Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August 2008, pages 30-31, 69

Congress Watch

House Passes Significant Advancement in U.S.-Israel Military Relationship

By Shirl McArthur

ON MAY 15 the House passed, under suspension of the rules (a procedure designed to be used for routine, administrative, or non-controversial measures), H.R. 5916. Introduced on April 29 with four co-sponsors by House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC) chair Howard Berman (D-CA), the nominal purpose of the bill is “to reform the administration of the Arms Export Control Act.” Despite its innocuous title, however, Title II (of four) would constitute a significant advancement of the U.S.-Israel military relationship, and would codify assuring Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME) over potential military threats. “Even before I was a Democrat, I was a Zionist,” Berman had told the Jewish weekly The Forward in April (see July “Other Voices” supplement).

Among other things, Section 201 would require the president to continually assess “the extent to which Israel possesses a qualitative military edge over military threats,” and would require any proposed sale of arms to other Middle East countries to be conditioned on a certification that the sale does not adversely affect Israel’s QME. Section 203 would extend for two years a provision of the 2005 Defense Appropriations Act that the president may transfer to Israel, “in exchange for concessions to be negotiated by the secretary of defense,” armor, artillery, automatic weapons ammunition, missiles, and other munitions deemed to be “obsolete or surplus,” or are in the Defense Department inventory, or are “intended for use as reserve stocks for Israel,” or located in stockpile in Israel.

Section 204 authorizes implementation of last year’s Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. and Israel regarding eliminating economic aid and increasing military grants to Israel (see March 2008 Washington Report for details). Specifically, it authorizes FY ’09 military aid of the amount specified for FY ’08 ($2.38 billion), plus $150 million. It also says that, of this amount, “not less than” $670.65 million may be spent in Israel.

The bill was forwarded to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where it rests.

Congress Passes Another Unrestricted War Supplemental Bill

Once again, a “supplemental” appropriations measure to fund the ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan concerned Congress for much of May and into June. In April, President George W. Bush requested a $108 billion supplemental war-funding bill for FY ‘08, with no added domestic spending and no curtailing of his war-making powers. Both houses of Congress ignored his threat to veto any bill that exceeded his request.

The Senate restored $162 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the House, the supplemental took the form of three amendments tacked on to H.R. 2642, the appropriations bill for military construction and the Department of Veterans Affairs. The first amendment would appropriate $162.5 billion to fund the wars, including a so-called bridge fund for FY ’09 to give the new president money for a few months. The second amendment was a set of policy restrictions, including requiring troop redeployment from Iraq to begin within 30 days, with a goal of having all U.S. combat troops out of Iraq by December 2009, and an anti-torture provision. The third amendment included expanded benefits for returning veterans, plus a variety of domestic and foreign spending, including about $1 billion for the Middle East (see below). This part also included bridge funds for FY ’09. On May 15 the first amendment failed, because 131 Republicans voted “present” (i.e., abstained). The second and third amendments passed easily.

The Senate took up the measure on May 22, first adopting, by a vote of 75-22, an amendment by Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) that stripped out the House text and inserted a substitute Senate text that did not include the House version’s policy restrictions (including mandatory troop withdrawal). The Senate then adopted, by a vote of 70-26, a separate amendment restoring $162 billion to fund the wars, including FY ’09 bridge funds.

Then, rather than going to conference to reconcile the two versions, the House received the Senate version for approval. At that point came lengthy negotiations among House Democratic and Republican leaders and the White House to get a compromise the president would sign. In the end, the House on June 19 first approved the Senate amendment restoring the war funding, then approved an amendment giving reduced amounts for non-defense spending. The Senate’s Democratic leaders reluctantly agreed.

Monies appropriated in the final version for the Middle East include: for the West Bank, $171 million in FY ’08 and $150 million in FY ’09 for economic aid, plus $25 million in FY ’08 and $50 million in FY ’09 for training Palestinian security forces; for Jordan, $175 million in FY ’08 and $125 million in FY ’09 for economic aid, plus $17 million in FY ’08 and $133 million in FY ’09 for military aid; and for Israel, $170 million in FY ’09 for military aid.

