Rep. Hank Johnson on H.Con.Res. 362

Representative Hank Johnson (D-GA) responded to a constituent regarding concerns that provisions in H.Con.Res. 362 might be misconstrued as calling for a blockade against Iran. Rep. Johnson said he will work to amend or delete the provision. Below is the text of his letter.

September 8, 2008

Dear XXX:

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about H.Con.Res. 362, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace and stability in the Middle East.

As you know, H.Con.Res. 362 pushes for an international diplomatic response to Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. It is currently before the House Foreign Affairs Committee and has 220 bipartisan cosponsors.

I chose to cosponsor this bill in response to reports about possible covert military operations in Iran. It appears that the Bush administration is already moving in the direction of war against Iran and we now know that the President does not feel he needs authorization from Congress. As a result, I felt it was important to push for what is essentially a non-binding statement from Congress that stresses the need to focus on diplomacy and working with other nations to lessen the threat from Iran.

H.Con.Res. 362 admittedly has some strong language. The strongest language requests internationally backed inspections of items departing or entering Iran. It is important to note that such functions have been conducted by the United Nations and called for in numerous UN resolutions. However, I certainly understand this part of the resolution could be misconstrued and I will push for an amendment that either deletes this statement or clarifies it further.

I appreciate your passion for this issue. I share it and believe that if Congress acts appropriately, we can successfully constrain any additional actions the Bush administration may look to take in Iran.

I am eager to hear your concerns and look forward to working with you. For more information, please visit my office online at www.hankjohnson.house.gov. Thank you again for contacting me.

/s
Hank Johnson

Rep. Speier on H.Con.Res. 362

Representative Jackie Speier (D-CA), who took former Representative Tom Lantos’ congressional seat, responded this week to a concerned constituent that she is seeking an amendment with other co-sponsors to H.Con.Res. 362. According to Rep. Speier, “...upon reviewing the language in the Ackerman Resolution more closely I can see how it could be construed as advocating a blockade. Any reasonable person would agree that a blockade in this sense is an act of war. For this reason, I am seeking an amendment with other cosponsors of the resolution who share this concern for language that will be more specific in how sanctions would be imposed and to strike the language in the resolution regarding the inspections and the prohibition on the importation of refined oil.”

As I have said repeatedly, amending the resolution misses the point. Even if this clause was changed or removed, the whole resolution is provocative and sends the wrong signal to Iran and to the Bush administration that Congress supports a more belligerent policy and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran. On the whole, the resolution is simply more of the same wrong-headed approach to dealing with Iran. It calls for more punitive measures without any incentives.

Those Members of Congress working to amend the resolution are simply offering a bandaid for a resolution that should be scrapped altogether. These Members of Congress are misplacing their efforts in a game of appeasement between constituents and a very powerful lobby who is advocating its passage so they can score members of Congress in this election cycle.

Below is the full text of Rep. Speier’s response to her constituent.

Dear XXXX,

Thank you for your letter in opposition to H. Con. Res. 362, introduced by Rep. Gary Ackerman (NY). As you know, I am a cosponsor of this bill and while our opinion differs on the bill, I am certain we share similar views on Iran.

I do want to make one thing very clear: under no circumstances do I support military action against Iran. In fact, both the Ackerman resolution and another resolution I cosponsored, H. Con. Res. 33 by Rep. Peter DeFazio (OR), specifically state that the President cannot engage in military action without Congressional authorization. This authorization for war is something that neither I, nor the majority of my colleagues, have any intention of providing. What I do support is using a carrot and stick to encourage Iranian leaders to abandon their nuclear weapons program. The threat of economic isolation is the stick, while full diplomatic relations and the economic benefits that come with it is the carrot.

We need to redouble diplomatic efforts and prevent further bloodshed in the Middle East. This includes encouraging Iran to stop any pursuit of nuclear weapons. That said, you do make some very valid points, and upon reviewing the language in the Ackerman Resolution more closely I can see how it could be construed as advocating a blockade.

Any reasonable person would agree that a blockade in this sense is an act of war. For this reason, I am seeking an amendment with other cosponsors of the resolution who share this concern for language that will be more specific in how sanctions would be imposed and to strike the language in the resolution regarding the inspections and the prohibition on the importation of refined oil. I promise to listen and to make a serious effort to continue listening even when we happen to disagree.

Hearing from my constituents helps me to stay on top of a subject and really figure out what is in the public's interest. Thank you, again, for your comments.

All the best,

Jackie Speier
Member of Congress

H.Con.Res. 362 Gets Eight New Co-Sponsors; One Withdraws

Representatives Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Mike Pence (R-IN) circulated a “Dear Colleague” letter on September 8, 2008 once again urging members of Congress to sign onto H.Con.Res. 362. The controversial resolution currently has 270 co-sponsors, with eight new representatives who added their name on September 8, 2008 – Representatives John Hall (D-NY), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Grace Napolitano (D-CA), Ben Chandler (D-KY), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Medeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) and Laura Richardson (D-CA). Representative George Lewis (D-GA) also withdrew his co-sponsorship on September 8. Below is the full text of the most recent Ackerman-Pence “Dear Colleague” letter.


Take a Stand Against Iranian Bullying:
Co-Sponsor H. Con. Res. 362

September 8, 2008

Dear Colleague:

We write to encourage you to join us as sponsors of H.Con.Res.362, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony.

Iran is backing and arming militias and terrorists fighting the United States and our allies in both Iraq and Afghanistan; it is the proud patron of both the Hamas take-over in Gaza and the Hezbollah insurrection against the Lebanese government; it is the major funding source for numerous terrorist groups and, increasingly, Syria its fellow state-sponsor of terrorism, and it is radically reorienting regional security calculations. Meeting the threat posed by Iran is an urgent challenge that will require America to work closely with the international community, and especially with partners in the Middle East.

