--and I have had the distinguished Republican leader contact me on more than one occasion asking when we were going to be able to move this bill. I appreciate his continuing to press to move this bill forward. We are at a point now where we think we have an opportunity to complete this today.
 
I also want to express my appreciation to my friend from the class of 1982 in the House of Representatives, John McCain, who has worked on this as hard as anyone and has pushed this as much as anyone, for his understanding as to how we should move forward.
 
So, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 215, S. 2799; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.
 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
 
Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I reserve the right to object, though I will not object, but I just want to point out the importance of this legislation. I think it deserves a rollcall vote. In discussions with the majority leader and the Republican leader, we will hopefully get a rollcall vote on the conference report.
 
This situation in Iran is terrible, and it is worsening. People are dying in the streets of Iran as we speak. The amendment I had proposed and that I had hoped for--and maybe we can have the conferees include it--would have required the President to draw up a list of persons in Iran who have committed human rights abuses or actions of violence against Iranian civilians engaging in peaceful political activity. The amendment I would have proposed would require that the list be made public so the enemies and oppressors of the Iranian people can't hide from their crimes--the world would know their names--and then we could impose visa bans, asset freezes, financial and banking sanctions, et cetera.
 
In the streets of Iran today the Iranian students are chanting: Obama, Obama, are you with us or are you with them? I appreciate the President's recent statements in support of democracy in Iran. I am pleased to hear that. I am pleased to see articles, such as this one in Newsweek magazine--``Enough Is Enough''--and other support for serious action against Iran that some months ago did not support such action.
 
The time of the majority leader and the Republican leader is valuable, so I would just summarize by saying: This is an important issue, Madam President. We have a country on the road to acquisition of nuclear weapons. We have brutality and oppression in the streets. We have unspeakable brutality taking place in the prisons, and people have been killed. A young woman by the name of Neda bled to death on the street of Tehran before the entire world.
 
So I hope we will be able to impose these and other necessary actions against this tyrannical, oppressive, brutal regime in Iran that I think is coming apart. We want to be on their side, and we want the Iranian people to know we are on their side.  I appreciate the accommodation of the majority leader as well as the Republican leader, and I know they share my commitment, as does my esteemed and wonderful friend from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. So I will not object.
 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
 
Mr. REID. The Senator from Arizona has the assurance of the two leaders--Reid and McConnell--that there will be a vote when this matter comes back from conference, and I am committed to getting it back just as quickly as we can.
 
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican leader.
 
Mr. McCONNELL. Obviously, I will not be objecting. I just want to associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Arizona and to thank him, as well as Senator Lieberman, for their involvement in this issue, as well as the majority leader, and just make one comment.
 
Frequently, these kinds of unilateral sanction measures make little or no difference. This measure, however, is crafted in such a way that it could actually become effective, with America alone not having to depend on the cooperation of the other countries that tend to be less concerned about whether Iran ultimately becomes armed with nuclear weapons.
 
So this is an important piece of legislation, as the majority leader said, as Senator McCain has said, and Senator Lieberman has said. It can actually make a difference.  The time to act on this measure is long overdue.
 
A year ago, the administration came into office with the idea it would try to engage Tehran diplomatically in order to get it to halt its uranium enrichment program. And yet the past year has shown us that the Iranian regime is intent on acquiring the ability to develop a nuclear weapon. This is now abundantly clear.
 
Our straightforward proposal to provide Iran with nuclear fuel for civilian purposes in exchange for its stockpile of low enriched uranium failed to produce any concessions. The Iranian regime has shown no interest in limiting its nuclear ambitions. And an entire year was lost as Iran moved closer and closer to its goal.
 
Some recent highlights from that lost year:  In September, the world learned of Iran's covert uranium enrichment facility in Qom.  That same month, Iran test fired a series of medium and longer range missiles that put U.S. bases in the gulf and our ally, Israel , within range.  In October, the U.N. Security Council and Germany offered to enrich Iran's uranium abroad--an offer that was met by more delay and obfuscation by Tehran.  Deadlines came and went. And just a few days ago, the U.N. Security Council failed to agree on a new round of sanctions. 
 
So here we are, a year later. And what has been the result of diplomatic engagement?  Iran is closer to realizing its nuclear aspirations, and the U.S. has nothing to show for the outreach.
 
And here is what is at stake:  Standing by and permitting Tehran to satisfy its nuclear ambitions would pose a grave threat to American interests in the Middle East and South Asia. The Iranian government is already a profoundly destabilizing influence in the region. It supports proxies in Iraq and Afghanistan that have killed U.S. and allied troops. It has threatened to wipe one of our closest allies, Israel , off the map. It supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. It ruthlessly suppresses its own citizens for peaceful demonstrations.
 
If the Obama administration will not take action against this regime, then Congress must. That is why we are proposing the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act.
 
This act would direct sanctions at one of Iran's biggest vulnerabilities: its low level refining capacity. This is a point of leverage we must use sooner rather than later. Time is of the essence. 
This legislation cleared the Republican side of the aisle several weeks ago.  We are eager for this measure to pass. So I urge the Democratic leadership to call this legislation up immediately. We have lost a year already. We can't afford any further delay.  I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.
 
