Bush Vetoes Supplemental Appropriations Bill Requiring Troop Withdrawal From Iraq

By Shirl McArthur

On May 1, President George W. Bush vetoed H.R. 1591—the $124 billion supplemental appropriations bill to fund, among other things, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan—because he objected to its strict timetable for U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraq, beginning as early as July 1.

Prior to the congressional Easter recess, the House and the Senate passed different versions of the bill. The House version would require the Iraqi government to assume greater responsibilities and meet a set of benchmarks; the Pentagon to impose strict standards to improve U.S. troop readiness; and would impose deadlines for the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops. The main difference in the Senate version was that the dates for withdrawal of U.S. combat troops were given as goals, rather than strict deadlines. The conference committee reconciling the two versions finally issued its report on April 23. While slightly altering the dates, it largely adopted the stricter House language.

The conference report says that if Bush cannot certify that the Iraqi government has made progress toward meeting the stated benchmarks, U.S. combat troops would begin withdrawing by July 1, 2007, with the withdrawal to be completed by the end of 2007. If the certification is made, troop withdrawal would begin by Oct. 1, 2007, and be completed by April 1, 2008.

The House passed the report on April 25 on a roll call vote of 218-208, with Reps. Jo Ann Emerson (R-MO) and Pete Stark (D-CA) voting present. Only Reps. Wayne Gilchrest (R-MD) and Walter Jones (R-NC) joined the Democrats in voting for the bill. Thirteen Democrats joined the Republicans in opposing it: Reps. John Barrow (GA), Dan Boren (OK), Lincoln Davis (TN), Dennis Kucinich (OH), Barbara Lee (CA), John Lewis (GA), Jim Marshall (GA), Jim Matheson (UT), Michael McNulty (NY), Michael Michaud (ME), Gene Taylor (MS), Maxine Waters (CA) and Lynn Woolsey (CA). The Senate passed the report the next day, on a vote of 51-46. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) joined the Republicans in opposing the measure, and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), and Gordon Smith (R-OR) joined the Democrats in voting for it.

Meanwhile, congressional leaders of both parties were starting to try to put together a compromise bill that can be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by Bush. The strict timetable for troop withdrawal will probably be dropped, perhaps to be inserted later into a different defense-related bill. But the benchmark provisions have supporters in both parties and may be retained. Several options are being considered, and it is likely that negotiations to craft a compromise bill will run into the middle of May.

The benchmark provisions have supporters in both parties and may be retained.

Meanwhile, three new Iraq-related bills were introduced. In the Senate, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), with nine co-sponsors, on April 10 introduced S. 1077, probably one of the strongest anti-war bills circulating in Congress. It says that redeployment of U.S. forces from Iraq should begin within 120 days of enactment of the bill, with funding for the war to be cut off by March 31, 2008, with certain limited exceptions. In a surprise to many observers, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) agreed to be one of the bill’s co-sponsors.

In the House, Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT), with no co-sponsors, introduced two measures on March 29. H.R. 1837 would “require the president to develop a plan containing dates certain for the commencement and completion of a phased redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq.” H.Con.Res. 110 would express “the sense of Congress that Iraq should vote to approve or disapprove the continued deployment of U.S. Armed Forces to Iraq and, unless Iraq votes to approve such continued deployment, the president of the U.S. should commence the phased redeployment of U.S. Armed Forces from Iraq within 60 days of the Iraq vote.”

AIPAC-Backed Letters Urge Continued, Expanded Palestinian Sanctions

It is striking, and sad, how many members of Congress do not see how U.S. interests in the Middle East can best be furthered. Or perhaps they simply fear the wrath of AIPAC. Along with expanding sanctions on Iran (see below), one centerpiece of AIPAC’s March 11-13 annual conference was to ensure continued and expanded sanctions on the Palestinian government. The chosen vehicles were two congressional letters, one from the Senate to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and one from the House to the European Union’s High Representative Javier Solana.

The Senate letter, drafted by Sens. John Ensign (R-NV) and Bill Nelson (D-FL), originally called on the Bush administration to oppose the Hamas-Fatah unity government, and urged Rice “to continue to hold firm and insist that these very basic international principles are not changed—no direct aid and no contact with any member of a Palestinian Authority that does not explicitly and unequivocally recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce terror, and accept previous agreements.” Immediately, groups interested in peace in the Middle East, such as Americans for Peace Now and Churches for Middle East Peace, objected, pointing out that this would mean no contact with PA President Mahmoud Abbas and other moderates in the PA. After a week of intense AIPAC pressure, only 30 senators had signed the letter, so Ensign and Nelson circulated a new draft, which AIPAC called an “update,” changing “Palestinian Authority” to “Palestinian Government,” which would allow for contacts with Abbas, but not with the six other Fatah members of the Palestinian Cabinet. With this change, the letter was signed by a total of 79 senators.

Those 21 senators not signing the letter were Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Pete Domenici (R-NM), Mike Enzi (R-WY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Hagel, Orin Hatch (R-UT), Tim Johnson (D-SD), Ted Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Richard Lugar (R-IN), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Sanders, John Sununu (R-NH), Craig Thomas (R-WY), George Voinovich (R-OH), John Warner (R-VA) and Jim Webb (D-VA).

