To return to the new Peace Now website click here.

Legislative Round-Up: Week Ending March 30, 2012

1.  Bills, Resolutions & Letters
2.  Reid tries to Rush Through New Iran Sanctions
3. Hold lifted on part of Palestinian aid (with conditions)
4.  Hearings & Confirmations
5.  Members on the Record
6.  From the Press

Note: On 3/27/12 the Congressional Research Service (CRS) released a new report on Iran, entitled "Israel: Possible Military Strike Against Iran's Nuclear Facilities".  The report was the subject of a lot of media coverage.  Rather than include that coverage here, we prefer to recommend that people read the report for themselves.

1.  Bills, Resolutions, &  Letters

(HAPPY B-DAY ISRAEL/FEEL FREE TO ATTACK IRAN) H. Con. Res. 115: Introduced 3/29/12 by Rep. Buerkle (R-NY) and 67 cosponsors, "Recognizing the 64th anniversary of the independence of the State of Israel."  Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.  For reporting on this, see this report from the JTA.  Buerkle's Dear Colleague seeking cosponsors on the resolution can be viewed here.  

This resolution makes fascinating reading, representing possibly the most politicized and problematic version to date of this quasi-perennial "happy birthday Israel" exercise.  It is made somewhat more problematic by the election year politics that will surround the resolution, though given the absence of Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Cantor (R-VA) on the cosponsors list (so far most cosponsors have been drawn from the ranks of the Tea Party) it seems very likely that this resolution does not, at least yet, have the weight of GOP leadership behind it.  At this point the resolution is also bipartisan in name only, given that the three Democrats who have signed on so far are not policy heavyweights, to say the least.   It is also worth noting that the 112th Congress has a policy of NOT passing commemorative resolutions - meaning that unless House GOP leaders break their own rules, this won't go to the floor for a vote (though they have broken their rules for an Israel-related resolution in the past).

Some things of note about H. Con. Res. 115:

-    Most notably, the fourth "resolved" clause is an unambiguous Congressional green line - if not explicit encouragement - for an Israeli military attack on Iran, stating that Congress: "...expresses support for Israel's right to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by Iran, defend Israeli sovereignty, and protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time..." [emphasis added].
-    The "whereas" clauses include a clause asserting with certainty (and contrary to the judgment of virtually all senior U.S. national security and intelligence authorities) that Iran is engaged in "ongoing efforts to acquire nuclear weapons".
-    They also state that in recent years, rocket attacks in Israel have caused "hundreds of casualties."  This, despite the fact that according to the Israel Project, 16 Israelis were killed by rockets fired into Israel from Gaza between 2001 and 2008, and according to Btselem, 5 Israelis were killed by rockets fired from Gaza over last past several years, i.e., between 2009 and 2011.   21 Israeli casualties from rocket fire from Gaza over the past 11 years is still 21 too many, but the facts are bad enough without irresponsibly exaggerating them.   
-    They also state that "despite the deaths of over 1,000 innocent Israelis over the last several years at the hands of murderous, suicide bombers and other terrorists, the people of Israel continue to seek peace with their Palestinian neighbors."  This despite the fact that according to data on the website of Israel's own Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the total number of Israeli victims of terrorism (and that's all terrorism, not just Palestinian) for the period of September 2000-October 2009, was 1,218.  The Jewish Virtual Library includes statistics through 2011, and records that for the past several years (i.e., 2008-2011) the total number of Israeli victims of Palestinian terror was 73.  Even one victim of terror is one too many, but again, the facts are bad enough without irresponsibly exaggerating them.
-    They include far-reaching praise of Israeli democracy, notwithstanding the fact that this same democracy is under constant attack in Israel's Knesset (something Congress has chosen to completely ignore).  

(NO AID TO EGYPT) HR 4340: Introduced 3/29/12 by Schweikert (R-AZ), "To restrict assistance to Egypt unless the Government of Egypt holds free and fair elections."  Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.  It is possible that Schweikert is unaware that on 2/16/12 Lorne Cramer, the head of the International Republican Institute, testified before the House Foreign Affairs Committee on this topic.  Cramer suggested that recent elections held in Egypt and monitored by IRI were, indeed, free and fair (although subsequent developments, including targeting of the civil society sector, are extremely troubling).  This is of course a separate question from whether Congress is happy with the results of those elections, which is perhaps what Rep. Schweikert's bill is actually about.  This should feel familiar to those who recall the Congressional response to the 2006 Palestinian elections, which were absolutely, free and fair.  Six years later, it is hard to see how that response was especially helpful to U.S. goals or interests.