Though the stakes are high and time is short, the resolution is explicit in stating that meeting the challenge from Iran must be done using all appropriate political, diplomatic and economic levers. To our surprise and dismay, however, some have mistakenly suggested the resolution calls for a "naval blockade" or even amounts to "a declaration of war."

These assertions are absolutely false and, frankly, utter nonsense. The resolution states plainly and distinctly that "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran;" the economic sanctions the President is urged to seek are explicitly placed in an international context; and the methods contemplated for achieving these sanctions are no different than those currently being employed to implement existing UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, namely enforcement of export controls by UN member states within their own borders.

The threat from Iran is real and growing, and must be addressed so that today's efforts by Iran at subversion and proliferation do not, tomorrow, become the seeds of new and more terrible conflict in the Middle East. Please contact Dalis Blumenfeld (dalis.blumenfeld@mail.house.gov) at the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia at 202-225-3345 if you'd like to be added as a sponsor.

Sincerely,

s/ Gary L. Ackerman
Chairman

s/ Mike Pence
Ranking Minority Member

House Subcommittee on the
Middle East & South Asia

Update to Posting on Prospects for H.Con.Res. 362 and S.Res. 580

I want to draw INW readers' attention to an update today to the posting entitled "Prospects for H.Con.Res. 362 and S.Res. 580," published on August 12. I received additional information from a brilliant source that I thought would be relevant to understanding the circumstances surrounding the resolutions. Below is the new information added into the posting. My deepest gratitude to Lara Friedman for all her work on this issue!

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), the original sponsor of S.Res. 580 is putting pressure to move the resolution forward. On July 31, Senator Bayh's staff circulated an email to all of the co-sponsors of the resolution asking them to sign off on changes to make the the resolution less controversial and thus help it move forward. In the email, Senator Bayh's staff writes:

"As you know, your boss is a cosponsor of S. Res. 580. While we are working with leadership and SFRC to move the bill, we are aware that it has several fixes that need to be made. Among them are two that we need your boss’ ok on before proceeding.
1) On page 6 line 5, strike 'importation' and insert in its place 'exportation'.
2) On page 6 line 5, strike 'banning' and insert in its place 'encouraging foreign governments to ban'.
These revisions will not change the resolution’s intent, nor would they change the tenor of the bill. They are simply technical fixes we’d like to make if we’re able.

We’d like to do this without reintroducing the bill, either on the floor or with SFRC assistance. "

Prospects for H.Con.Res. 362 and S.Res. 580

Across the country, organizations and community groups have mobilized opposition to H.Con.Res. 362, a controversial non-binding resolution calling for more punitive measures against Iran. The combined efforts of all of the organizations and individuals have successfully put speed bumps on the road for a resolution that staff from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s office initially said would “pass like a hot knife through butter” before the 4th of July recess. So far, four Representatives – Tom Allen, Steve Cohen, Danny K. Davis and William Lacy Clay – have withdrawn support. Several others, including Representatives Barney Frank (D-MA), Mike McNulty (D-NY), Mike Thompson (D-CA) and Robert Wexler (D-FL) have expressed that they may do so if language is not changed.

It is no small feat getting Members of Congress to change their co-sponsorship on an American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) supported resolution, particularly in an election year. Perhaps most importantly though, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) has refused so far to markup the resolution in his committee because of the controversy that has been raised regarding Clause 3, which “demands that the President initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program.” Critics have argued that depending on interpretation and implementation, this paragraph could be considered as calling for a blockade against Iran, which would be considered an act of war under international law.

While many have focused their critique of the resolution on Clause 3, even if this clause is changed or removed, the remainder of the resolution is still provocative and sends the wrong signal to Iran and to the Bush administration that Congress supports a more belligerent policy and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran. On the whole, the resolution is simply more of the same wrong-headed approach to dealing with Iran. It calls for more punitive measures without any incentives. Most importantly, H.Con.Res. 362 does not call for what is desperately needed now - direct, sustained, comprehensive negotiations without preconditions.

Meanwhile, Representatives Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Mike Pence (R-IN), the original co-sponsors of H.Con.Res. 362, continue to defend the resolution. The number of Members co-sponsoring the resolution has crept up to the current total of 261. If it reaches 290 (or 2/3 of the total number of Members of Congress), Rep. Ackerman can request that the resolution be brought up for a vote on the Suspension Calendar. If this were to happen, no amendments could be offered to the resolution. However, Rep. Ackerman has backed himself into a corner by refusing so far to make changes to the language in the resolution and as a result H.Con.Res. 362 will likely remain held-up for the foreseeable future.

The most realistic scenario for breaking the stand-off in the House would be for the Senate to take up the companion resolution to H.Con.Res. 362. Although just as provocative, the Senate version, S.Res. 580, is worded in a slightly different way and does not contain the clause that most critics of H.Con.Res. 362 have gone after which could be interpreted as calling for a blockade against Iran. The third paragraph in S.Res. 580 does not demand a "stringent inspections regime," but "demands that the President lead an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the pressure on the Government of Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, among other measures, banning the importation of refined petroleum products to Iran.”

Senator Evan Bayh (D-IN), the original sponsor of S.Res. 580 is putting pressure to move the resolution forward. On July 31, Senator Bayh's staff circulated an email to all of the co-sponsors of the resolution asking them to sign off on changes to make the the resolution less controversial and thus help it move forward. In the email, Senator Bayh's staff writes:

"As you know, your boss is a cosponsor of S. Res. 580. While we are working with leadership and SFRC to move the bill, we are aware that it has several fixes that need to be made. Among them are two that we need your boss’ ok on before proceeding.
1) On page 6 line 5, strike 'importation' and insert in its place 'exportation'.
2) On page 6 line 5, strike 'banning' and insert in its place 'encouraging foreign governments to ban'.

