(Credit: AP)

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) serves as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a role he inherited as the “scandal” over the Obama administration’s response to the attack in Benghazi, Libya was reaching one of its many peaks in January. Today on the Senate floor, Menendez castigated his colleagues who believed that the Senate had not done enough to investigate Benghazi, reminding them that there have been 11 hearings in Congress on the matter since September. “We have fully vetted this issue,” Menendez said.

The focus “should not be to score political points at the expense of the families of the four victims,” he went on to say. “It should be on doing all we can to protect our personnel serving overseas and provide the necessary oversight and legislative authority to carry out the administrative review board’s recommendations.” With that in mind, Menendez introduced the Embassy Security and Personnel Protection Act of 2013, a bill he hoped would be “able to count on the support of all of our colleagues to enact this crucial, time-sensitive legislation without delay, without obstruction, without political grandstanding.”

The bill would provide further funding to the Capital Security Cost-Sharing Program, first instituted in 1998 to boost security to “high-risk, high-threat” diplomatic posts and has since been chronically underfunded. Under the new legislation, the program would be able to build far more than the two to three facilities a year for the two dozen posts that fall into the high-risk, high-threat category. It would also provide funding for implementing a shift in the mission of Marine Corps security guards posted at U.S. embassies to protect staffers as well as classified assets. The bill would also require the State Department to provide verification to Congress of it fully putting into place its Accountability Review Board (ARB) on Benghazi’s recommendations for improvement.

Diplomatic security has been given a short-shrift in the aftermath of Benghazi. During her appearance before the Senate in January, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attempted to persuade Congress to shift $1.3 billion in funding bookmarked for warfighting in Iraq towards providing for greater diplomatic security. Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) shepherded legislation through the Senate fulfilling Clinton’s request, but the bill died in the House. Since then, most of the conversation surrounding Benghazi has focused almost exclusively on the Obama administration’ss supposed cover-up, no matter how many documents are released debunking the claim.
Read more

Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

In the original phrasing of the draft resolution, as reported by ThinkProgress, the language was vague enough to allow for almost any Israeli use of force against Iran to be immediately and without question backed by the United States with “diplomatic, military, and economic support.” On Tuesday, Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Bob Corker (R-TN) — the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee respectively — won unanimous approval of an amendment to S. Res. 65 that significantly diluted that language.

In the most important section of the resolution — the section previously stating that U.S. policy would be to support Israel in near any strike against Iran — language was added making clear that the U.S. itself must be the sole determinant for when force is used:

Urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in legitimate self-defense against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide, in accordance with United States law and the constitutional responsibility of Congress to authorize the use of military force, diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence;

The insertion of the word “legitimate” into the clause on self-defense helps narrow the possibility that the measure could be seen as implicitly approving a preventative or pre-emptive Israeli attack on Iran. Instead, while the decision to attack would remain Israel’s, the U.S. would decide whether a strike meets its own standard for legitimacy. This is important as, while the resolution was never intended to substitute an actual declaration of war from Congress nor an Authorization of the Use of Military Force as seen prior to launching Iraq War, it will serve as an official statement on U.S. policy.

When Menendez and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) first introduced the non-binding measure in February, it was with the intent that the full Senate vote on it before President Obama’s trip to Israel. Instead, it was met with criticism in the form of pressure from pro-peace groups and even a scathing New York Times editorial lamenting how Congress “gets in the way” of a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear issue.

“This new language is the kind of language that should have been in the first version,” Joel Rubin, Director of Policy at the Ploughshares Fund, said about the amendment. “Fortunately the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chose to mark it up, which is relatively rare for this type of resolution, and chose to do it in a way that sharpened up the concerning clause.”

“Americans for Peace Now welcomes amendments made by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to temper [the] problematic Iran-war resolution,” the group said in a statement on Tuesday, adding that Corker and Mendendez “deserve credit for dealing seriously and substantively” with concerns about the measure.

The two senators’ offices did not respond to ThinkProgress’ requests for comment about the senators decision to make changes to the resolution’s language.

The amendment doesn’t, however, completely close the door to the future Congressional authorization of war against Iran. Graham, in explaining his thinking behind the original draft of the resolution, readily admitted that it was designed to be part of a “step-by-step” process towards authorizing war against Iran. The Obama administration has still not ruled out the use of force against Iran if deemed necessary to prevent its acquisition of a nuclear weapon, that would only be after the exhaustion of all other available tools.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ)

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) in the coming days plan to unveil a new joint resolution to “strongly support the full implementation of United States and international sanctions on Iran and to urge the President to continue to strengthen enforcement of sanctions legislation.” Couched in such seemingly benign language, the resolution saves its most worrisome clauses for the end, including an open-ended policy of U.S. support for any Israeli strike against Iran:

Urges that, if the Government of Israel is compelled to take military action in self-defense, the United States Government should stand with Israel and provide diplomatic, military, and economic support to the Government of Israel in its defense of its territory, people, and existence.