(MORE IRAN SANCTIONS) HR 4317: Introduced 3/29/12 by Deutch (D-FL) and Dold (R-IL), "To expand sanctions with respect to the energy sector of Iran, and for other purposes." Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(ENERGY - TURKEY, ETC) H. Res. 611: Introduced 3/29/12 by Stearns (R-FL) and Boren (D-OK), "Promoting global energy supply security through increased cooperation among the United States, Turkey, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Iraq, and Georgia."  Referred to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

(IRAN- BAHAI) S. Res. 80:  Introduced 3/1/12 by Kirk (R-IL) and having 30 cosponsors, "A resolution condemning the Government of Iran for its state-sponsored persecution of its Baha'i minority and its continued violation of the International Covenants on Human Rights."  3/29/12: Agreed to by a voice vote.

(SYRIA) S. Res. 391:  Introduced 3/8/12 by Wyden (R-OR) and 9 cosponsors, "A resolution condemning violence by the Government of Syria against journalists, and expressing the sense of the Senate on freedom of the press in Syria."  3/29/12: Agreed to by a voice vote.

(Iron Dome Letter) Berman et al letter:  This week Rep. Berman (D-CA) led a Dear Colleague letter seeking co-sponsors on HR 4229, authorizing funding for Israel's Iron Dome system.

(Pro-Peace Letter) Cohen-Yarmouth-Connolly letter:  This week Reps. Cohen (D-IN), Yarmouth (D-KY), and Connolly (D-VA) began circulating a Dear Colleague letter seeking cosigners on a letter to President Obama.  The letter expresses strong support "for active American leadership toward achieving a two-state resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian and Israeli-Arab conflicts" and states that "broad American political support for the two-state resolution is under serious attack in the increasingly polarized political environment. In recent months, some on the national political stage have argued that the United States should not play a lead role in the peace process, even denying the existence of the Palestinian people."  The letter was a focal point of J Street's Capitol Hill lobby day this week.  APN supports the Cohen-Yarmouth-Connolly letter.

2.  Reid tries to Rush Through New Iran Sanctions

On 3/27/12, Senate Majority Leader took the Senate floor to seek unanimous consent to pass HR 1905, with the text first amended to replace it with the text of S. 2101, the Iran Sanctions Accountability and Human Rights Act.  

S. 2101 was introduced 2/13/12 by Sen. Johnson (D-SD) and referred to the Senate Banking Committee (of which Johnson is the Chair).  The bill was reported out of that committee the same day, without a report (not surprising, since no markup or hearings were ever held to actually consider the content of this lengthy and significant piece of legislation).

CORRECTION: It was originally reported in this edition of the Round-Up that S. 2101 was never the subject of a committee hearing/markup.  This was an error.  It is true that the Congressional Record does not record any hearing/markup for S. 2101 - showing it as having been introduced, referred to committee, and reported out of committee all on the same day (2/13/12).  However, the actual bill text (before it was formally introduced or given a bill number) was marked up in the Banking Committee on 2/2/12, as reported on in detail in the 2/10/12 edition of the Round-Up.   

S. 2101 is significant not only for what it will mean with respect to the expansion of sanctions, but perhaps moreso because it seeks to codify into law - a law that will be signed by the President - that the U.S. red line has shifted from "Iran acquiring nuclear weapons" to "Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability" - the latter being a line that, arguably, Iran has already crossed and in any case cannot realistically be prevented from crossing.  This effort is consistent with the resolutions that were the focal point of the AIPAC policy conference - H. Res. 568 and S. Res. 380.  At the time, when some people dismissed those resolutions as merely symbolic, I noted that AIPAC-backed symbolic resolutions often have a way of making it into binding legislation.

Reid explained that his goal in seeking Unanimous Consent was to move the Iran sanctions bill as quickly as possible, avoiding amendments from both Democrats and Republicans that would only delay passage, because "We must be vigilant, as we are, about what is going on in Iran. I repeat, we must act now--and act quickly--to further tighten sanctions against Iran. These sanctions are a key tool as we work to stop them from obtaining nuclear weapons, threatening Israel and further terrorizing other parts of the world."  

This begs the question: does Reid believe that passing additional mandatory sanctions on Iran  (which further tie the president's hands) two weeks before new talks with Iran are due to talk will actually increase the chances that talks will succeed?

Reid's effort to rush S. 2101 through the Senate  hit a wall when Sen. Paul (R-KY) formally objected to moving the bill by Unanimous Consent, insisting that the text be amended.  Paul stated:  "My amendment is one sentence long. It states that nothing in this act is to be construed as a declaration of war or as an authorization of the use of military force in Iran or Syria."  In addition, Senator Kirk (R-IL) wants to offer a lengthy amendment (30 pages long), supported by many Republican senators, to further expand Iran sanctions and related penalties, while giving the President very little flexibility (a summary of the amendment is available here).  Senator Lieberman (R, I mean I-CT) also wants to offer an amendment that in all likelihood will consist of attaching S. Res. 380 to S. 2101, and (as predicted) making it official policy, signed by the President, that the U.S. will not tolerate a "nuclear capable" Iran.  