"These revisions will not change the resolution’s intent, nor would they change the tenor of the bill. They are simply technical fixes we’d like to make if we’re able.

"We’d like to do this without reintroducing the bill, either on the floor or with SFRC assistance. "

If S.Res. 580 is either attached as an amendment to must-pass legislation (more likely) or brought to the Senate floor as a stand-alone measure (less likely), and it passes, the House could then take up the Senate version. The reality, however, is that Congress has an extremely full plate in September leading up to the elections and this is not a guaranteed scenario. Nonetheless, it is still urgent for organizations and individuals remain vigilant on both resolutions and to continue to weigh in with their Senators and Representatives.

Representative Schakowsky on H.Con.Res. 362

Below is a letter from Representative Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) responding to concerns expressed by a constituent regarding H.Con.Res. 362. Though many of her constituents have urged her to withdraw her co-sponsorship of the resolution, Rep. Schakowsky continues to defend her support for it and she claims that it is not a declaration of war against Iran. Rep. Schakowsky claims that H.Con.Res. 362 offers a "peaceful option" for dealing with Iran, but she has also urged Representatives Ackerman and Pence, as well as the democratic leadership, to delay action on the resolution.

Representative Schakowsky's position on H.Con.Res. 362 highlights an important point that is really missing from the discourse on this resolution. While many have focused their critique of the resolution on Clause 3, demanding that the President impose harsh sanctions that would be difficult if not impossible to implement outside the context of using force, the resolution has broader implications. Even if this clause was changed or removed, the whole resolution is provocative and sends the wrong signal to Iran and to the Bush administration that Congress supports a more belligerent policy and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran. On the whole, the resolution is simply more of the same wrong-headed approach to dealing with Iran. It calls for more punitive measures without any incentives. Most importantly, H.Con.Res. 362 does not call for what is desperately needed now - direct, sustained, comprehensive negotiations without preconditions.

Below is the full text of the letter.

Thank you for contacting me to express your concerns about H. Con. Res. 362, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the international threat posed by Iran. I appreciate hearing from you, and I strongly share your concern about the importance of avoiding military conflict with Iran.

I have consistently and vehemently opposed any move toward armed conflict with Iran, and I have cosponsored legislation favoring diplomatic and political solutions to address ongoing U.S.-Iranian tensions. Among the bills that I have cosponsored are: H. Con. Res. 33, expressing the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress; H.J.Res. 14, stating that no previous provision of law authorizes use of military force against Iran; H.R. 1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, which emphasizes that U.S. should use diplomatic and economic means to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem; and H.R. 3119, to prohibit the use of funds for military operations in Iran.

H. Con. Res. 362 is not a declaration of war against Iran. Instead of advocating military pressure, this resolution calls on the President to use economic, political, and diplomatic pressure to avoid further confrontation with Iran. One reason that I support this legislation is that it brings together 220 cosponsors, representing a wide cross-section of political views, in emphasizing that U.S. policy should focus on economic and diplomatic solutions, not military action.

In addition, this resolution emphasizes the importance of an international effort to address the Iranian issue. I am a strong proponent of diplomatic engagement and this legislation specially "demands that the President initiate an international effort" - not take unilateral action. The United States is not the only nation that would face a threat if Iran developed a nuclear bomb, and it is vital that we work in cooperation with other members of the international community to address the crisis.

While I believe that H.Con.Res. 362 offers a peaceful option to resolve a growing international crisis, I respect your concerns regarding a provision that has been read by some as allowing a military blockade to be initiated. I have contacted the original sponsors of this resolution, Congressmen Ackerman and Pence, and they have made it clear that a naval blockade or any other use of military force was not their intent in writing this resolution. I have urged them and the House leadership to delay any action on this bill. It is important that no action occur that can be interpreted by the Bush Administration as a signal for military action, even if that is not the intent of the provision.

I am extremely concerned by the threat Iran continues to pose to the Middle East region. However, I am also worried by the escalating rhetoric and saber-rattling by the Bush Administration and the ever-growing indications that the President is looking to begin yet another war in the Persian Gulf region.

As a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and a founding member of the Out of Iraq Caucus, I will continue to work to bring our troops home from Iraq and to avoid military confrontation with Iran. While Iran must be held accountable for its threatening behavior, there is no military solution to resolving this conflict. The only solution is to use diplomacy, working with the international community.

Again, thank you for contacting me regarding this critical subject. Please feel free to be in touch whenever I can provide assistance.

Sincerely,

Jan Schakowsky,
Member of Congress

Two More Representatives Withdraw from H.Con.Res. 362

On July 22, 2008, Representatives Steve Cohen (D-TN) and Thomas Allen (D-ME) joined Representative William Lacy Clay in withdrawing there names as co-sponsors of the controversial resolution H.Con.Res. 362. Below is the statement from Rep. Allen on his withdrawal. Alternet published an article on July 23, 2008 on efforts to oppose the resolution entitled “Anti-War Movement Successfully Pushes Back Against Military Confrontation With Iran.”

Rep. Tom Allen’s Statement on H. Con. Res. 362

Washington, D.C. (Wednesday, July 23, 2008)---U.S. Representative Tom Allen issues the following statement today regarding his decision to remove his name as a cosponsor of H. Con. Res. 362:

"I cosponsored H. Con. Res. 362 because I believe that the Iranian regime poses very real threats to stability in the region and that it is in our national security interest to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. However, there is language in this resolution that may imply Congressional approval of a blockade of Iran. I want to be perfectly clear about where I stand: I believe our nation should be engaging in tough diplomatic talks with Iran that will permanently dismantle that country's nuclear weapons program, and that sanctions should be part of that strategy. However, I do not support the idea of a blockade. Since the resolution has not been amended to address these concerns, yesterday, I removed my name as a cosponsor."