Graham first announced his intention to introduce such legislation in 2012, but never followed through. The new bill co-sponsored by Menendez goes beyond previous attempts to show support for Israeli policy towards Iran. The last such attempt was a 2011 proposal from Reps. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Louis Gohmert (R-TX) that would have “approved” any strike Israel performed. Menendez and Graham’s proposal is all the more threatening in that it is backed by credible legislators, though known hawks against Iran, and is ostensibly bipartisan.

The joint resolution is non-binding and would serve as neither a declaration of war nor an Authorization of the Use of Military Force like the near carte-blanche approval granted to President George W Bush at the onset of the Iraq War. It would, though, serve as an official announcement of U.S. policy to support any Israeli strike, whether the Obama administration had been previously consulted or not. This would include strikes against Iran that would be preventative — or seeking to stop any threat before it materializes — instead of a preemptive strike against an imminent threat, which is much more widely accepted as legitimate.

The Senate proposal dovetails with a bill announced on Wednesday from the heads of the House Foreign Affairs Committee to ratchet up sanctions on Iran yet again while shifting policy to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons capability.

Current and former military officials have warned of the potential consequences of strikes against Iran in several reports. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey last year backed away from American support of an Israeli strike, saying “I don’t want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it.” Dempsey also warned that a strike against Iran could possibly break the international coalition that has been placing pressure on Iran. That coalition recently concluded a positive round of talks in Kazakhstan and are set to meet again in Istanbul in March.

The Obama administration has not ruled out the use of force against Iran if necessary to prevent its acquisition of a nuclear weapon, but only after the exhaustion of all other available tools.

Sens. Blunt (L) and Menendez (R)

Authored by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Roy Blunt (R-MO), the draft letter outlines the “absolute minimum steps” Iran must take in Moscow: shutting down its Fordow enrichment facility, ending enrichment of uranium to high levels, and shipping out its stockpile of high-enriched uranium. The letter says that Iran’s agreement to these steps would “justify continued discussions,” but doesn’t outline any other possible concessions.

While that leaves the door open for other possible lesser concessions, the Senators rule out acceding to a key Iranian goal until Iran agrees to the full spectrum of Western and U.N. demands. The New York Times reported that, in Baghdad, Iran asked for “an easing of the onerous economic sanctions imposed by the West,” something the Iranians have “relentlessly” pursued. But the Senators refuse to consider such steps without a comprehensive deal. In the draft letter, they write:

Barring full, verifiable Iranian compliance with all Security Council resolutions and full cooperation with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], including a new, far more intrusive inspections regime under the additional protocol, we see no circumstances under which Iran should be relieved from the current sanctions or those scheduled to come into effect at the end of this month.

That restriction could, in effect, stymie moves toward a “confidence-building” deal. A deal identical to the one mentioned by the Senators — demanding the “absolute minimum steps” but offering little sanctions relief — was on the table in Baghdad. After it failed to advance, an Iranian diplomat told the Christian Science Monitor that Iran would not “accept these things this way.”

Read more

Last night, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-VT) filed the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010.

The bill establishes a path to legalization, but also outlines a set of border enforcement “triggers” that must be met before any unauthorized immigrants can apply for permanent residency. Once those benchmarks are reached, undocumented immigrants will have the opportunity to register with the government, undergo a background check, learn English, and pay fines and taxes on their way to becoming American citizens.

The legislation also includes the DREAM Act which would allow undocumented youth to regularize their status by going to college or serving in the military. AgJOBS, which would establish an earned legalization program for undocumented farmworkers and revise the existing H-2A temporary foreign agricultural worker program to provide farmers with a steady flow of labor they need is additionally attached to the bill.

Republicans have already blasted Menendez’s bill. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) called it nothing more than a “cynical ploy for votes.” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) called the push for immigration reform “for effect rather than reality.”

In fact, Hatch responded by introducing an immigration bill of his own today. According to the Deseret News, Hatch’s bill, Strengthening Our Commitment to Legal Immigration and America’s Security Act, “would require participation in key law enforcement programs, clamp down on identify theft, streamline the visa system, track the amount of welfare benefits being diverted to illegal immigrant households, curb serious abuses of immigration laws and help prevent Mexican cartels from using national parks and federal lands to grow marijuana.” However, it doesn’t do anything to address the status of the 11-12 million undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. and the lack of visas available to migrants who want to work in the U.S.

Menendez doesn’t deny that the election will make it difficult to get any significant amount of floor time for an immigration debate this fall. However, his bill does show Latino voters what has been the reality all year long: Democrats have been more than ready to introduce and vote yes on immigration reform while Republicans have stalled and obstructed the issue. Menendez told Politico, “clearly, you see the difference between those who are willing to move forward and get a reform and [those who are] not, and for the Hispanic community, clearly they understand who stands on their side and [who does] not.”