Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, December
2006, pages 20-21
Congress Watch
Congress Recesses for Elections Without Acting on Most Middle
East-Related Bills
By Shirl McArthur
The 109th Congress has been widely and justifiably criticized
as a “do-nothing Congress” because of its lack of action
on most major bills. Accordingly, Congress recessed for the elections
without taking action on most Middle East-related bills and resolutions,
although there is a slim chance that some of them might be taken
up during the “lame duck” session after the elections.
An exception to this generalization was the passage of H.R. 6198,
a significantly modified version of the “Iran Freedom Support
Act.” The original versions, H.R. 282, introduced in January
2005 by Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), and S. 333, introduced
the following month by Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), would have amended
the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 to say that U.S. sanctions,
controls and regulations relating to weapons of mass destruction
would remain in effect until the president certifies that Iran
has dismantled its weapons of mass destruction programs. They also
would have eliminated provisions regarding Libya, expanded the
sanctions and reporting provisions, eliminated the sunset provision,
and authorized the president to provide assistance to support democracy
in Iran. H.R. 282 was passed by the House on April 26 and sent
to the Senate, where it was never acted on. Similarly, the Senate
leadership has also not acted on S. 333, in spite of its having
62 co-sponsors.
The new version, H.R. 6198, was introduced by Ros-Lehtinen on
Sept. 27, passed by the House on Sept. 28, passed by the Senate
on Sept. 30, and signed by the president the same day. (A companion
bill, S.3971, was introduced in the Senate by Santorum on Sept.
28, but never acted upon.) As modified in order to make it more
palatable to the administration, the bill eliminates some administration
reporting requirements and liberalizes the president’s waiver
authority. It also restores the sunset provision, with a new termination
date of Dec. 31, 2011.
Interestingly, it also includes two provisions saying that nothing
in the act “shall be construed as authorizing the use of
force against Iran,” and that “none of the funds authorized
under this section shall be used to support the use of force against
Iran.”
House Urges International Peace-Keepers on Lebanese-Syrian Border
Another measure that was passed was H.Res. 1017, “affirming
support for the sovereignty and security of Lebanon and the Lebanese
people.” (Since this is a House resolution, not a joint resolution
or a bill, it is neither sent to the Senate nor signed by the president.
It merely expresses the sense of the House.) It was introduced
Sept. 20 by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), with 15 co-sponsors, including
all four Lebanese-American members of the House. It was passed
under “suspension of the rules” on Sept. 26, with only
Reps. Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Dennis Kucinich
(D-OH), Jim McDermott (D-WA) and Ron Paul (R-TX) voting no.
Its main focus is on the flow of arms and materiel from Syria
to Hezbollah. Among the 13 “resolved” clauses is one
calling on all countries “to take every possible measure
to prevent the transfer of arms to Hezbollah, so as to contribute
to the stability of Lebanon and of the region and to the enforcement
of the sovereignty of the government of Lebanon over its own territory.” Another
clause “urges the government of Lebanon to request without
delay international assistance including, but not limited to, military
forces, as needed, on the Lebanese border with Syria so as to prevent
the resupply of weapons to Hezbollah.” A clause that was
not in Lantos’ original version “urges that such international
assistance not impede commercial, non-military trade between civilians
on both sides of the border.”
Defense Appropriations Bill Increases Aid to Israel, But Palestinian
Punishment Bill Still Languishes
While the foreign affairs and foreign aid appropriations bills
were held over until after the elections, Congress did manage to
pass the defense appropriations bill. Although the monies for the
so-called U.S.-Israel joint defense projects are not specifically
earmarked, the right-wing Israeli news service Arutz Sheva reported
that the bill includes some $500 million for those projects—nearly
double the administration’s $268 million request. All of
the money for those projects goes to Israel, in addition to the
annual military aid appropriation.
As suggested in the previous issue, there has been no movement
to attempt to reconcile the differences between the two versions
of the “Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act.” The House
passed its version, H.R. 4681, on May 23, and the Senate passed
its version, S.2370, on June 23. S. 2370 is less draconian than
H.R. 4681 in that it focuses more specifically on Hamas and allows
the president more flexibility in getting around the ban on aid.
(See the August 2006 “Congress Watch” for a description
of the two versions.)