Protest at Pelosi's Home on H.Con.Res. 362

Over 100 anti-war activists held a protest at House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's home last weekend. Click here to watch KRON Channel 4’s evening news video on AntiWar.com.

Rep. Mike Thompson on H.Con.Res. 362

Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA) has joined a growing movement in Congress against provocative language in H.Con.Res. 362 as indicated in a response to a constituent on the matter. Below is the full text of the letter.

"Thank you for contacting me regarding H Con Res 362. Like you, I remain strongly opposed to any military action against Iran. Questions have been raised about the intent of a specific passage in the bill, and I would like to clarify the purpose of the bill and update you on its current status.

"On May 22, 2008, Representative Gary Ackerman (D-NY) introduced this resolution to call on the President to use economic, political and diplomatic means to discourage Iran from pursuing further nuclear development. However, some have suggested that the resolution is an attempt to authorize a military blockade of Iran. Moreover, serious concerns have been raised that the Bush Administration may use the resolution, as currently written, for political cover to justify a blockade, military action or even invasion of Iran.

"In an effort to directly address these concerns and clarify his intent, Rep. Ackerman sent a letter to all Members of Congress on July 10, 2008 in which he stated: "some have described a non-binding resolution that I have introduced [H Con Res. 362]. as a resolution declaring war and calling for a naval blockade. Nothing could be further from the truth or my intent. the resolution states as explicitly as the English language will allow 'Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.' Since a naval blockade is by definition the use of force, the language of this resolution renders the prospect of a naval blockade simply out of the question."

"House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) has indicated that he has no intention of moving the bill through his committee unless the language is first altered to ensure that there is no possible way it could be construed as authorizing any type of military action against Iran.

"Furthermore, you should know that I will withdraw my support for the bill if this change is not made. I firmly believe that while the situation in Iran is of serious concern, any preemptive use of military force would be counter-productive and harmful to American interests. I remain committed to diplomacy as the most affective means of resolving conflicts throughout the region.

"Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me on this important issue. Please continue to contact me on all issues of importance to you and our district."

Sincerely,

MIKE THOMPSON
Member of Congress

Delay: War with Iran Possible

On Thursday, July, 10, 2008, former Republican House Minority Leader Tom Delay appeared on Hardball With Chris Matthews. During the interview, DeLay said it was possible the U.S. would go to war with Iran before the elections and called for a blockade against Iran. Below is the transcript of the exchange from the show.

MATTHEWS: Do you think we are going to go to war before the election?

DELAY: I think it‘s possible with Iran.

MATTHEWS: Do you think Israel might want to take a—Olmert is—they have got a weak government in Israel. He may be and feel in a position he has to act to show his strength. You know what is going on over there. You know that region. We may decide—Cheney may say and influence the president to say, look, if Israel has to attack, it will take them 2,000 sorties to do the job. We could do it in a day. Why don‘t we do it clean and get it
over with, because we will get blamed anyway?

DELAY: And particularly if Obama is the next president.

MATTHEWS: Well, tell me what you think, as a conservative. Do you think we should move over there between now and the election?

DELAY: Absolutely. We should have moved a lot earlier.

MATTHEWS: What should we do?

DELAY: Well, first and foremost, we should blockade Iran, quit dallying around in all this diplomatic and sanctions. They‘re obviously not working. But you could go straight to a blockade of Iran.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: And what would happen then?

DELAY: They would stop driving their cars. And the pressure at home would start growing by—by huge amounts. But we should never take a military strike off the table.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: What about Olmert calls up you and—he calls up you and says, should I go? What would you say?

DELAY: I would say go.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Attack?

DELAY: But maybe we want to go. Maybe it is better for the U.S. to do it, rather than Israel to do it.

MATTHEWS: Is that where you are on that right now?

DELAY: That‘s where I am.

MATTHEWS: Go?

DELAY: No, not right now. But if things deteriorate over the next two to three months, then, that option has to be considered.

MATTHEWS: Because you said one of the reasons being that Barack Obama is coming into office possibly and that he wouldn‘t do it.

DELAY: He wouldn't do it, not at all.

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS: Do you think this is a common belief around the White House crowd, of the Dick Cheney crowd and the president? Do you think they‘re actually thinking about acting now, while they still have a chance to end that nuclear threat from Iran?

DELAY: I can‘t answer that. I‘m not in touch in them. I haven‘t talked to them. So, I really have no feel for that.

Retired Military Leaders Oppose H.Con.Res. 362

Today, three retired military leaders sent a letter to Congressional lawmakers urging them to abandon a resolution pertaining to Iran that is making its way through Congress. The retired military leaders say H.Con.Res. 362 is “poorly conceived, poorly timed, and potentially dangerous.” The full text of the letter – signed by Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr., US Army (ret.); former Assistant Secretary of Defense Dr. Lawrence J. Korb; and Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, US Navy (ret.) – is posted below.

July 10, 2008

To: Members of the House of Representatives

From:
Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, US Navy (ret.)
Dr. Lawrence Korb, Former Asst. Secretary of Defense
Lt. General Robert G. Gard, Jr., US Army (ret.), Chairman, Center for Arms Control and Nuclear Nonproliferation

The concurrent resolution making its way through the House of Representatives pertaining to Iran (H. Con. Res. 362) is poorly conceived, poorly timed, and potentially dangerous in our view. We urge Congress to abandon this resolution for the following reasons.

