|
|
Post by POA on Apr 3, 2004 22:22:32 GMT -5
On February 26, 2004, Rep. Pence introduced H. Con. 271. H. Con. 271 currently has 145 co-sponsors:
Mr. PENCE (for himself, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. CANTOR, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. CRANE, Mr. CARDOZA, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. SAXTON, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. NORWOOD, Ms. HARRIS, Mrs. KELLY, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. AKIN, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. BEAUPREZ, Mr. SHIMKUS, Mr. SANDLIN, Mr. FROST, Mr. REHBERG, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. SOUDER, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. WELLER, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. SMITH of Michigan, Mr. HERGER, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. CHABOT, Mr. TANCREDO, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. RYUN of Kansas, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. GOODE, Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. CHANDLER, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. HAYWORTH, Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. ISRAEL, Mr. SCHROCK, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. OTTER, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. LINDER, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. SCHIFF, Mr. NADLER, Mr. FERGUSON, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. WYNN, Mr. NUNES, Mr. SHERMAN, and Mr. HASTINGS of Florida
The resolution supports the construction of the Israeli wall and condemns the UN for agreeing to render judgement upon it's legality, claiming, among other statements, that "the security fence is a necessary and proportional response to a campaign of terrorism by Palestinians", "there is evidence that the International Court of Justice is politicized and hostile towards Israel", and "construction of the security fence does not constitute annexation of disputed territory because the security fence is a temporary measure and does not extend the sovereignty of Israel".
The resolution has been referred to the House Committee on International Relations.
POA
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 4, 2004 21:46:55 GMT -5
"The resolution has been referred to the House Committee on International Relations."
The Sponsors ARE the House Committee on International Relations.
Both parties stacked that committee in favor of Israel. Disgusting. Selling out their own country and their own countrymen, and American principles.
They should be saying, as Reagan did: "Mr. Sharon: Tear down that wall!"
The hypocrisy is unbearable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 4, 2004 21:51:18 GMT -5
Jerusalem Post crows over near-total purchase of US congressA wide pro-Israel consensus on Capital Hill, attributable in large part to the effectiveness of such lobby groups as AIPAC, has made opponents of pro-Israel legislation and initiatives few. Today there is near unanimous support on Capital Hill for funding Israel's national security needs. Recent resolutions and letters such as those supporting Israel in the current conflict with the Palestinians pass with overwhelming majorities and endorsements, though the House usually musters up roughly 30 nays. "The PACs are still raising money and giving money but there aren't any crucial races," says Chuck Brooks, head of National PAC, the largest, bipartisan pro-Israel PAC in Washington. Adds one pro-Israel lobbyist: "There is no one running who would be considered an ardent foe of the US-Israel relationship." PACs are organized for the purpose of raising and spending money to elect and defeat candidates based on ideological, business, or labor interests. PACs can give $5,000 to a candidate per election (once for a primary and again for a general election). They can also give up to $15,000 annually to any national party committee.