Ron Kampeas, writing for the Jewish Telegraph Agency on Sept.
19, quoted Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) as saying, “I don’t
see there’s enough time [during the remainder of the 109th
Congress] to resolve the differences,” and “I see a
discussion taking place as soon as the new Congress is formed.” Anything
done in the new Congress, however, will have to be a new measure,
since both H.R. 4681 and S. 2370 will expire with the end of the
109th Congress.
19 Representatives Urge Direct Diplomatic Dialogue With Iran
On Sept. 29, 19 representatives signed a letter to President George
W. Bush urging him to “open up direct diplomatic channels
with Iran.” While acknowledging “the inflammatory rhetoric
of President Ahmadinejad,” the letter, originated by Rep.
Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD), points out that nearly 26 years of not
having formal diplomatic dialogue with Iran “has not yielded
positive results.” Its strongest paragraph argues, “there
are seldom occasions in history where a great country should fear
dialogue with a potential adversary. On the contrary, dialogue
is needed to explain clearly the compelling nature of America’s
objectives in the Middle East. More than 25 years of isolating
Iran has moved us farther from, not closer to, achieving these
goals.”
The letter’s signers, in addition to Gilchrest, were Reps.
Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Elijah Cummings
(D-MD), Peter DeFazio (D-OR), John Duncan (R-TN), Phil English
(R-PA), Gil Gutknecht (R-MN), Hinchey, Walter Jones (R-NC), Jim
Kolbe (R-AZ), Randy Kuhl (R-NY), Jim Leach (R-IA), John Olver (D-MA),
Butch Otter (R-ID), Ron Paul (R-TX), David Price (D-NC), Joe Schwarz
(R-MI), and Vic Snyder (D-AR).
Reflecting the increasing congressional unease over the possibility
that the Bush administration might be goaded into ill-advised military
action against Iran, two previously described House resolutions
have gained co-sponsors, although neither is likely to be passed.
H.Con.Res. 391, introduced by DeFazio in April, saying that “the
president should not initiate military action against Iran with
respect to its nuclear program without first obtaining authorization
from Congress,” now has 45 co-sponsors, including DeFazio.
H.Con.Res. 425, introduced by Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) in June, saying
that “the crisis regarding Iran’s nuclear program should
be resolved primarily through diplomatic means,” now has
11 co-sponsors, including Kirk.
Two New Pro-Israel Resolutions Introduced…
In the final week before recess, two new resolutions promoting
Israel were introduced. The first, H.Res. 1044, introduced Sept.
27 by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), with Reps. Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
and Lantos as co-sponsors, calls for the release of Israeli soldiers “held
captive by Hamas and Hezbollah.” H.Res. 1077, introduced
Sept. 29 by Ros-Lehtinen with no co-sponsors, expresses “deep
concern over the use of civilians as ‘human shields’…including
Hezbollah’s tactic of embedding its forces among civilians.”
…But They and Other Mideast Bills Will Likely Die With
109th Congress
The above two measures were likely introduced as pre-election
favors to the sponsors’ Jewish constituents. However, it
is highly unlikely that they and the many other pro-Israel measures
will be passed during Congress’ lame duck session. But the
caveat must be added that Ros-Lehtinen has been remarkably adept
at getting her pet measures raised and passed by the House under
suspension of the rules, as she did in June with the less-than-earth-shaking
H.Con.Res. 338, decrying “the activities of Islamist terrorist
organizations in the Western Hemisphere.”
Some of the measures gaining co-sponsors but likely to die include
H.R. 5278, Kirk’s attempt to curtail the activities of the
U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees in the Near
East (UNRWA); H.Con.Res. 412 and S.Con.Res. 98, the two measures
sponsored by Ros-Lehtinen and Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), respectively,
stating a “matter of policy that Jerusalem must remain the
undivided capital of Israel,” and that the president should “begin
the process of relocating the U.S. Embassy in Israel;” and
H.Res. 848 and S.Res. 494, also authored by Ros-Lehtinen and Brownback,
concerning “the creation of refugee populations in the Middle
East, North Africa, and the Persian Gulf as a result of human rights
violations,” whose focus is on Jewish refugees from Arab
and Muslim countries.
Shirl McArthur is a retired foreign service officer based in
the Washington, DC area. |