Congress Watch, Pages 22-23

Senate Passes Omnibus Iran Sanctions Bill

By Shirl McArthur

In a surprise move, on Jan. 28 Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) brought to the Senate floor for action S. 2799, the “Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment” bill introduced in November by Sen. Christopher Dodd (D-CT) (see March 2010 Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, p. 27). Reid’s move was unexpected because only two days earlier he had said he would bring up the bill “in the next few weeks.” The bill was passed unanimously by voice vote, after no debate and only about five minutes of discussion by Reid, Dodd, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), all strongly supporting the bill (and all recipients of generous contributions from pro-Israel PACS).

This irresponsible bill, if it becomes law in its present form, not only will be punitive—punishing the Iranian people, with negligible effect on the Iranian regime—but counterproductive as well, in that it will probably hurt rather than help pro-democracy forces in Iran. A “catch-all” bill, it encompasses measures included in previously introduced sanctions bills, with some new ones added.

The bill has not been amended since it was introduced, in spite of several reports that the Department of State was working with Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman John Kerry (D-MA) to address some of President Barack Obama’s administration’s concerns. (As the March issue of this magazine reported, Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg wrote to Kerry in December expressing “concern about the timing and content of this legislation,” and saying that it “might weaken rather than strengthen international unity,” and “could cause unintended foreign policy consequences.”) Dodd referred to the administration’s concern in his floor remarks, saying that “I believe we can come to some agreement with the [House], and with the administration, on the remaining issues on this bill.” According to “The Cable” Web site, the reason the bill was raised unamended was that McCain was determined to propose an amendment that would require the administration to sanction Iranian officials who have committed human rights abuses. According to “The Cable,” Reid didn’t want to be forced to allow a protracted debate and other amendments, perhaps by Kerry and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT). So Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) convinced McCain to withdraw his amendment if Reid and McConnell agreed that the substance of McCain’s amendment would be incorporated into the eventual conference report reconciling the Senate and House versions.

The bill does not “authorize” sanctions; it directs them.

In their remarks, both Reid and Dodd referred to a future conference report, but the House has several options. S. 2799 has been sent to the House for action, which could insert the text of the House-passed H.R. 2194, the “Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions” bill (Dodd’s bill has often been referred to as a refined petroleum sanctions bill). However, while H.R. 2194 deals almost exclusively with refined petroleum, S. 2799 goes much further. Alternatively, the House could take up S. 2799 separately, amend it, and send it back to the Senate. Another, unlikely, alternative would be for the House to simply agree to S. 2799 as passed by the Senate, in which case there would be no conference report.

Several accounts, mostly from supporters of the Senate bill, say that it would strengthen Obama’s efforts to gain support from other countries for multilateral sanctions, because it authorizes unilateral sanctions if multilateral efforts fail. However, the bill does not “authorize” sanctions; it directs them (“the president shall impose...”). No presidential waiver authority is included in Section 102, which provides for the expansion of sanctions under the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to cover a wide range of activities, persons and entities involved in exporting refined petroleum products to Iran, or investing in, building or assisting in the development of Iran’s petroleum resources or domestic refining capacity. Sections 103, 104 and 105 do include presidential waiver authority, however. They would impose a broad ban on direct imports from Iran to the U.S. and exports from the U.S. to Iran, exempting food and medicines, and strengthen the president’s ability to freeze the assets of Iranians active in weapons proliferation or terrorism; make U.S. parent companies liable for violations of sanctions by foreign subsidiaries; and prohibit procurement contracts with persons who export sensitive technology to Iran. The bill also “urges” the president to consider imposing sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran or any other Iranian bank engaged in proliferation activities, and expresses the “sense of Congress” that the U.S. should target with economic sanctions Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. Title II of the bill would enable state and local governments to divest from energy firms doing business with Iran, without legal liability.

Nine Senators Urge Obama to Impose Crippling Sanctions on Iran

With S. 2799 holding center stage, most of the other, previously mentioned Iran sanctions bills have made no progress. However, on Jan. 27, the day before Reid brought S. 2799 to the floor, nine senators wrote to Obama saying that the deadline for Iran to make “serious movement” toward living up to its obligations had passed, and that “we believe that it is imperative to put into action your pledge of increased, meaningful pressure against the Iranian regime—what Secretary [of State Hillary] Clinton called ”˜crippling sanctions.’” The letter’s signers were Sens. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), Evan Bayh (D-IN), Lieberman, Ben Cardin (D-MD), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), David Vitter (R-LA), McCain, Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Robert Casey (D-PA).