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 4, 2004 21:55:01 GMT -5
Churches for Middle East PeaceInformation on the vote to "express solidarity with Israel": Oppose Additional Military Aid to Israel ~May 3, 2002~ <br>While the President was meeting at his Texas ranch with Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah last week, the Administration was able to convince Congressional leadership to postpone acting on resolutions "expressing solidarity with Israel in its fight against terrorism." But this week, those resolutions moved fast with votes on Thursday in both the House and Senate. The Senate vote was 94 to 2. The House voted 352 yeas, 21 noes, and 29 voting present. Even though these resolutions are non-binding, meaning they are symbolic and not law, they clearly undermine Middle East diplomatic efforts. The House resolution, H.Res. 392 was sponsored by Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) and the Senate version, S. Res. 247 was sponsored by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). The DeLay and Lieberman resolutions passed on May 2, though symbolic, do signal a Congressional readiness to provide additional military aid to Israel. Rep. DeLay's resolution, H. Res. 392, states that the House of Representatives "remains committed to Israel's self-defense and supports additional United States assistance to help Israel defend itself." Sen. Lieberman’s resolution notes that the U.S. is "committed to provide resources to states on the frontline in the war against terrorism," and resolves that the Senate "will continue to assist Israel in strengthening its homeland defenses." $200 million in additional military assistance to Israel was included by the State Department in the emergency supplemental spending bill. This was a follow-up of an unfulfilled promise by President Clinton to give Israel a bonus of $800 million for its withdrawal from Lebanon. But the White House budget office deleted this $200 million for Israel from the supplemental bill in March, citing the fact that Israel already receives $2.79 billion per year in foreign assistance (economic and military aid), and through the Department of Defense, support for the Arrow missile defense program. When Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Richard Armitage testified before the House Appropriations Foreign Operations Subcommittee on April 18, he was asked by Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) if he would oppose an effort by Congress to offer an amendment to provide this funding for Israel. Armitage replied, "No, of course we will not oppose supplemental funding for Israel," but asked that it be an addition and not taken from funds earmarked in the bill for others. <br> There are other Congressional initiatives out there that have legislative teeth and are more than symbolic. The resolutions and bills with listings of sponsors and votes can be researched on the Library of Congress website: thomas.loc.govSenators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Mitch McConnell (R-KY) introduced S. 2194 on April 18. The McConnell-Feinstein bill requires the President to impose sanctions, chosen from a list provided in the bill, against the PLO and PA. This bill and the following bill will be subjects of guidance messages in the coming days. <br> House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) and Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY) introduced on April 18 a bill, H.R. 4483, that would impose sanctions on Syria. Known as the Engel bill, an identical bill S. 2215 was introduced in the Senate by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Rick Santorum (R-PA). <br>
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 4, 2004 21:57:04 GMT -5
Resignation of Newt Gingrich means Israel is losing a friendThe Netanyahu-Gingrich relationship is unusual in its closeness, or as one Israeli official described it, "coziness." The two men share a common political adversary, President Clinton. Until this summer, the buzz at the Israeli Embassy was that Netanyahu spoke to Gingrich more often than to his own ambassador at the time, Eliahu Ben-Elissar, and the ambassador often found out what transpired when he saw it in the news media. An Israeli official reports that Gingrich helped persuade a reluctant Netanyahu to go to the Wye River Summit. The Israeli paraphrased Gingrich's message: "It's time to do it at Wye; you've dragged it out long enough. Any more will work against you."
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 4, 2004 21:59:21 GMT -5
Committee Changes Both Positive and NegativeHouse International Relations Committee chairman Hyde did not abolish the Middle East subcommittee after the retirement of former chairman Benjamin Gilman (R-NY). Instead, he named as new subcommittee chairman Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). This is not good news for America’s interests in the Middle East, because the Cuban-American congresswomanÕs record on Arab-Israeli issues is, if anything, even worse than Gilman’s. The committee also lost its only Arab-American member, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who was named to the more prestigious Energy and Commerce Committee and had to give up his seat on International Relations. In the Senate, newly elected Arab-American Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) was named to the Foreign Relations Committee, but not the Middle East subcommittee. The good news in the Senate is that Sam Brownback (R-KS) no longer will head the Middle East subcommittee. The new chairman is Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R-RI), who is considered open-minded on Middle East issues, and was a member of this magazine’s most recent “Hall of Fame.”<br>