The House letter to Solana was drafted by Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-NY), Elton Gallegly (R-CA), Mike Pence (R-IN), and Robert Wexler (D-FL). It urged the EU to “maintain restrictions of direct aid to any Palestinian government until such time as that government fulfills its Quartet obligations.” The letter was delivered to Solana on March 27, with 246 signatures—more than half the members of the House.

In addition to the letters to Rice and Solana, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) on March 30 introduced H.R. 1856, to amend the “Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act” passed in the waning hours of the 109th Congress last December (see March 2007 Washington Report, p. 24). At the time, Ros-Lehtinen complained that the act as passed did not include some of the harsher measures contained in the House version she co-authored with Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), and H.R. 1856 represents her effort to “correct” this. The new version would expand the sanctions on the Palestinian Authority, remove nearly all the exceptions, and ban nearly all aid to the Palestinians. However, Ros-Lehtinen’s bill has drawn no meaningful support, with only five co-sponsors, all back-bench Republicans.

Meanwhile, the administration reportedly is going ahead with its plans to provide assistance to Abbas to strengthen his presidential guard, but at a reduced level. The earlier plan was to provide $86 million, but after the Hamas-Fatah unity agreement Rice said the package would be scaled back to about $50 million. The most recent number, reported in The Washington Post, is $43.4 million.

After AIPAC Pressure, “Iran Counter-Proliferation” Bills Gain Support

The other key objective of AIPAC’s March conference was to generate support for new Iran sanctions legislation, specifically the comprehensive and stringent H.R. 1400, introduced by Lantos with seven original co-sponsors on March 8. Called the “Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007,” it would prohibit nuclear cooperation between the U.S. and any country that provides nuclear assistance to Iran; expand and broaden economic sanctions on Iran, including ending all Iranian exports to the U.S. and limiting U.S. exports to Iran to food and medicine; expand the types of investment subject to sanctions; and prevent U.S. subsidiaries of foreign oil companies that invest in Iran’s oil sector from receiving U.S. tax benefits for oil and gas exploration. There is nothing in the bill calling for constructive engagement with Tehran or offering diplomatic or economic incentives for Iran to modify its nuclear program. Interestingly, the bill also includes a section saying that “nothing in this Act shall be construed as authorizing the use of force or the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iran.” The Senate companion bill, S. 970, was introduced by Smith, with 10 original co-sponsors, on March 22.

On April 12, AIPAC turned up the heat, issuing an “Action Alert” urging members of Congress to co-sponsor and support the bills. As a result, H.R. 1400 now has 156 co-sponsors and S. 970 has 26.

With the Lantos/Smith bills being the chosen anti-Iran measures, the four other bills described in the previous issue of the Washington Report toughening sanctions against Iran have not made much progress. S. 527, introduced in February by Feingold, has gained two co-sponsors and now has six, including Feingold. It would amend the Iran and Syria Nonproliferation Act (ISNA) to expand the application of sanctions and enforce sanctions for a minimum of two years. S.Con.Res. 19, introduced in March by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), which would urge the U.N. Security Council to impose additional sanctions against Iran, has gained no co-sponsors. H.R. 957, introduced by Ros-Lehtinen in February, to amend ISNA and “clarify [expand] the entities against which sanction may be imposed,” has gained 16 co-sponsors and now has 39, including Ros-Lehtinen. H.R. 1357, introduced in March by Ros-Lehtinen, which would require divestiture of current investments and prohibit future investments in Iran, now has 35 co-sponsors.

Odds and Ends

On April 25, Ros-Lehtinen managed to get H.Res. 125, expressing “concern over the use of civilians as ‘human shields,’” passed by the full House under “suspension of the rules.” Not surprisingly, the resolution emphasizes Hezbollah’s alleged use of human shields during Israel’s attack on Lebanon last summer, but makes no mention of the fact that the Israeli military has been accused, by Israelis as well as by international humanitarian organizations, of using human shields in its attacks on Palestinians.

On March 29, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), with three co-sponsors, introduced H.R. 1755, “to limit the use, sale, and transfer of cluster munitions.” It is the companion bill to S. 594, introduced in February by Feinstein and described in the previous issue of this magazine.

Missed in the previous issue was H.R. 884, introduced on Feb. 7 by Rep. Peter King (R-NY), “to provide for the establishment of the Science and Technology Homeland Security International Cooperative Programs Office.” It calls for anti-terrorism cooperation with five named countries, including Israel, plus “other allies.” It was passed by the full House under suspension of the rules on Feb. 27.

Another bill designed to help poor, struggling Israel is H.R. 1838, introduced on March 29 by Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), with 58 co-sponsors. It would “authorize funding for eligible joint ventures between U.S. and Israeli businesses and academic persons [and] establish the International Energy Advisory Board.”

And on April 25, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), with Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Smith as co-sponsors, introduced S.J.Res. 12 “providing for the recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel before the U.S. recognizes a Palestinian state.” But its House counterpart, H.R. 895, introduced in February by Rep. Tom Reynolds (R-NY) and effectively recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, has gained no co-sponsors and still has 18, including Reynolds.

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