Compiled by Donald H. Harrison
Vice President Joseph Biden’s office confirmed speculation on Friday, Feb. 6, that he plans to be out of the country on March 3 when Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is scheduled to address a Joint Session of Congress which Biden, in his capacity as President of the U.S. Senate, normally would attend.
The confirmation, given to various media representatives in the nation’s Capitol, was seen by some as further escalation of the diplomatic warfare between the Obama administration and Netanyahu over the issue of whether increased sanctions on Iran are needed.
Although Biden’s office did not say what country Biden would be visiting, it did say that the trip has been in the works for some time. Announcement was planned sometime after all the details were worked out.
On Feb. 5, the announcement that Pope Francis would address a Joint Session of Congress in September prompted White House reporters to explore the difference between President Obama’s reaction to that invitation and to the one extended to Netanyahu to speak on March 3. A transcript of the questions and answers on that subject between the White House press corps and Press Secretary Josh Earnest on Thursday, Jan. 5, follows.
MR. EARNEST: Good afternoon, everybody. It’s nice to see you all. I do not have any announcements at the top, Josh, so let’s go straight to your questions.
Q Thanks, Josh. Speaker Boehner has announced that Pope Francis will deliver a speech to a joint session of Congress in September, becoming the first Pope to do that. I was wondering, does the White House have any reaction to that, and was that visit coordinated with the White House in advance? (Laughter.)
MR. EARNEST: Didn’t used to have to ask those questions, did we? I can tell you that the President and his team here at the White House have been anticipating a visit from Pope Francis here to the United States for quite some time, and even as far back as the President’s visit to the Vatican, where he first met Pope Francis, talked about how eager he was to welcome the Pope to the United States. So the President is certainly looking forward to his visit.
*
Q Okay. And if I can do “Bibigate” or “speechgate,” or whatever you want to call it. It’s a two-parter. Nancy Pelosi is still talking about whether she may boycott that speech. And I’m just wondering if you could give us some more clarity about the White House and the President’s thinking on whether this is an appropriate individual decision for Democrats, whether you’re offering any guidance when people call to ask. And also what does he think about the fact that this has caused so much controversy?MR. EARNEST: Well, as I mentioned yesterday, the President does believe it is up to individual members of Congress to make their own decision about whether or not to attend. The concern that we have exhibited here is not just about the departure from protocol in terms of extending the invitation, but also the President believes very firmly in continuing an important tradition, which is to ensure that the strong relationship between the United States and Israel is protected from partisan politics, that we shouldn’t allow the relationship between our two countries to be reduced to a relationship between two political parties.
And that is something that the President is concerned about. And, frankly, the seriousness with which the President considers this principle is what’s driving the decision to not meet with the Prime Minster when he’s here. As you know, when the Prime Minster is in the United States during the first week in March, he’ll be up for an election that’s scheduled for just two weeks later back in Israel. And the President is conscious of ensuring that we don’t leave anybody with the appearance, or even with the appearance, of somehow interfering in that election by weighing in on one side or the other.
So the President takes these issues very seriously, but ultimately, those kinds of decisions about whether or not to attend and what sort of impact that might have on an ongoing election in another country or what kind of signal that might send is a decision that every individual member of Congress needs to make for themselves.
Q But has he gone as far as to say that he really doesn’t think that the Prime Minster should go through with the speech? Or have you guys drawn a line before saying —
MR. EARNEST: We have not said that.
Q And you’re not saying that now?
MR. EARNEST: I’m not saying that now.
Q You could say that now if you want.
MR. EARNEST: I could say that now.
Q Just to clean up on Josh’s question. He knows the Pope is coming and so he probably is not shocked that the Pope is addressing Congress and he’s probably fine with it. But was there any coordination this time around? Is there any effort by the Speaker’s office to make that sort of good-faith gesture to say, look, no hard feelings, let’s coordinate stuff?
MR. EARNEST: Well, I can’t speak to all of the conversations that may or may not have occurred in advance of that specific invitation, but certainly the President and the team here was aware of the Pope’s intent to travel to the United States and intent to spend some time in Washington D.C. I know that there’s still some details of that schedule that are getting locked down so I don’t want to get ahead of any announcements that may be planned by the Vatican.
*
Q Josh, on Pope Francis’s speech to Congress, will Vice President Biden attend or will he be out of the country? (Laughter.)MR. EARNEST: The speech from the Pope I know is slated for September, and the Vice President’s schedule for that period of time has not been set.
Q But you’d anticipate he’d be there.
