Khashoggi Assassination Continues to Draw Congressional Reaction, But to Little Effect

Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, August/September 2019, pp. 39-41

Congress Watch

By Shirl McArthur

THE MOST DRAMATIC CONGRESSIONAL REACTION to the killing of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2, which was widely believed to have been ordered by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, was the introduction and passage in the Senate of 22 “Joint Resolutions of Disapproval” of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and the UAE (Saudi Arabia’s partner in attacking the Houthi rebels in Yemen).

The measures, S.J.Res. 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48, were introduced by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Bob Menendez (D-NJ), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Rand Paul (R-KY), Jack Reed (D-RI), and Todd Young (R-IN). They were passed on June 20 by votes of 53-45 or 51-45, with all the no votes being Republicans. The House passed three of the bills on July 17, by votes of 238-190 and 237-190. President Donald Trump vetoed the bills on July 24.

On June 24, in reaction to President Trump’s claim of an “emergency” to justify proceeding with arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other countries, Menendez introduced S. 1945, the “Saudi Arabia False Emergencies” bill, which would amend the Arms Export Control Act to provide “protection of Congressional review and oversight of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other countries.” The bill has seven cosponsors, including Menendez. H.R. 643, introduced in January by Rep. James McGovern (D-MA), “to prohibit provision of U.S. security assistance to the Government of Saudi Arabia,” now has 31 cosponsors, including McGovern.

As previously reported, citing constitutional separation of powers, the Trump administration refused to meet the requirement imposed by the Global Magnitsky Act to determine whether a foreign person is responsible for killing Khashoggi and to report to Congress with a decision on the imposition of sanctions on that person or persons. S. 398, the Senate’s response to the administration’s action, introduced in February by Menendez, still has seven cosponsors, including Menendez. It would impose sanctions on persons responsible for the death of Khashoggi, and would “support the peaceful resolution of the civil war in Yemen, address the resulting humanitarian crisis, and hold the perpetrators responsible for murdering a Saudi dissident.”

On June 27 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA), with 33 Democratic cosponsors, introduced the nonbinding H.Res. 472 “requesting the President to strongly condemn Jamal Khashoggi’s killing, hold accountable individuals identified as culpable, and condemn imprisonment of and violence against journalists around the world.” H.R. 2037 “To encourage accountability” for Khashoggi’s murder, introduced in April by Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), now has 20 cosponsors, including Malinowski.

NEW MEASURES INTRODUCED CONCERNING SAUDI ACTIONS IN YEMEN

After the failure to override Trump’s April veto of S.J. Res. 7, to direct the removal of U.S. Armed Forces from Yemen, as described in the June/July Washington Report, other measures to limit or prohibit U.S. participation in the Saudi actions in Yemen have languished (see the “Status Updates” box), but three new measures were introduced concerning the violence in Yemen.

On June 10 Sen. Murphy, with four cosponsors, introduced S.R. 243 “requesting information on Saudi Arabia’s human rights practices in Yemen.” Then, apparently in an effort to justify the administration’s support of Saudi actions in Yemen, Republicans on June 27 introduced nearly identical resolutions in the House and Senate “strongly condemning human rights violations, violence against civilians, and cooperation with Iran by the Houthi movement and its allies in Yemen.” In the Senate, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and six cosponsors introduced S.Con.Res. 21, and in the House, Reps. Will Hurd (R-TX) and Mike McCaul (R-TX) introduced H.Con.Res. 50.

EFFORTS CONTINUE TO PASS ANTI-BDS MEASURES

Anti-BDS H.Res. 246, introduced in March by Rep. Bradley Schneider (D-IL), was passed by a 398-17 vote in the House on July 23. The identical S.Res. 120, introduced in March by Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-MD), now has 69 cosponsors, including Cardin. These measures, strongly pushed by AIPAC, seem to be modest improvements over other anti-BDS measures in that they do not specifically equate Israel’s occupied territories with Israel and they give lip service to a two-state solution, but they still are objectionable on First Amendment grounds.

As previously reported, the Senate’s S. 1, titled “Strengthening America’s Security in the Middle East,” introduced by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) in January, repeats four bills strongly promoted by AIPAC that didn’t make it into law in the 115th Congress. It would authorize aid and weapons transfers to Israel; extend defense cooperation with Jordan; impose additional sanctions related to the conflict in Syria, and allow state or local governments to divest assets from entities applying boycotts, divestments, or sanctions against Israel. It was passed by the Senate Feb. 5 and sent to the House Feb. 6 and has not moved since then.

The House’s companion bill, H.R. 336, was introduced in January by McCaul. It was referred to five different House committees, and has not been reported out by any of them. It now has 62 cosponsors, including McCaul.

The most controversial section of the bill focuses on BDS. After the Senate’s passage of the bill, the ACLU issued a statement saying, in part, “Today the Senate chose politics over the Constitution and trampled on the First Amendment rights of all Americans.” But, while the First Amendment objection to the bills is getting the most attention, they are also objectionable because they apply not just to Israel, but also to “Israeli-controlled territories.”