More Measures to Shift Responsibility for Iraq Reconstruction Funding

As reported in the previous issue of the Washington Report, U.S. domestic economic pressures have led some members of Congress from both parties to try to shift responsibility for funding Iraq reconstruction. Two new measures were introduced. H.R. 5899, introduced by Rep. Allen Boyd (D-FL) with eight co-sponsors, would require funding for Iraq security forces to be in the form of loans, and would require the Iraqi government to provide matching funds for the account to respond to urgent humanitarian and reconstruction needs. On May 15, Rep. William Delahunt (D-MA), with nine co-sponsors, introduced H.Res. 1205, which would ask the Iraqi government to dedicate $1 billion for Iraqi refugees. One measure described in the previous issue of this magazine was passed. On May 1 the Senate passed S.Res. 494, introduced in April by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA). It expresses “the sense of the Senate on the need for Iraq’s neighbors and other international partners to fulfill their pledges to provide reconstruction assistance to Iraq.”

The three measures described in the previous issue of the Washington Report urging that any future funding for Iraq reconstruction be in the form of loans have all gained co-sponsors. S.Res. 506, introduced in April by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), has gained one co-sponsor and now has six, including Nelson; H.Res 1108, introduced in April by Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT), has gained three co-sponsors and now has five, including Shays; and H.Res. 1111, introduced in April by Rep. Ron Klein (D-FL), has gained 28 co-sponsors and now has 39, including Klein. Also, S. 2880, introduced in April by Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), and H.Res. 1123, introduced in April by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), have each gained only one co-sponsor and now have two and ten, respectively. S. 2880 would provide that reconstruction funds for Iraq “may be made available only to the extent that the government of Iraq matches such assistance on a dollar-for-dollar basis,” and H.Res. 1123 says the president should not conclude a Status Of Forces Agreement (S0FA) or other bilateral agreement with Iraq unless it includes a provision saying that Iraq “agrees to reimburse the U.S. for all costs incurred by the U.S. related to the presence of U.S. armed forces in Iraq after the effective date of the agreement.”

Previously described measures aimed at limiting the Bush administration’s ability to conclude a SOFA or a “bilateral security” agreement with Iraq without congressional approval have made minimal progress. The one having the most support is H.R. 4959, introduced in January by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT). It now has 58 co-sponsors, including DeLauro. S. 2426, introduced in December by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY), now has 14 co-sponsors, including Clinton; H.R. 5128, introduced in January by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), now has 16 co-sponsors, including Lee; H.Res. 1028, introduced by Lee in March, now has 10 co-sponsors, including Lee; and H.R. 5626, introduced in March by Delahunt, now has 13 co-sponsors, including Delahunt.

However, H.R. 3797, introduced by Rep. David Price (D-NC) in October, which would require the president to “seek a regional diplomatic plan for the Middle East,” has gained no co-sponsors and still has 59, including Price. But H.Con.Res. 321, introduced in April by Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), “expressing the need for a more comprehensive diplomatic initiative led by the U.S., the Republic of Iraq, and the international community to ensure the establishment of a cohesive government in Iraq,” has gained seven co-sponsors, and now has 19, including Gilchrest.

The Republican response to these attacks on Bush’s policies in Iraq, H.Con.Res. 315, introduced in March by Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC), “supporting the idea that coalition victory in Iraq is possible” and claiming that “the overall progress being made on the ground in Iraq is undeniable” and that the decision to provide a surge of troops “was the correct course of action and has been successful,” has gained only one co-sponsor and now has 111, including Wilson.

LaHood-Price Letter Urges Renewed Israeli-Palestinian Peace Efforts

On May 14, 52 representatives (see box) sent a balanced letter to Bush, initiated by Reps. Ray LaHood (R-IL) and Price, expressing their concern that the violence in southern Israel and Gaza will continue to hamper progress toward Israeli-Palestinian peace and that “solutions must be found to stabilize the Gaza situation.” The letter says that any solution to the crisis “must include unequivocal international condemnation of the [Hamas] rocket attacks” and “must end the Gaza blockade in a secure and timely manner, including the possible re-opening of the Egypt-Gaza border crossing under Palestinian Authority control.”

