Caving Congress Gives Bush Authority to Launch Unilateral War on Iraq

By Shirl McArthur

Late in the evening of Oct. 11, President George W. Bush finally won congressional authority to unilaterally attack Iraq. Although the final compromise version of the resolution is watered down from the original Bush proposal, it still gives the president unfettered authority to attack Iraq at any time. The final vote approving the resolution was 296 to 133 in the House and 77 to 23 in the Senate.

The original version would have given Bush the power to attack anywhere in the Middle East, and gave only passing reference to the U.N. and diplomatic efforts. The final version has only three operational sections. The first states Congress’s support for the president’s efforts to “strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council” (UNSC) all relevant UNSC resolutions applicable to Iraq, and to “obtain prompt and decisive action by the UNSC to ensure that Iraq…promptly and strictly complies with all relevant UNSC resolutions.”

After stating that, however, the next section authorizes the president “to use the armed forces of the U.S. as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the U.S. against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant UNSC resolutions regarding Iraq.”

The third section says that if the president decides to exercise the authority granted in the previous section, he must report to Congress no later than 48 hours after exercising that authority.

Although passage of the resolution is being trumpeted as a “bipartisan endorsement of Bush’s Iraq strategy,” the final roll call vote was hardly a resounding show of bipartisan support. Many observers were surprised that 126 out of 208 House Democrats and 21 of 50 Senate Democrats defied their leadership and voted against the resolution. (Senate Majority Leader Thomas Daschle (SD) and House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt (MO) both supported the measure.) Furthermore, every Hispanic Democrat and 27 of the 31 African-American Democrats who voted voted against the bill. Of the six Arab Americans in Congress, however, only Reps. Nick Rahall (D-WV) and John Baldacci (D-ME) voted no.

In the week prior to the final vote it became clear that efforts to induce sanity were doomed, as several previous critics of the administration’s Iraq policy announced that they would support the “compromise” resolution. Key among them were House Majority Leader Dick Armey (TX) and Sens. Joe Biden (D-DE), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Arlen Specter (R-PA). There still remained several influential critical voices, but it was apparent they were a principled minority. Among the most outspoken opponents of the measure who continued to oppose it up to and including the final vote were Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), John Dingell (D-MI), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Jim Moran (D-VA), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and John Spratt (D-SC), and Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Paul Wellstone (D-MN).

The final roll call vote was hardly a resounding show of bipartisan support.

The most interesting parts of the “debate” on the resolution were the discussions on the various amendments, all of which failed. In the House, the two most important amendments were those offered by Reps. Lee and Spratt. The Lee amendment was the most restrictive, urging the president to work through the U.N. rather than launch a unilateral attack. The amendment was defeated 355 to 72. Speaking in favor of Lee’s amendment, Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA) said that Bush’s proposal would transform America “from defenders of democracy to first-strike aggressors.”

The Spratt amendment was the most measured and attracted the most votes, but it, too, was defeated, 270 to 155. It would have expressed strong support for tough U.N. inspections, authorized the use of force if sanctioned by the UNSC, and established a procedure for a separate congressional authorization of force if the U.N. action is insufficient. Speaking in support of the Spratt amendment, Rep. Thomas Allen (D-ME) pointed out that “if the U.S. acts unilaterally or with just a few other nations, there is a far higher risk of fueling resentment in Arab and Muslim nations and swelling the ranks of the anti-U.S. terrorists.”

In the Senate, the first amendment was one offered by Sen Bob Graham (D-FL), which would have expanded the war authorization to include the Abu Nidal organization, Hamas, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, the Palestine Liberation Front, and Hezbollah. It was defeated 88 to 10.

The first of the more serious amendments was one offered by Byrd that would have placed a sunset provision so that the authority would expire after two years. It was defeated by a vote of 66 to 31. Another amendment, offered by Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL) along with Byrd, would have amended the authorization for the use of U.S. armed forces to cover a clear imminent threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction rather than “the continuing threat posed by Iraq.” It failed by a vote of 70 to 30.