Mr. DODD. Madam President, today we consider important legislation to confront a serious threat to the security of the U.S., of our close ally Israel , and of our other allies in the Middle East and Europe--the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran. This is one of the most serious foreign policy challenges facing the United States today.
 
Before we move forward on this measure, let me outline briefly where we have been. In 2008, after careful consideration, the Banking Committee reported out a bipartisan bill to put pressure on the Iranian regime to come clean on its nuclear program, and end its illicit nuclear activities. Unfortunately, that bill never was considered on the Senate floor because of the obstruction of a handful of Senators.
 
In recent months, all of us have been deeply troubled to see the Iranian regime violently punishing its own citizens for pressing for fair elections.
 
And we have watched with growing concern the activities of the leaders of this troubled regime, including the continuing repression of their people, their deception about the previously secret nuclear enrichment facility at Qom, and their more recent threats to expand substantially Iran's uranium enrichment activity, in defiance of the demands of the international community and the U.N. Security Council.
 
Last fall, the committee held additional hearings, where we considered the views of a wide range of outside witnesses, and relevant administration officials, on policy options toward Iran. Senator Shelby and I then worked with our committee colleagues to craft a comprehensive, bipartisan bill that was reported out of the Banking Committee unanimously in late October, by a vote of 23-0. The bill is comprehensive, and includes tougher sanctions; provisions which enable divestment by States and local governments from firms working in Iran's energy sector; and measures to combat the black market diversion of sensitive technology to Iran. On December 15, the House acted to approve overwhelmingly a more limited package of sanctions. I am pleased we will be able to finally act today on this comprehensive measure, also with the overwhelming support of this body.
 
Madam President, when he took office, President Obama adopted a two-track policy of engagement backed by the prospect of further sanctions, and I have supported his approach. He has worked tirelessly with our allies to try to bring Iran's leaders to the table to negotiate an end to their illicit nuclear activities or, failing that, to impose a range of new sanctions in hopes of changing Iran's behavior through more coercive diplomatic efforts.
 
Our legislation strengthens what has come to be known as the ``pressure track.'' Today we must send a clear signal to Iran's leaders that if they continue to defy the will of the international community, our Nation and other nations are prepared to confront them with tough new sanctions. I believe that the administration shares this conviction and applaud their work with our allies to develop multilateral agreements on a powerful new set of sanctions, should ongoing diplomatic efforts toward Iran fall short.
 
We must convince Iran's leaders that they face a clear choice. They can end the suppression of their people, come clean on their nuclear program, suspend enrichment, and stop supporting terrorists around the world. Or they can face sustained, progressively intensifying multilateral economic and diplomatic pressure--including tougher sanctions--and deepen their international isolation.
 
And if they continue to refuse, they will then face the unilateral sanctions contained in this bill.
 
Our approach acknowledges the gross human rights abuses that Iran's people continue to suffer at the hands of Iran's security forces and the widening chasm that has opened between the regime and the people of Iran, as we witnessed again recently in the violent reaction of security forces to peaceful demonstrations. It contains a number of important human rights provisions, including Senator Schumer's measure to impose a sweeping ban on U.S. Govemment contracts on companies which provide communications monitoring or jamming technology to the government of Iran. Iran has reportedly expanded its monitoring and suppression activities, employing them widely again this month. This bill makes clear that those who help Iran's government to suppress the everyday speech and internet communications of its people will be punished. That same point was made in the resolution adopted by the Senate just before Christmas, which I cosponsored, expressing our support for the human rights of the Iranian people. Senator McCain has also raised with me today the prospect of his offering some additional human rights language, and I intend to work with him as we move toward conference on that issue.
 
Our bill also takes direct aim at Iran's illicit nuclear activities. It is clear that Iran's leaders are beginning to feel the heat of increased international pressure and the specter of biting sanctions, but more must be done. Following its public disclosure, Tehran has provided international inspectors with access to the nuclear site at Qum, but has taken other steps to limit cooperation with the IAEA. Iran's government had committed to sending most of its low-enriched uranium abroad for processing for medical purposes in October, but now rejects that approach and has decided to further provoke the international community by expanding its enrichment activities.
 
I suspect that only the prospect of intensified, sustained pressure by a coalition of countries will prompt these leaders to reconsider their position.
 
In order to maximize that pressure, just as we did last year, we have incorporated a number of ideas from our Senate colleagues into one committee bill.  Senators Bayh, Lieberman, and Kyl proposed penalties on companies that support Iran's import of refined petroleum products or bolster its domestic capacity.  Senators Brownback and Casey proposed authorizing state and local governments to divest from companies involved in critical business with Iran.
 
As I mentioned, Senator Schumer proposed banning government contracts to firms that provide technology used by the Iranian regime to monitor or disrupt communications of its citizens with one another and the outside world.  Senator Menendez proposed targeting sanctions against Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, its affiliates and front organizations for supporting terrorism and contributing to proliferation, and Senator Johanns pressed for renewed targeting of Iran's proxy Hezbollah in the same way. Senator Bunning urged tighter reporting requirements on sanctions.
 