Another positive development was the introduction in each house of Congress of a resolution recognizing the 15th anniversary of Seeds of Peace, “an organization promoting understanding, reconciliation, acceptance, coexistence, and peace in the Middle East, South Asia and other regions.” S.Res. 536 was introduced by Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) on April 28 and passed by the full Senate, with 11 co-sponsors, the same day. H.Con.Res. 337 was introduced by Rep. Thomas Allen (D-ME) on April 29, with 52 co-sponsors. The following day HFAC recommended that it be brought to the full House under “suspension of the rules,” but that hasn’t happened.

House Passes Ill-Advised Lebanon Resolution

On May 22 the House passed under suspension of the rules H.Res. 1194, introduced on May 14 by Berman with four co-sponsors, reaffirming the House’s support “for the legitimate, democratically-elected government of Lebanon under Prime Minister Fouad Siniora.” The role-call vote was 401-10, with two voting “present.” Among the “resolved” clauses was one condemning “Syria and Iran for illegally transferring arms and providing other forms of military support to Hezbollah,” and one urging “the U.S, 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.” Indicating the counter-productive nature of the resolution, of the 12 members voting no or present, nine were also signers of the LaHood-Price letter. Those voting no were Reps. Neil Abercrombie (D-HI), Baldwin, Hinchey, Walter Jones (R-NC), Kucinich, Lee, McDermott, Moore (WI), Stark, and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA). Voting present were DeFazio and Watt.

Speaking on the House floor opposing the resolution, Kucinich noted that the U.S. “either looked the other way or encouraged, depending on whose story you accept, the continued bombing of Lebanon.” He said the U.S. “should be doing everything we can to strengthen a process of dialogue in Lebanon. I don’t believe this resolution accomplishes that.” Ron Paul (R-TX) said that the key “resolved” clause urging the U.S. government and the international community to take appropriate actions reads to him like an authorization to use force in Lebanon, “eerily similar to a key clause in the 2002 Iraq war authorization.” Referring to the negotiations then taking place in Qatar between the Lebanese factions, Paul added that, rather than passing a “confrontational resolution endorsing one side,” the House should “instead encourage the negotiations that have already begun to resolve the conflict.”

A similar resolution, H.Res. 1201, was introduced on May 15 by Rep. Steve Israel (D-NY) with 17 co-sponsors. It was referred to the HFAC, where it will remain, having been superceded by the decision to bring H.Res. 1194 to the floor.

Also regarding Syria, on April 24 Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) introduced S. 2917, “to strengthen sanctions against the government of Syria,” and “enhance multilateral commitment to address the government of Syria’s threatening policies.” This is the Senate version of H.R. 2332, the “Syria Accountability and Liberation” bill introduced in May 2007 by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) to expand and broaden the sanctions already passed into law by the “Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act of 2003.” H.R. 2332 continues to gain co-sponsors, and now has 141, including Ros-Lehtinen.

Ever diligent in her all-stick-and-no-carrot approach to Syria and Iran, Ros-Lehtinen on June 4, with three co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 6178 “to strengthen existing legislation sanctioning persons aiding and facilitating nonproliferation [sic] activities by the governments of Iran, North Korea, and Syria.”

Schumer, Weiner Try New Approach Opposing Arms Sale to Saudi Arabia

Identical resolutions were introduced in the Senate and the House that would link the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia to the high price of oil. The bills would prohibit the issuance of letters of offer regarding the sale of specified defense articles and defense services to Saudi Arabia unless, within 30 days of the enactment of the resolution, the Kingdom “increases its oil production by 1,000,000 barrels of oil per day in excess of its oil production as of Jan. 1, 2008” and maintains the increased production “for not less than 90 days after the date on which such increased production is reached.” In the Senate, S.J.Res. 32 was introduced on May 13 by Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) with four co-sponsors, and H.J.Res. 87 was introduced in the House on May 21 by Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) with no co-sponsors.