|
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 4, 2004 22:05:24 GMT -5
House International Relations Committee "hearings" on the war vote: "Opening the proceedings on the second day, Committee Chairman Henry Hyde (R-IL) told his fellow committeemen they could offer all the amendments to the resolution they wanted, just as long as it was understood that there would be no amending the resolution. The committee wasted an entire day hearing proposed amendments that would never be adopted. Presumably this was meant to be a kind of "group therapy" to make people feel as if they were playing some sort of important role in a democratic process. In response to Rep. Paul's concerns about violating the Constitution, Hyde had this to say: "There are things in the Constitution that have been overtaken by events." Indeed. When Paul suggested that Congress vote on a declaration of war instead of approving the war resolution, Hyde said that the problem with war declarations was that they were inconvenient because they affected existing contracts, insurance policies, etc. In other words, we can't allow such a trifling matter as the slaughter of thousands of people to get in the way of something as important as commerce. Tom Lantos, who had earlier said that no member's conscience was to be questioned, hypocritically turned and accused Paul of being "frivolous and mischievous" with his proposal. The final vote was 31 in favor, 11 against. Barbara Lee was right when she said that "it doesn't take leadership to go and drop bombs on people," but when it came time to vote neither she nor Diane Watson (D-CA) showed up. It was over. The Party had spoken." -- Chad NagleISRAEL: OUR 'LITTLE BUDDY' Tom Lantos on Wednesday said that about twenty years ago "our ally Israel" had "spotted the danger" posed by Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor. Now, he said, Iraq was again "on the verge" of developing nuclear weapons, and "enough is enough." Well, the last time Israel "spotted the danger," the Israeli air force destroyed the reactor quickly and easily with a strike that killed one person. And, just like today, at the beginning of the 1980s America wasn't imminently threatened by Iraq. So why does Uncle Sam have to get involved now? If it's because Israel says it feels threatened, this makes little sense. Largely thanks to Uncle Sam, Israel now has the power to make sure any country that uses a "weapon of mass destruction" (please, God, make them stop using that expression) against it will be incinerated in nuclear fire columns. If the Israelis really believe they're in imminent danger of attack from Iraq (and I don't think they do), let them do the same thing they did then. It was simple then, and it would be a hell of a lot easier now that Iraq is a crippled basket case. Besides, exactly what use is Israel as an "ally," anyway? National columnist George Will, in his utterly craven and contemptible slavishness toward Israel, has implied that it is somehow treasonable for three combat-veteran congressmen one of whom was awarded a Purple Heart to go to Iraq to try to avert war. What a shame Mr. Will won't suit up, pick up a pack and rifle, and jump out of an airplane into Baghdad. Surely Gen. Sharon would cheer him on from afar as the first paratrooper to wear a bow tie into action. The columnists like George Will who advocate this obscenity don't exactly personify Orwell's "boot stamping on a human face." They're more like the face that peers out from behind the boot, smirking from a position of safety and security while Iraqi civilians are being blown to bits by cluster bombs. They have brute force on their side, along with all the people who harass opponents of war for Israel by sending them hate mail and accusing them of anti-Semitism. It's much easier to put people down when you're on the "winning side." And you get to stay "happy" too. Here's an announcement circulated by some staff members of the International Relations Committee right after the war resolution was approved: The HIRC Dem LAs [House International Relations Committee Democratic Legislative Assistants] have organized a post-Iraq resolution happy hour at Tortilla Coast tomorrow night and have cordially extended an invitation to the [Republican] Las The festivities will begin at 6. See? All you have to do is sign up to join the Party, and in the period before you're granted full membership you get to "hang out" at the "festivities" with bright young congressional staffers in a neon-lit bar on the Hill, eat a few nachos, get smashed at "happy hour," and maybe go home with another someone for some sloppy, drunken sex between visits to the vomitorium, forgetting for a little while that you're just another little climber hoping to one day be a leader of the Party itself. You'll have all weekend for the nausea to recede, and by Sunday night you'll have recovered enough to look in the mirror again and prepare for another week of telling yourself you're one of the "beautiful people." Those ugly antiwar people, meanwhile, will have to continue living with their own nausea about the smug evil of the War Party, without the benefit of any "festivities." Chad Nagle |
|
|
|
Post by Moses on Apr 4, 2004 22:22:18 GMT -5
Ranking Democrat on the House International Relations Committee: 
Tom LantosCalifornia, 12th District Tom Lantos is a top House recipient from the following industries for the 2003-2004 election cycle: |
|