It is worth noting that efforts were made behind the scenes to amend S. Res. 380, before it was introduced, to include language virtually identical to what Paul is suggesting now.  That effort was rejected outright, leading to the conclusion that at least some powerful senators want the message from the Senate to be ambiguous (if not supportive) on the question of the authorization of military force.  If this remains the case, Paul's insistence on his amendment could prove a stumbling block to passing S. 2101 quickly.

It is also worth noting that, once again, Congress is on its way to passing into law far-reaching sanctions without ever holding a single markup or hearing to debate or discuss the content or implications of the legislation.  The media is reporting that S. 2101 passed the Banking Committee unanimously, but this passage appears to have been entirely pro forma, taking place the same day the bill was introduced (meaning most if not all members did not even read the actual bill) and without any actual debate.

Further reading:  
HuffPo 3/28/23: Senator Rand Paul Calls the Question on War with Iran
The Cable 3/27/12:  Reid tries to push through Iran sanctions bill
The Hill 3/27/12: Reid says GOP blocking Iran sanctions bill
The Hill 3/27/12: Sen. Paul clashes with ML Reid over denied war amendment to Iran sanctions bill

3. Hold lifted on part of Palestinian aid (with conditions)

As noted in last week's Round-Up, on 3/23/12 Rep. Granger (R-TX), chair of the House Appropriations Committee's Foreign Operations Subcommittee lifted her hold on remaining assistance to the Palestinians ($147 million).  Her decision to do so left House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) as the sole remaining obstacle to disbursing the funds, which are already months overdue and have already led to significant problems for U.S.-funded programs on the ground.

Subsequently, Ros-Lehtinen on 3/23/12 sent a letter to Secretary of State Clinton and USAID Administrator Rajiv Shah noting that the Committee is releasing its hold on $88.6 million of the funds in question and stating that the hold on the remaining $58.6 million will not be lifted.

The rather extraordinary letter goes on to stipulate that the released funds may NOT be used for a number of purposes.  Specifically, they may not be used for: assistance and recovery in Gaza; road projects in the West Bank unless they are directly related to security or are in Area C (the area under full Israeli control) and are approved by Israel; anything related to "trade facilitation, tourism promotion, cash for work, scholarships for Palestinian students, or office refurbishment or other assistance and improvements to the PA agencies or ministries."

In explaining these limitations, Ros-Lehtinen notes specifically that, in her view, helping Palestinian civilians in Gaza is the same as helping Hamas, since money is fungible, so no assistance for these people is permitted at all.  She also notes that the Palestinian economy is, in her view, doing so well and growing at such a fast pace that it doesn't need U.S. help.  She gives no explanation for the ban on scholarships for Palestinians (perhaps she is convinced that an uneducated population is a key to peace).  As for the limit on assistance for road projects, the limitation is written in such a way that it begs the question: shouldn't this portion of the assistance rightly be re-designated as aid to Israel, and not aid to the Palestinians?

Referring to the Ros-Lehtinen letter, prominent Palestinian businessman (and supporter of peace and the two-state solution) Zahi Khoury commented this week during a briefing on Capitol Hill that this was a "gift to Hamas."  In an article entitled "Congresswoman Against Peace," veteran Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab wrote:

It is hard to understand why a US congressperson would put such conditions over and above the recommendations of USAID officials. The USAID money for the reconstruction of Gaza was pledged by Clinton and does not go to the Hamas-led government, but to the people of Gaza who suffered tremendous hardships during the Israeli war of 2008-09.

Road construction and trade facilitating projects in the West Bank fit perfectly with the two-state solution, which the entire world, including Israel's prime minister, supports. By opposing such projects, the Republican congresswoman goes against US and international policies.

But perhaps the most perplexing decision by the Florida congresswoman is her opposition to promoting Christian tourism to the Holy Land. According to a request for proposals (RFP294- 2011-204) published by USAID last year, the American government was looking for contractors able to help rebuild a number of Christian sites in the occupied West Bank. This includes rebuilding the Burqeen Church in Jenin, working on Jacob's well in Nablus, developing the Shepherd's Field in Beit Sahour and working on Christian sites in Sabastia and Balata, in the north of the West Bank.

This decision harms Christian Palestinians as well as Christians around the world who might want to visit the sites for which she is denying reconstruction funds.

Why is a US congressperson so opposed to actions that support peace, the two-state solution and the strengthening of the Christian community in Palestine?