However, the two House bills described in the March 2010 Washington Report responding to the Iranian government’s harsh repression of opposition demonstrations have gained a few co-sponsors. H.R. 4301, “to support the democratic aspirations of the Iranian people by enhancing their ability to access the Internet and communications services,” introduced in December by Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA) with two co-sponsors, has gained five co-sponsors and now has eight, including Moran. And H.R. 4303, “to enhance U.S. sanctions against Iran by targeting Iranian government officials, prohibiting federal procurement contracts with persons that provide censorship or surveillance technology to the Government of Iran, and providing humanitarian and people-to-people assistance to the Iranian people,” introduced in December by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) with one co-sponsor, has gained one co-sponsor and now has three, including Ellison.

Little Attention to Conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen

With Congress mostly preoccupied with domestic issues, and given the limited congressional attention span, Congress has been largely silent on events in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, although a few hearings have been held.

One resolution regarding Yemen was introduced. On Jan. 28 Kerry, with two co-sponsors, introduced S. Res. 400 requesting that the Obama administration prepare a joint, comprehensive strategy to address instability in Yemen. The measure also reaffirms the Senate’s “commitment to helping prevent state collapse in Yemen, denying terrorists a safe haven, and supporting the people and government of Yemen in dealing with Yemen’s profound and interlocking security, development, and economic challenges.”

Regarding Afghanistan, H.R. 3699, which would “prohibit any increase in the numbers of members of the United States Armed Forces serving in Afghanistan,” introduced in October by Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), continues to make slow progress. It has gained only one co-sponsor and now has 29, including Lee.

As reported in the March Washington Report, the FY ”˜10 Defense appropriations bill passed in December included $128.2 billion for the continuing U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Obama’s decision to send an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan meant he would have to submit a supplemental request for between $30 billion and $40 billion more. This has happened. On Feb. 1, when the administration’s FY ’11 budget was submitted, it was reported that the White House is asking Congress for $33 billion more for FY ’10. This will probably be approved, but only with Republican support, because as many as half the House Democrats may oppose it.

The FY ’11 budget request for defense includes $159 billion for “overseas contingencies operations,” mostly for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

New Massachusetts Senator Stands “Steadfastly Behind” Israel...

Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), elected in a January special election to the Senate seat formerly held by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, said in his position paper on Israel (an AIPAC requirement of all new members of Congress) that he stands “steadfastly behind Israel’s right to defend itself.” He called the Goldstone Report a “blatant manifestation” of “efforts worldwide aimed at undermining this fundamental right.” He also said he “firmly supports” Israel’s “security barrier.” And he supports “the two-state solution” only if it is “premised on security for Israel and is not imposed by outside parties, recognizes that a strict return to the 1967 borders is both unrealistic and unsafe, and reaffirms Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel.”

While Rep. George Miller Describes His More Thoughtful Position

The Jan. 14 edition of the Vallejo, CA Times-Herald included an op-ed piece by Rep. George Miller (D-CA), in response to an earlier piece criticizing his record on issues concerning Israel. Miller said he supports “Israel’s right to exist and flourish in peace and security,” but when it comes to matters affecting the Middle East, “I do not follow orthodoxy but judge issues based on whether they advance the cause of peace and security.” When he has criticized Israeli military action, he wrote, as in Gaza in 2008, it was because he believed “that Israel’s response was disproportionate and undermined its long-term interests.” He also said he supports a two-state solution and the immediate resumption of peace talks, and that “Israel must cease the aggressive, and sometimes illegal, settlement activity in order for the peace talks and the two-state solution to succeed.”

Jerusalem, Arab Boycott Measures Draw Little Support

Previously described were the latest Jerusalem bills, H.R. 3412, introduced in the House in July by Reps. Dan Burton (R-IN) and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), and S. 2737, introduced in the Senate in November by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS). Both bills would remove the presidential waiver authority from the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 and would withhold some State Department funding if the U.S. Embassy in Israel isn’t established in Jerusalem by fiscal year 2012. Neither bill has gained much support, however: each now has only seven co-sponsors, including their respective sponsors.

Also previously described was S. 1671, introduced in September by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), and the identical H.R. 4046, introduced in November by Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), which would require the U.S. trade representative to send to Congress a nine-part report on each country participating in a formal or informal boycott of Israel. These bills, too, have gained scant support: S. 1671 still has only three co-sponsors, including Graham, and H.R. 4046 has 15 co-sponsors, including Berkley.

House Passes Feel-Good Bill on Anti-American Incitement in the Mideast

Back in May Reps. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) and Joe Crowley (D-NY) introduced H.R. 2278 directing “the president to transmit to Congress a report on anti-American incitement to violence in the Middle East.” Then, on Dec. 8, with no action in the interim, the bill was brought to the House floor under “suspension of the rules” (allowing no amendments but requiring a two-thirds majority). It passed on a roll call vote of 395-3, with nine voting “present.” It was forwarded to the Senate and referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where it likely will remain.

Shirl McArthur is a retired U.S. foreign service officer living in the Washington, DC area.

SIDEBAR