• The language demanding the President initiate an international effort “prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran,” is of particular concern because despite the protestations of its sponsors, we believe that implementation of inspections of this nature could not be accomplished without a blockade or the use of force.
• Immense military resources would be required to implement such inspections of cargo moving through the seas, on the ground and in the air. The international community has shown no willingness to join in such an activity. Without a Security Council Resolution, implementation of these measures could be construed as an act of war.
• Implementation of measures called for in the resolution could complicate our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and could cause oil prices to soar.
• Senior Pentagon officials, as well as many in the Administration and in Congress, have stated publicly that a diplomatic solution with Iran is the best course. The sanctions demanded in H. Con. Res. 362 go far beyond existing sanctions and previously proposed sanctions for dealing with Iran. The impact of these sanctions would be to undermine any chance for diplomacy to succeed in achieving a negotiated resolution.

The sponsors argue that H. Con. Res. 362 as a concurrent resolution does not have the force of law, which is true, but it clearly risks sending a message to the Iranians, the Bush Administration, and the world that Congress supports a more belligerent policy toward, and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran. In our view, H. Con. Res. 362 in no way furthers our diplomatic efforts or those of our European allies and should be abandoned.

Another One Jumps Ship

On July 9, Representative William Lacy Clay (D-MO) removed himself as a co-sponsor of H.Con.Res. 362. There are currently 231 co-sponsors of the controversial resolution, including 105 Democrats and 126 Republicans. Although Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) announced that he was changing his co-sponsorship status, this is not yet reflected on the Library of Congress bill summary and status.

Meanwhile, today the House Foreign Affairs Committee announced that it will mark-up several resolutions during a committee hearing scheduled for July 16, 2008. H. Res. 1008, Condemning the persecution of Baha'is in Iran, is among the resolutions to be marked-up. Although the HFAC announcement did not included H.Con.Res. 362 among the resolutions scheduled to be marked-up, it is entirely possible that it can still be added to schedule.

Rep. Ackerman Continues to Make the Case for H.Con.Res. 362

While some Members of Congress, like Representatives Robert Wexler (D-FL), Barney Frank (D-MA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) and others, are expressing regrets on H.Con.Res. 362, Rep. Gary Ackerman continues to make the case for his controversial resolution. Today Rep. Ackerman circulated a new "Dear Colleague" letter based largely on his comments to the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing yesterday.

Below is the full text of the "Dear Colleague" letter.

H.CON.RES. 362: The FACTS

July 10, 2008

Dear Colleague,

In the Middle East, wherever you see crisis and violence, you'll probably find Iran working to threaten regional stability and U.S. national interests. It’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, its desire to interfere with and undermine legitimately elected governments in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories and its arming of Shia militias in Iraq or warlords in Afghanistan all speak to the need for the international community and the United States to confront Iran’s regional ambitions in a significant and coordinated way.

That’s why, last year, the House has passed legislation to tighten sanctions on Iran’s oil sector and to encourage divestment in companies that do business in Iran. These efforts are designed to convince Iran to abandon both its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and its support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. In short, sanctions measures are an attempt to avoid war, not to start it. For this reason I drafted H.Con.Res. 362, both to express the deep concerns of Congress about Iranian behavior, and to call for additional non-military pressure to be applied to Tehran.

So it is with puzzlement that I find that some have described a non-binding resolution that I have introduced, along with Mr. Pence and cosponsored by a majority of the House, urging the President to “increase economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran” as a resolution declaring war and calling for a naval blockade. Nothing could be further from the truth or my intent. So I’d like to take this opportunity to clarify what H.Con.Res. 362 does and does not do.

First, it is a concurrent resolution. As we all know, it doesn't get presented to the President, and it doesn't get signed, and it thus does not either become law or have the force of law. It's the sense of Congress. Assertions that the resolution constitutes a declaration of war are just absurd.

Second, the final whereas clause of the resolution states as explicitly as the English language will allow "Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.” Since a naval blockade is by definition the use of force, the language of this resolution renders the prospect of a naval blockade simply out of the question. This resolution should not be the straw man that some would seek.

Third, the resolution calls on the President to "initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran.” To point out the obvious, there is no mention of military pressure, much less a blockade and the effort the President is called upon to make is international and diplomatic, not unilateral and military.

Fourth, the resolution calls for the President to seek the international community's support for an export ban on refined petroleum, not a blockade. Iran does not export refined petroleum products, it imports them. Therefore an export ban on refined petroleum would be enforced by customs inspectors and export administrators on the territories of the exporting countries, not in the Persian Gulf. This method is already in use by the international community, including the United States to enforce the four existing UN Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran.

Fifth, the resolution calls for the President to seek the international community's support for inspections of everything going into or coming out of Iran. This step, like the petroleum export ban, neither mandates nor requires a naval blockade to be put into effect. The inspections called for would be done at ports of embarkation and disembarkation, not by blockade.

Lastly, the whole idea that the resolution calls for a blockade can only be sustained by a determined refusal to read the resolution, or to accept the plain meaning of the words within it. Put simply, the only way to find a blockade or a declaration of war in the text of H.Con.Res. 362 is to insert them by the amending power of imagination alone.

Sincerely,

s/GARY L. ACKERMAN

Chairman

House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia

UNA-USA Statement on H.Con.Res. 362

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 9, 2008

UNA-USA STATEMENT ON
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 362

Ambassador William H. Luers, president of the United Nations Association of the USA, today issued the following statement concerning House Concurrent Resolution 362 expressing the sense of Congress regarding US policy toward Iran.

The United Nations Association of the USA (UNA-USA) expresses its concern over provisions of House Concurrent Resolution (H. Con. Res.) 362 that could be interpreted as demanding the violation of important principles and obligations of the United Nations Charter.