4.  Hearings & Confirmations

CONFIRMATIONS:  On 3/29/12 the Senate confirmed Jacob "Jake" Wallace as U.S. Ambassador to Tunisia, and Jonathan Christopher "Chris" Stevens as U.S. Ambassador to Libya.  Mazel tov and Mabrouk to both!

On 3/28/12 the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing:  High Stakes and Hard Choices: U.S. Policy on Iran (video).  Testimony:  Thomas Pickering, Former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs and former U.S. Ambassador to the UN; General James E. Cartwright Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (written testimony unavailable); and Karim Sadjadpour, Senior Associate, Middle East Program, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  Ranking member Lugar's (R-IN) opening statement is available here.

On 3/27/23 the Lantos Human Rights Commission held a hearing: The Human Rights Crisis in Syria.  Witnesses were: Robert Ford, U.S. Ambassador to Syria; Maria McFarland, Deputy Washington Director, Human Rights Watch (testimony); Suzanne Nossel, Executive Director, Amnesty International USA (testimony); Andrew Tabler, Next Generation Fellow, Washington Institute for Near East Policy (testimony); and Radwan Ziadeh, Visiting Scholar, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University (testimony).

5.  Members on the Record

Reyes (D-TX) 3/29/12: On the importance of Turkey and Azerbaijan as U.S. strategic allies
Diaz-Balart (R-TX) 3/29/12: Praising Rudy Giuliani for his Iran statements (including his efforts to have the MEK removed from the FTO list), and placing in the record Giuliani's recent statement that, among other things, accused State Department officials of "doing the bidding of the Iranian regime" (with respect to not removing the MEK from said list). [Note:  As a former Foreign Service officer, I find it truly appalling that when he doesn't get his way, Giuliani calls U.S. officials - people who are devoting their lives to serving their country - traitors.  It would be nice to think that members of Congress would defend U.S. civil service and foreign service employees, rather than throwing them under the bus].
Wicker (R-MS) 3/29/12:  Expressing concern about the Obama-Medvedev "hit mike" incident (with reference to Russia's Iran policy)
Lungren (R-CA) 3/29/12: Entering into the record remarks by former Attorney General Mukasy on Iran (addressed to the Iranian opposition at a meeting in Paris)
Frank (D-MA) 3/28/12: Praising the Israeli Supreme Court for Showing Integrity on the Migron Case
Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) 3/28/12: Bashing the Obama Administration for continuing with the same U.S. policy that has been in place since 1948 regarding Jerusalem (don't recall her ever taking Bush to task this way...)
Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) 3/28/12: On the need for "maximum pressure" on Iran and Syria
Cohen (D-TN) 3/28/12: Defending former Pennsylvania governor Rendell for his efforts to get the MEK off the FTO list (efforts that may have actually broken the law, though as yet, Congress doesn't seem concerned with the question of material support for designated FTOs that it actually likes)
Sires (D-NY) 3/27/12: Mourning the Loss Of Pope Shenouda III
Berman (D-CA) 3/27/12: Statement on Administration Support for Israel's Iron Dome Anti-Missile System
Berman (D-CA) 3/26/12: Applauding Supreme Court Ruling Allowing Federal Courts to Rule on Jerusalem Passport Case
Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) 3/26/12: UN Human Rights Council Passes Five More Anti-Israel Resolutions

6.  From the Press

Jerusalem Post 3/29/12: Obama Administration expands sanctions on Iran
The Cable 3/28/12: McCain resolution calls for safe zones and arming the Syrian opposition
The Hill 3/28/12: Kerry: Use diplomacy to stop Iran making a 'mad dash' to nukes
The Christian Science Monitor 3/28/12: Senate resolution on Iran may be bipartisan, but it could lead to war (By Col. Richard L. Klass)
Haaertz 3/27/12: Pentagon to seek additional Iron Dome funding, U.S. official says
NYT 3/27/12: Israel Group Adds a Softer Voice to Debate on Iran
Politico 3/27/12: Pentagon Wants More Money for Israel's Iron Dome
AP 3/27/12: Pentagon to ask Congress for more money to help Israel expand its Iron Dome defense system
NYT 3/26/12: Justices decline to say if Jerusalem-born Americans Can Claim Israeli Birthplace
JTA 3/26/12: J Street pushing peace process letter, Iran envoy bill
Jerusalem Post 3/21/12: Washington Watch: Setting back the war clock (Doug Bloomfield) [notable excerpt:  "Congressional offices reported they were impressed by the numbers and enthusiasm of AIPAC members lobbying them for tighter sanctions but privately complained that the lobby group was pushing too hard for another war when their were increasingly war weary constituents were calling for accelerating the withdrawal from Afghanistan." (emphasis added)]