WISH LIST OF GOODIES FOR ­ISRAEL BILL CONTINUES TO GAIN SUPPORT

H.R. 1837, the “U.S.-Israel Cooperation Enhancement and Regional Security” bill, introduced in March by Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL), was passed by the House on July 23. It amounts to a wish list of goodies for Israel. Among other things, it authorizes several new “cooperative” programs, extends the authorization for several security assistance programs, including the $3.8 billion per year called for in the 2016 Memorandum of Understanding, and extends loan guarantees. A new section was added intended to “fix” the unintended consequence of the “Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act” (ATCA) passed last year. While the purpose of the ATCA was clearly to cut off aid to the PA or PLO, its wording could also apply to any country accepting any amount of the described aid, effectively sacrificing the use of aid as a foreign policy tool. The new section, called “Justice for U.S. Victims of Palestinian Terrorism,” fixes the problem by simply eliminating that provision.

Identical bills were introduced June 18 in the Senate and House opposing Hezbollah in Lebanon’s military. S. 1886 was introduced by Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND), and H.R. 3331 was introduced by Reps. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) and Elaine Luria (D-VA). They would withhold 20 percent of U.S. military aid to Lebanon until the president certifies that the Lebanese military has taken steps to reduce the influence of persons associated with Hezbollah.

H.R. 1850, introduced in March by Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL), imposes “sanctions with respect to foreign persons and agencies and instrumentalities of foreign states supporting Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, or any affiliate or successor thereof.” It was passed by the House on July 23, and had 45 cosponsors, including Mast.

PRO-PALESTINIAN MEASURES ­INTRODUCED

On June 5 “Partnership Fund for Peace” bills were introduced in the Senate and House. S. 1727 was introduced by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE) and three cosponsors, and H.R. 3104 was introduced by Reps. Nita Lowey (D-NY) and Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE). They would establish a fund “to promote joint economic development and finance ventures between Palestinian entrepreneurs and companies and those in the U.S. and Israel.”

H.R. 2407, introduced in April by Rep. Betty McCollum (D-MN), now has 22 cosponsors, including McCollum. It would “require that U.S. funds do not support military detention, interrogation, abuse, or ill-treatment of Palestinian ­children” living under Israeli military occupation.

The previously-described H.Res. 326, “Expressing the sense of the House regarding U.S. efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a negotiated two-state solution,” introduced in April by Rep. Alan Lowenthal (D-CA), now has 158 cosponsors, including Lowenthal. A new resolution, S.Res. 234, “affirming the U.S. commitment to the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and noting that Israeli annexation of territory in the West Bank would undermine peace and Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state,” was introduced June 5 by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR). It has 11 Democratic cosponsors, including Merkley.

H.Res. 138, introduced in February by Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), now has 33 cosponsors, including Hastings. “Expressing support for addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict in a concurrent track with the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and commending Arab and Muslim-majority states that have improved bilateral relations with Israel,” it gives passing reference to the importance of a two-state solution, but really seems more designed to support Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s “regional” approach.

MEASURES AIMED AT COUNTERING A DRIFT TO WAR WITH IRAN GAIN MORE SUPPORT

Most of the four previously-described measures aimed at preventing a war with Iran without congressional approval have gained cosponsors. S. 1039 introduced in April by Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM), now has 27 cosponsors, including Udall; H.R. 2354, introduced in April by Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA), now has 80 cosponsors, including Eshoo, and H.R. 2829, introduced in May by Rep. Andy Levin (D-MI), now has 74 cosponsors, including Levin, but H.J.Res. 58, introduced in May by Reps. Seth Moulton (D-MA) and Gil Cisneros (D-CA) has no additional cosponsors.

Of the previously-described new measures that would impose sanctions on Iran or Iranian organizations, only two have gained some support. H.R. 1441, to “Stop Corrupt Iranian Oligarchs and Entities,” introduced in February by Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN), now has 17 cosponsors, including Kustoff, and H.R. 2118, the “Iran Ballistic Missiles and International Sanctions Enforcement” bill, introduced in April by McCaul, now has four cosponsors, including McCaul.

S.Res. 195, introduced in May by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR), opposing the lifting of sanctions on Iran without addressing other Iranian actions deemed objectionable, now has 14 cosponsors, including Cotton. The identical H.Res. 390 was introduced May 20 in the House by Rep. Mike Gallagher (R-WI) and has 10 cosponsors.

SYRIA CONTINUES TO RECEIVE CONGRESSIONAL ATTENTION

On Jan. 30 Rep. Tom Malinowski (D-NJ), with nine cosponsors, introduced H.R. 914 to “reduce the total number of members of the Armed Forces” in Syria, limiting U.S. forces in Syria to 1,500 troops. On March 13 Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) introduced H.R. 1706 “to limit assistance for areas of Syria controlled by the Government of Syria or associated forces.” It has 25 cosponsors, including Engel. And on May 22 Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-PA) introduced H.Res. 395 “condemning the senseless attacks on hospitals and medical personnel in Syria.” It has nine cosponsors, including Boyle.

On May 20, 374 Senators and Representatives signed a bipartisan letter to Trump, strongly pushed by AIPAC, urging him to implement a comprehensive strategy in Syria that addresses the “growing threats to U.S. interests, Israel, and regional security and stability.”