MR. EARNEST: I would anticipate that he would be there.
Q So why can’t you say the same about Prime Minister Netanyahu?
MR. EARNEST: The Vice President’s schedule for the first week of March is also not yet set. But as I mentioned earlier — I guess it was yesterday — I noted that the Vice President takes very seriously the ceremonial responsibilities that he has before the United States Senate. That’s everything from participating in swearing-in ceremonies to participating in the convening of joint sessions of Congress.
Now, there has been at least one previous occasion during his tenure as the Vice President where he’s been unable to attend a joint session of Congress because he was traveling overseas. So when we have more details about the Vice President’s schedule for the first week of March, we’ll certainly let you know.
*
Q And I just want to ask you about the visit by Benjamin Netanyahu and the fact that the President is not going to be meeting with him. It certainly looks like he’s likely to win reelection, even before this happens, so we’re sort of anticipating. How problematic is this for the President’s, shall we say, less than cozy relationship with Mr. Netanyahu? And has this been damaging overall to U.S.-Israeli relations?MR. EARNEST: Well, let me just state at the beginning that I’m not going to speculate about the outcome of the election because, again, I wouldn’t want even my uninformed speculation about Israeli politics to be construed as interfering in that election in any way.
But what I can talk about is the relationship between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. And I think what is clear from the public statements of both men is that the counterterrorism and security relationship between our two countries has never been stronger. In fact, it’s the Prime Minister himself who said that the level of security cooperation between the United States and Israel is unprecedented. And that reflects a commitment from people on both sides of this relationship working together to pursue the national security interests of both their countries. It’s in the interest of the United States of America for the United States to have a strong security relationship and security partnership with Israel, our closest ally in the Middle East.
It’s also important to the people of Israel that they have a strong and functioning security relationship with the United States. Just last year, when innocent Israeli citizens were in the line of fire from extremists in Gaza who were firing rockets across the border, the United States acted to ramp up our assistance to the Israelis and provide additional funding for the Iron Dome program so that that program could be resupplied. And the Iron Dome program is essentially the program that’s used to shoot down rockets that are destined for Israeli population centers.
So there is an important relationship between our two countries, and both Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Obama have succeeded in ensuring that that strong relationship continues to serve very well the populations of both our countries.
*
Jared.Q Josh, in addition to being a spiritual leader, the Pope is also a head of state. Was there any departure from protocol in the invitation in September?
MR. EARNEST: Not that I’m aware of.
At the U.S. State Department on Thursday, Deputy Spokesperson Marie Hapf handled one question along a similar line:
QUESTION: Do you have any reaction to Pope Francis addressing Congress next fall?
MS. HARF: I didn’t see that, but I am a big fan of Pope Francis, and I think everyone’s looking forward to his visit, certainly.
In the Capitol building as well, reporters sought information from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi about how important the feud between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu really is, and whether she planned to attend his speech. Here is a transcript of the running Q&A:
Q: Does the invitation, in your view, on the world stage, undermine at all the American negotiators – the P-5 negotiating position – in the final, sort of, stages of this negotiation? Or is it just kind of seen as an internal squabble that doesn’t really tip the balance…
Leader Pelosi. Well I certainly hope it doesn’t undermine our negotiating – no.
Q: Have you heard any concerns from people in a position to know that it does actually make a difference in this negotiation?
Leader Pelosi. The bigger concern was, would we pass sanctions before. And that’s resolved. We’re not passing further sanctions. Everybody knows we could pass sanctions at the drop of the hat. So it’s not a question of, we have to exploit this opportunity that we have now, because it won’t exist again. No, that moment exists whenever we choose to use it. So the fact [is] that there’s a recognition that further sanctions would undermine the agreement as to how we [went] in – we shouldn’t have more sanctions, they can’t have any enrichment – and so those were some of the terms of bringing people to the table. It was a really remarkable achievement of the Obama Administration, to bring together the P-5 countries plus one, the Permanent Members of the Security Council, plus Germany, in concert in these negotiations. This is no small feat.
And I was telling the Prime Minister – excuse me, him too, but yesterday the Speaker (of the Israeli Knesset Yuli Edelstein) – that 20 years ago, more than 20 years ago, some of us were traveling to Russia or meeting Russian officials here, to China, to say: “Stop transferring technology to Iran” – and to the Europeans, to the French, to others – “Stop transferring technology.” It’s dual use, it’s this, and said the Russians: “You’re the biggest arms salesmen in the world. Who are you to tell us not to transfer technology?”