H. Con. Res. 362 would seek to toughen United States policy toward Iran in ways that could increase the possibility of conflict between the two countries, while appearing to eschew active engagement with our friends and allies in the United Nations to build the essential broad international consensus needed to address Iran’s nuclear program and related issues.

In particular, UNA-USA believes that the approach advanced in the concurrent resolution, including specifically “demands” that the President undertake an international effort to prohibit the export to Iran of refined petroleum products; to impose “stringent inspection requirements” on all persons, transport and cargo entering Iran; and to forbid the international movement of any Iranian government officials not involved in the current negotiations to suspend that country’s nuclear program, can be construed to authorize forcible actions that violate fundamental principles of international law.

Where the concurrent resolution calls on the President to undertake an “international effort” to increase pressure on Iran to suspend its nuclear enrichment activities, UNA-USA urges the sponsors of the resolution to specifically require that any such international effort be undertaken “within the United Nations Security Council”.

UNA-USA believes that the United States should work through the Security Council on all measures that would be intended to bring pressure on Iran. We encourage all nations to refrain from using language that can be interpreted as threatening the use of force, noting that “the threat or use of force” is explicitly in violation of the United Nations Charter except in the case of self-defense or upon authorization by the UN Security Council.

UNA-USA recognizes that Iran has not complied with Security Council resolutions concerning its nuclear program. The Security Council has been methodically giving effect to its resolutions by collectively agreed sanctions. We believe that the United States is more likely to realize its goals in this area by working with others than by going it alone.

Rep. Wexler Call for Change in H.Con.Res. 362 Language

Today, Representative Robert Wexler (D-FL) called on Congress to change the language in H.Con.Res. 362 because of concerns expressed by Americans across the country.

According to Rep. Wexler, "It is clear that despite carefully worded language in H. Con. Res. 362 that 'nothing in this resolution should be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran' that many Americans across the country continue to express real concerns that sections of this resolution will be interpreted by President Bush as 'a green light' to use force against Iran.

"The language that is most disconcerting in the resolution is the third resolved clause, which demands that the president initiate among several things an 'international effort to impose stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran.'

"I firmly believe it was not the intention of the authors of this resolution to open the door to a US blockade or armed conflict with Iran. However, I fully understand and share the American public's mistrust of President Bush and his administration, which has abused its executive powers, willfully misled this nation into a disastrous war in Iraq and disturbingly continues to beat the Iran war drum.

"To that end, I am not willing to leave even the 'slightest crack' open for this president to unilaterally set this nation down another disastrous path of war in Iran. It is unacceptable for Congress once again to leave the door open for President Bush to exploit -- as he did when Congress authorized the use of military force against Iraq in a 2002 resolution. I believe it is essential that Congress remove the language in H. Con. Res. 362 that could lead to president Bush's unilateral imposition of a blockade on Iran...

"As we debate H. Con. Res. 362, it has become clear that Congress must counter the Administration's tendencies of preferring armed conflict over diplomacy, and we must make every effort to change the text of this resolution. The stakes are too high for Congress to kowtow to this Administration; therefore, I am preparing to offer amendments to H. Con. Res. 362 and articulate a responsible policy that places America in the strongest possible diplomatic position to thwart Iran's nuclear program and the difficult security challenges we face."

Ackerman Uses HFAC Hearing to Present Case on H.Con.Res. 362

In the House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing held today on "U.S. Policy Towards Iran" with Undersecretary of State William Burns, Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-NY) used the opportunity to make a statement on H.Con.Res. 362. Below is the full text of his prepared statement.


STATEMENT OF REP. GARY L. ACKERMAN
CHAIRMAN
SUBCOMMITTE ON THE MIDDLE EAST AND SOUTH ASIA
July 9, 2008
U.S. Policy Towards Iran and H. Con. Res. 362

Thank you Mr. Chairman for calling today’s hearing. I want to welcome Undersecretary Burns back before the committee although I’m sure we are happier to have him back than he is to be back.

Mr. Chairman, in a region that contains crises of varying degrees everywhere you look, Iran still stands out as a significant threat to regional stability and U.S. national interests. It’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, its desire to interfere with and undermine legitimately elected governments in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories and its arming of Shia militias in Iraq or warlords in Afghanistan all speak to the need for the international community and the United States to confront Iran’s regional ambitions in a significant and coordinated way. That’s why, last year, the House has passed legislation to tighten sanctions on Iran’s oil sector and to encourage divestment in companies that do business in Iran. These efforts are designed to convince Iran to abandon both its efforts to develop nuclear weapons and its support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. In short, sanctions measures are an attempt to avoid war, not to start it.

So it is with puzzlement that I find that some have described a non-binding resolution that I have introduced, along with Mr. Pence and cosponsored by a majority of the House, urging the President to “increase economic, political and diplomatic pressure on Iran.” They describe that as a resolution declaring war and calling for a naval blockade. Nothing could be further from the truth or my intent. So I’d like to take this opportunity to clarify what H.Con.Res. 362 does and does not do.

First, it is a concurrent resolution. As my colleagues know, it doesn't get presented to the President, and it doesn't get signed, and it thus does not either become law or have the force of law. It's the sense of Congress. Assertions that the resolution constitutes a declaration of war are just absurd.

Second, the final whereas clause of the resolution states as explicitly as the English language will allow "Whereas nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.” Since a naval blockade is by definition the use of force, the language of this resolution renders the prospect of a naval blockade simply out of the question. This resolution should not be the straw man that some would seek.

Third, the resolution calls on the President to "initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran.” To point out the obvious, there is no mention of military pressure, much less a blockade and the effort the President is called upon to make is international and diplomatic, not unilateral and military.