The amendment drawing the most attention and discussion was one offered by Levin that was very similar to the Spratt amendment in House. Speaking in support of the Levin amendment, Bingaman pointed out that the language in the proposed resolution authorizing the president “to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” is virtually an open-ended grant of authority. Bingaman said that he does not favor an authorization for war until the president is prepared to say that it is necessary, and Bush “has explicitly said he is not prepared to advise us of that at this time.” Nevertheless, the amendment failed by a vote of 75 to 24.

Anti-Arab Provisions in Foreign Relations Authorization Act

While most Congress watchers—including, apparently, the State Department—were concentrating on the debate regarding Iraq and the lack of progress on appropriations bills, a small band of pro-Israel extremists managed to include anti-Palestinian and anti-Lebanese provisions in the conference report to the Foreign Relations Authorization act.

The conference report was passed by the Senate on Sept. 16, by the House on Sept. 25, and signed by Bush on Sept. 30. Of the several sections in the act affecting the Middle East, three stand out as being particularly egregious attempts to sabotage U.S. national interests in the Middle East.

The first of these, and the one receiving the most publicity, was the section that effectively amounts to recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. It urges the president to immediately begin the process of moving the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, bars the use of funds for the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem unless it is under the supervision of the U.S. ambassador to Israel, requires U.S. official publications listing capital cities to identify Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and allows U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem to, upon request, have their birthplace listed as Israel on their passports.

These provisions are considered “hardy perennials” because they appear every legislative session in one form or another. In the past, however, at the strong urging of the administration in power, the provisions have been quietly removed by the conference committee. This time, however, either the administration did not make the case for removal of the provisions or, as is more likely, a small group of Israel-first members of the conference committee, led by Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), was able to prevail while the administration and those committee members more concerned with U.S. national interests were distracted by the Iraq debate.

When the authorization bill reached the president’s desk, he felt compelled to sign it because it included several provisions the administration considers vital. Most notably, it allows for the payment of overdue U.S. dues to the U.N. On signing the bill, however, Bush issued a four-page “signing statement” in which he detailed the administration’s rejection of many of the bill’s most controversial provisions. Although the Jerusalem provisions do not contain a “presidential waiver” clause, Bush’s signing statement made clear that “U.S. policy regarding Jerusalem remains unchanged,” adding that the Jerusalem provisions “would, if construed as mandatory rather than advisory, impermissibly interfere with the president’s constitutional authority to formulate the position of the United States, speak for the nation in international affairs, and determine the terms on which recognition is given to foreign states.”

The second attempt to sabotage U.S. interests in the Middle East was the inclusion of nearly the full text of H.R. 1795, the Middle East Peace Commitments Act (MEPCA), introduced back in May 2001 by Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY). These provisions require the president to report to Congress every six months whether the PLO and/or the PA are abiding by their commitments under the Oslo agreement. If the president determines non-compliance, he is to impose at least one of four specified sanctions for a period of at least six months. However, the section also includes a provision giving the president full waiver authority, which Bush is expected to exercise.

The third surprise attack on U.S. interests in the Middle East was the retention of a variation of the provision withholding all aid to Lebanon in the House version of the authorization bill. In the version as signed, $10 million of the total $35 million in economic aid is to be withheld until the president certifies to Congress that the Lebanese army has been deployed “to the internationally recognized border between Lebanon and Israel,” and the government of Lebanon is “effectively asserting” its authority in that area. There is no presidential waiver provision.

As reported in the July 2001 issue of this magazine, during the floor debate on the House version of the bill, Lantos submitted an amendment to withhold the entire $35 million in U.S. aid to Lebanon. The amendment was publicly opposed by the administration and, in fact, was defeated in the initial roll call vote. It passed only after 17 members were “convinced” to change their votes prior to the official closing of the vote.

In a final demonstration of congressional chutzpah, the conference report also retained the section from the House version of the bill directing the administration to “assist its ally, Israel, in its efforts to establish diplomatic relations” with the 30 or so countries that do not have diplomatic relations with Israel. It also requires the secretary of state to report to Congress on the actions taken by U.S. officials to encourage other countries to establish relations with Israel. This section, too, will surely be ignored by the administration. As Bush said in his statement, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to determine the U.S. government’s policy on recognition of a foreign state; one can thus infer that it doesn’t have the authority to set other governments’ policies on recognition of a foreign state.