In addition, we have incorporated our own proposals to tighten our trade embargo, enhance Treasury's mandate to freeze assets tied to terrorism and proliferation, crack down on the black market export of technology to the regime, expand the scope of other sanctions, and take other measures.
 
Madam President, instead of finalizing the preliminary agreement on low-enriched uranium struck between Iranian negotiators and the P5 + 1 group in October, Iran's leadership now appears to have definitively rejected that offer, and has continued a pattern of belligerent behavior that is almost certain to result in tougher sanctions being imposed soon.
 
While some have argued that increased economic sanctions are unlikely to change the behavior of Iran's leaders, I believe a comprehensive approach coordinated with our allies--including the Europeans, moderate Arab states throughout the Middle East, India, and Russia and China who hold great sway with Iran's leaders--must contain a tough sanctions component if it is to succeed. I recognize that sanctions alone are not sufficient, and that multilateral sanctions are likely to be more effective than those we impose unilaterally.
 
Sanctions must be used as effective leverage, undertaken as part of a coherent, coordinated, comprehensive diplomatic and political strategy which tips the scale such that it is more beneficial for Iran to forswear its nuclear weapons ambitions and other behaviors that are undermining regional peace and stability.
 
We have worked closely with administration officials as we developed and refined this measure. They support much of what is in the bill. Even so, I recognize there are still some lingering concerns. Before we left for the holidays, the State Department sent a letter to Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Kerry, describing some of these concerns. They sought a general exemption from sanctions for companies from countries that are closely cooperating with the U.S. on multilateral efforts on Iran, a mechanism which could provide an additional incentive for certain countries to work with us on imposing tougher sanctions. I am open to discussing such an incentive mechanism as we move toward conference, as long as it would contain strict criteria for the President to make a determination about what, precisely, constitutes ``close cooperation.'' There have been a number of discussions in recent weeks on how to craft such an exception, and we have made some progress. There are diplomatic efforts underway, led by the U.S. and others, to achieve a united approach at the U.N. Security Council on sanctions. I believe we can come to some agreement with the other body, and with the administration, on the remaining issues on this bill. I know that the administration shares our belief that we must augment current economic sanctions, and will continue to work with us on an appropriate mix of pressure tools as this process moves forward and the final version of the bill is developed.
 
Madam President, ultimately, I expect that different layers of additional sanctions--from the U.N. Security Council, from a U.S.-led coalition of like-minded allies, and unilaterally from the U.S.--may prove necessary if we are to actually have a powerful effect on Iran's behavior. And even then there are no guarantees that they will be persuaded to reverse course. I hope our legislation will complement and reinforce ongoing diplomatic efforts, and send a clear signal to Iran's leaders of what is in store if they continue to flout the will of the international community.
 
I am grateful to Senator Shelby and all of my colleagues on the Banking Committee, and those off the committee who have worked so hard in recent months to ensure that ours is a smart, targeted, yet comprehensive approach to Iran policy. Overwhelming Senate support for passage of this bill will send a clear signal of our resolve to bring an end to Iran's illicit nuclear activities, as the President continues to build a broad coalition of nations who share our concerns about Iran, and who are willing to join with us in imposing a tough, comprehensive regime of new sanctions. I know there are still some differences to be worked out with the House version, which is less comprehensive, and I look forward to working with my colleagues to develop a final version that will enjoy broad bipartisan support within both bodies, and the support of the President, as soon as possible. I thank my colleagues.
 
3.  APN HILL EVENT ON JERUSALEM
 
On January 28, 2010, Americans for Peace Now, the Foundation for Middle East Peace, and the Kairos Project/Project Engage co-sponsored an event on Capitol Hill entitled "Jerusalem: The Key to Israeli-Palestinian Peace."  The event, which drew a standing-room-only audience in the Rayburn Building, was recorded.  The three-part video can be viewed here.
 
4.  BERMAN (D-CA) ON THE RECORD AT APN EVENT IN LA
 
On January 24, 2010, House Committee on Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) spoke at an APN event in Los Angeles honoring Chairman Berman's longtime friend and APN supporter Irwin Levin.  Notably, while Berman did not have to say anything about the Middle East or APN - he could have just spoken about his friendship with Mr. Levin - he instead he opted to gove a serious foreign policy speech which included some very strong language supportive of the two-state solution, as well as very strong statements of support and appreciation for APN.
 
The full text of the speech was posted to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs website.  APN issued a press release and posted comments on our blog about the speech.  In addition, the speech sparked a "twitter-war," set off by the Republican Jewish Committee, which sent out a tweet characterizing the speech as follows: "Powerful Dem encourages anti-#Israel fringe."  APN posted comments about the RJC's absurd reaction, and the twitter war was covered in the press.  The NJDC also issued a statement about the RJC's reaction.
 
========================================
Don't forget to check the APN blog for breaking news and analysis about issues related to Israel, the Middle East, and the Hill.
========================================
 
Americans for Peace Now promotes Israeli security through the peace process and supports the Israeli Peace Now movement.   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.