Fourth, the resolution calls for the President to seek the international community's support for an export ban on refined petroleum, not a blockade. Iran does not export refined petroleum products, it imports them. Therefore an export ban on refined petroleum would be enforced by customs inspectors and export administrators on the territories of the exporting nations, not in the Persian Gulf. This method is already in use by the international community, including the United States to enforce the four existing UN Security Council resolutions imposing sanctions on Iran.

Fifth, the resolution calls for the President to seek the international community's support for inspections of everything going into or coming out of Iran. This step, like the petroleum export ban, neither mandates nor requires a naval blockade to be put into effect. The inspections called for would be done at ports of embarkation and disembarkation, not by blockade.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, the whole idea that the resolution calls for a blockade can only be sustained by a determined refusal to read the resolution, or to accept the plain meaning of the words within it. Put simply, the only way to find a blockade or a declaration of war in the text of H.Con.Res. 362 is to insert them by the amending power of imagination alone.

I thank the Chairman for calling today’s hearing and I look forward to listening to our witness.

Update on H.Con.Res. 362/S.Res. 580

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) told one member of Congress just before the 4th of July recess that he does not want to mark up H.Con.Res. 362, but he feels his hands are tied because of pressure from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Rep. Berman told another member of Congress that the resolution is moving and is out of his hands. However, Members of Congress are receiving significant pushback on the resolution because it is so controversial, provocative and counterproductive (see letter from Rep. Barney Frank to a constituent below). The good news for this week is that the resolution is not currently on the House suspension calendar. It is also unclear, nor has it been announced, whether H.Con.Res. 362 will be marked up in the Foreign Affairs committee hearing scheduled for Wednesday, July 9.

The same is also true for S.Res. 580, the Senate companion resolution. While the Foreign Relations committee has scheduled a hearing for Wednesday, July 9, it is not clear if they will mark up the resolution. Compared to the House of Representatives, things have been far more quiet on the Senate side.

It is entirely possible that there may be an attempt to attach S.Res. 580 to the Defense Authorization bill when it is debated on the Senate floor (likely to take place the week of July 14), but this remains an open question. The Senate is more likely to consider the new Iran Sanctions Act, which replaced S.970-the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, as an amendment to Defense Authorization than S.Res. 580, but both or either will face significant opposition.

S.Res. 580 is also unlikely to get a hearing in the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in the near term. Neither Committee Chair Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE), nor Ranking Member Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) have co-sponsored the resolution.

It should be noted that the language in S.Res. 580 is slightly different from H.Con.Res. 362, but just as provocative. The third paragraph, for example, does not demand a "stringent inspections regime," but "demands that the President lead an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the pressure on the Government of Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, among other measures, banning the importation of refined petroleum products to Iran."

I will post updated information as it becomes available. In the meantime, below is the text of a response from Representative Barney Frank (D-MA). It was forwarded to us by a member after contacting Rep. Frank with concerns regarding H.Con.Res. 362.

"I thank you for contacting me about language in the resolution regarding Iran that calls for a blockade of its naval activity. I agree that this should not be our policy, and I regret the fact that I did not read this resolution more carefully. I'm going to consult with the authors to see if a change can be made that would omit this language, and if they are unwilling to do that, I will make very clear my disagreement with this in the most appropriate form. I am grateful to those who called this to my attention. I apologize again for not having read this more carefully.

I do support sanctions against Iran and I disagree with those who think that sanctions are inappropriate. I believe that sanctions appropriately done can have an impact on the behavior of countries whose behavior ought to be changed. The fact that our European allies, and even Russia and China, have agreed with us on the sanctions I think is a testimony to the legitimacy of this approach. But I repeat that I do think we should have a very clear distinction between sanctions and military action or the threat of it, and the blockade clearly falls on the wrong side of that line, so I will be making clear my opposition to that."

Ackerman and Pence Try to Drum up Support for H.Con.Res. 362

Representatives Gary Ackerman and Mike Pence have started off the week with a new "Dear Colleague" letter entitled "Take a Stand Against Iranian Bullying" intended to drum up more support for their controversial resolution, H.Con.Res. 362. Below is the full text of the "Dear Colleague" letter.

Take a Stand Against Iranian Bullying: Co-Sponsor H. Con. Res. 362

July 7, 2008

Dear Colleague:

We write to encourage you to join us as sponsors of H.Con.Res.362, a resolution expressing the sense of Congress regarding the threat posed to international peace, stability in the Middle East, and the vital national security interests of the United States by Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and regional hegemony.

Iran is backing and arming militias and terrorists fighting the United States and our allies in both Iraq and Afghanistan; it is the proud patron of both the Hamas take-over in Gaza and the Hezbollah insurrection against the Lebanese government; it is the major funding source for numerous terrorist groups and, increasingly, Syria its fellow state-sponsor of terrorism, and it is radically reorienting regional security calculations. Meeting the threat posed by Iran is an urgent challenge that will require America to work closely with the international community, and especially with partners in the Middle East.

Though the stakes are high and time is short, the resolution is explicit in stating that meeting the challenge from Iran must be done using all appropriate political, diplomatic and economic levers. To our surprise and dismay, however, some have mistakenly suggested the resolution calls for a "naval blockade" or even amounts to "a declaration of war."

These assertions are absolutely false and, frankly, utter nonsense. The resolution states plainly and distinctly that "nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran;" the economic sanctions the President is urged to seek are explicitly placed in an international context; and the methods contemplated for achieving these sanctions are no different than those currently being employed to implement existing UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, namely enforcement of export controls by UN member states within their own borders.

The threat from Iran is real and growing, and must be addressed so that today's efforts by Iran at subversion and proliferation do not, tomorrow, become the seeds of new and more terrible conflict in the Middle East. Please contact Dalis Blumenfeld at the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia at 202-225-3345 if you'd like to be added as a sponsor.