Congress Leaves Without Passing Appropriations Bills

Congress adjourned Oct. 17, having passed only the defense and military construction bills of the 13 total appropriations bills. They did pass a “continuing resolution” allowing the government to continue functioning under the previous year’s funding levels. That expires Nov. 22, however, meaning that Congress will have to return after the election in a lame-duck session to deal with the remaining bills.

Although the House and Senate passed separate versions of the foreign operations (foreign aid) appropriations bill, the conference committee to reconcile the two versions has not yet issued its report. Both the House and Senate versions include, for Israel, the expected $600 million in economic aid and $2.1 billion in military aid, plus $60 million for refugee resettlement; $615 million in economic aid and $1.3 billion in military aid for Egypt; and $35 million for educational programs in Lebanon. Interestingly, while the Senate version says that $550 million of Israel’s military aid can be used for procurement in Israel, the House version says “not less than” $550 million. The Senate version also includes $250 million in economic aid and $198 million in military aid for Jordan.

In addition, the House version includes the $200 million for Israel and $50 million for “the West Bank and Gaza” that was part of the portion of the supplemental appropriations bill not approved by Bush, as discussed in the previous issue of this magazine. The Senate version, however, which was passed before the failure of the supplemental appropriations bill, does include $75 million for “humanitarian, refugee, reconstruction, and development activities, including activities to promote democratic and economic reform for the West Bank and Gaza.”

Last month’s issue of the Washington Report repeated a report from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that efforts were under way in the House to include a version of the “Arafat Accountability Act,” a tougher version of the MEPCA, described above. That is not quite what happened. Instead, the House version includes a section entitled “Palestinian Statehood.” Rather than withholding funds from the Palestinian Authority, this section says that no funds may be provided to support a Palestinian state unless the secretary of state certifies to Congress that (1) the new leadership has been democratically elected through credible and competitive elections; (2) the elected governing entity has demonstrated a commitment to peaceful coexistence with Israel and is taking measures to counter terrorism; and (3) the PA or the new governing body is working with other countries in the region to “pursue efforts to establish a just, lasting, and comprehensive peace in the Middle East that will enable Israel and an independent Palestinian state to exist within the context of full and normal relationships.” The section includes full presidential waiver authority.

Defense Bill Goodies for Israel

The Defense Department appropriations bill, H.R. 5010, one of the two passed by both houses of Congress before they skipped town, includes $240 million for so-called “joint U.S.-Israel strategic programs.” These are really subsidies to Israeli weapons programs, since the U.S. military has no plans to use them. The largest item is $136 million—$70 million above the administration’s request—for the Arrow missile defense system. Other items include $28 million for the Litening II targeting pod, which helps aircraft fly and target in bad weather; $25 million for Bradley reactive armor tiles, designed to protect armored vehicles by exploding outward when hit; and $15 million for the Mobile tactical high energy laser, another anti-missile defense system.

Final Notes

On Oct. 8, during the Iraq debate, Senators Biden and Specter introduced S. 3079, designed to encourage Iraqi scientists in Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs to defect to the U.S. It would grant immigrant visas to such scientists who have “critical information” regarding the programs and are willing to provide that information to U.N. or International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, or to any U.S. department or agency. There would be no limit on accompanying immediate family members. Considering the short time remaining in the 107th Congress, it is unlikely, though not impossible, that the bill will be acted upon.

Also during the Iraq debate, Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-SC) inserted into the Congressional Register an article he wrote for the Charleston, SC Post and Courier on Aug. 30 saying that the Israel-Palestine problem should be confronted first, “and deal later with Saddam.” According to Hollings, “Sharon’s approach to peace—bulldozing homes, sending in gun ships, and reoccupying Palestinian territories—is creating more terrorists than are being eliminated.” He continued, “Whining ‘they hate us,’ we refuse to discuss or recognize the Palestinian cause.”

Five, 10, or 30 years from now, Hollings said, there will be an Israel and there will be a Palestine, and Bush must be personally involved with Middle East leaders to “work out a realistic step-by-step institution for the security of Israel and the state of Palestine. Only after that can America get the support we need around the globe for the terrorism war and the overthrow of Saddam.”

Shirl McArthur, a retired foreign service officer, is a consultant in the Washington, DC area.