Sincerely,

s/ Gary L. Ackerman s/ Mike Pence
Chairman Ranking Minority Member
House Subcommittee on the Middle East & South Asia

Kucinich on H.Con.Res. 362

On July 1, 2008, Representative Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) circulated a "Dear Colleague" letter opposing H.Con.Res. 362. Below is the full text of the letter.


July 1, 2008

Stop the Escalation of Tensions with Iran
Oppose H. Con. Res. 362

Dear Colleague:

I strongly urge my colleagues to oppose H. Con. Res. 362 when it comes to the Floor following the July 4th recess. Despite the intentions of the sponsors of the legislation, this bill will only serve to escalate tensions between the U.S. and Iran. This bill will play into the hand of those in the Bush Administration who want Congressional license to attack Iran.

The third resolved clause states that there should be imposed “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiation the suspension of Iran’s nuclear Program.” Enforcement of such a provision would almost certainly imply or require the use of force. Furthermore, it is conceivable that this provision could be construed to constitute the imposition of a naval blockade. Under international law a blockade is classified as an act of war.

The bill leaves the door open for war but is silent on ways to avoid it. The language in clause 3 could be understood to contradict the whereas clause in the bill that states that “nothing in this resolution shall be construed as an authorization of the use of force against Iran.” Furthermore, it is notable that this whereas clause does not include a declaration that the President must seek the approval of Congress before authorizing any use of force against Iran. Nor does it explicitly state that the U.S. will resolve our differences with Iran diplomatically and in a show of good will take the use of force off the table.

The provocative nature of the resolution will appear to Iran to be another round of saber rattling and will inflame additional ill will between our nations. If this body truly wants to find a peaceful solution to Iran’s nuclear program and influence in the Middle East, we must use the best and most credible form of diplomacy at our disposal. The U.S. must engage Iran in direct diplomatic talks without preconditions. Passage of this resolution only escalates our strained relationship with Iran.

I urge my Colleagues to vote against H. Con. Res. 362. If you have any questions please contact Cate Veith...

Sincerely,


/S

Dennis J. Kucinich
Member of Congress

Talking Points on H.Con.Res. 362

The Council for a Livable World has posted new talking points on H.Con.Res. 362, urging members of Congress not to co-sponsor the resolution and to vote "No" if it comes to a vote. The Council concludes this resolution is an extremely provocative and counter-productive measure for a wide range of reasons. Below is the full text.

Vote “No” on H.Con.Res. 362

In the next couple of weeks, the House of Representatives may consider H.Con.Res. 362, a non-binding resolution on Iran. H.Con.Res. 362 is the latest in a series of provocative and counter-productive Congressional initiatives on Iran.

Council for a Livable World joins other organizations in urging Members of Congress not to co-sponsor this provocative measure and to vote “No” on H.Con.Res. 362 if it comes to a vote.

Talking Points on H.Con.Res. 362

• This resolution reprises and magnifies the Bush Administration’s longstanding sticks-and-saber-rattling-and-no-carrots approach to dealing with Iran – an approach that is increasingly recognized even by senior U.S. intelligence and military officials as inadequate and unconstructive.

• Worse still, H. Con. Res. 362 risks reinforcing the most reckless tendencies of those in the Bush administration who have not yet given up on the idea of striking Iran militarily before leaving office.

• The sanctions demanded in H. Con. Res. 362 go far beyond existing sanctions and previously proposed sanctions for dealing with Iran. The impact of these additional sanctions would be to undermine any chance for diplomacy to succeed in achieving a negotiated resolution to all of the outstanding issues between the U.S. and Iran.

• For example, H. Con. Res. 362 demands that the president initiate an international effort “prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran's nuclear program.” Implementation of such a measure would decrease chances of persuading Iran to come to the negotiating table and make impossible the kind of discreet, preparatory contacts that could help build confidence. Such a measure would also undermine efforts to resume U.S.-Iran talks in Baghdad over Iraq security.

• Furthermore, H. Con. Res. 362 contains a mixed message – on the one hand stating that it should not be construed as authorizing the use of force against Iran, and on the other demanding that the President impose harsh sanctions that would be difficult if not impossible to implement outside the context of using force. This mixed message, even if unintentional, is irresponsible; in the event that the Administration does eventually try to impose a naval or air blockade on Iran, members of Congress who support H. Con. Res. 362 risk being viewed as having approved this option in advance.

• The resolution thus risks sending a message to the Bush administration and the world that Congress supports a more belligerent policy toward, and, potentially, belligerent actions against, Iran.

• Perversely, H. Con. Res. 362 completely fails to acknowledge the November 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate, which found that Iran had abandoned its covert nuclear weapons program in 2003. It also ignores the findings of International Atomic Energy Agency Director Mohammed ElBaradei, who has consistently said there is no evidence of diversion of nuclear materials for a nuclear weapons program.

• Likewise, H. Con. Res. 362 fails to reflect a key finding of the November 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which concluded that “some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might - if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible - prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program.”

• Sanctions alone are of limited use and cannot replace diplomacy as the sole means for resolving the outstanding issues between the U.S. and Iran. Before pushing for another new round of sanctions against Iran, Congress should urge the President to pursue diplomacy without preconditions, a policy that has not even been tried.

• Prominent Iranian intellectuals, academics, dissidents and human rights defenders, many of whom have suffered increasing arrests and prosecutions, have urged the U.S. to stop threatening Iran and enter into direct negotiations to resolve the crisis. Congress should listen.

• Clearly, there are serious outstanding questions and concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program. The best way to resolve these questions would be for the U.S. to drop preconditions and enter into direct, comprehensive, bilateral talks with Iran.