But we’re talking about unconventional. The Chinese said: “We’re not doing it” – which of course they were, rig magnets, rocket delivery service systems and the rest of that. And Europeans were saying: “It’s dual-use, it’s not really intended.” But it’s all to say: three of those countries I just named are part of the six countries that are engaged in these negotiations. That is a gigantic step forward and should not be devalued or taken lightly. And every one of those countries knows that it’s very important to stop Iran from having a weapon of mass destruction.
Q: It sounds like, Madam Leader, what you’re saying is that this has highlighted, politicized some debates about Israel here in this country; but if Prime Minister Netanyahu is trying to derail the deal with Iran at this episode, that it’s not going to work – you seem to be saying.
Leader Pelosi. Well, I’m hoping this doesn’t take place, so I’m ever-optimistic and hopeful. But the fact is: our negotiators are on track and firmly there. The question is: could that advocacy have resulted in the passing of sanctions in the Congress? It didn’t. So that was very important. But the fact is: these negotiations are under the auspices – from our point of view – from the President of the United States. And you know, again, this is – the three of our countries have great friendships in terms of country-to-country, leaders-to-leaders. It’s really something that we should be able to resolve.
Maybe we even have to review the idea of joint sessions of Congress, because they should not be a political arena two weeks before an election. There are some people who just think it’s outrageous; some staunch supporters of Israel who called me and said it’s outrageous – and they’re supporters of Netanyahu – that our floor of the House would be used, exploited in that way for a political purpose in Israel and in the United States.
Again, I’ve taken too long on this question – I know, because I have to go vote, and the Speaker is going to be here in just a minute because he doesn’t have to vote. But let’s put it this way: we all know that Iran can’t get a nuclear weapon. We all know that everything is on the table; and in order to have moral authority on how we proceed, we have to have the world see that we tried everything with Iran. And hopefully that will work.
And we all know that Israel’s election is two weeks before his supposed speech before the Congress. It just – this, I think going forward in this way, the way this conversation is taking so much energy and is really stressful, is really beneath the dignity of the challenge that we have: stopping the proliferations of weapons of mass destruction, respecting America’s approach to this which has brought five other countries to the table and across the table from Iran. I think they’ve done a wonderful, wonderful job and deserve the right to have us in Congress support them. And that’s my view on the subject.
Q: Can I just follow up quickly, Madam Leader? You said you really hope it doesn’t take place. Do you get the sense from your meetings that the Israelis are considering, or the Prime Minister is considering…
Leader Pelosi. No.
Q: … and what’s your recommendation? So, if they’re not, and the Speaker’s not going to change the date, what’s your recommendation to Members who are considering a boycott?
Leader Pelosi. I don’t know. Just ever-hopeful that the decision in favor of respecting our system would – you never know; things happen in people’s schedules.
[Laughter]
They do. You just never know.
Q: Are you going to attend?
Leader Pelosi. As of now, I am. As of now I am. Yeah, as of now I am.
Q: Are you looking to schedule something else?
Leader Pelosi. No, I’m just saying that we’re just…
Q: You sound to be leaving the option of boycotting open.
Leader Pelosi. No, I don’t think anyone should use the word “boycott” for this.
Q: …will not attend.
Leader Pelosi. Let me just tell you this: you know when these heads of state come? This is not – I mean, people are here doing their work, they’re trying to pass legislation, they’re meeting with their constituents and the rest. It’s not a high-priority item for them. So if you want to invite a head of state and have that invitation be shared by the other leaders, because that’s usually how it is – House and Senate, Democrat and Republican, and work with the White House. You have to demonstrate that you’re going to fill those seats. And sometimes you look at that audience and it looks like the average age of Congress is 21 years old. And you know that’s not the case, not even close. So you can just imagine how low the age is of some of the people sitting in those seats.
Q: To be clear, are you leaving the option of not going on the table? Are you considering not going?
Leader Pelosi. I’m seriously considering going. I mean, I am. As I said, as of now, it is my intention to go. It is still my hope that the event will not take place. There’s serious unease, but don’t even think in terms of the word “boycott.” Members will go or they won’t go as they usually go or don’t go. This is not anything – it was a surprise to me when I first came to Congress, it started to snow outside and somebody said: “I’m going home.” I was with these two senior Members, they said: “I’m going home.” I said: “Well, you’ll never be back in time for the joint session.” And they looked at me as if I were really a freshman.
[Laughter]
So, in any event, again with all the respect in the world for Prime Minister Netanyahu, we have welcomed him royally on two occasions to the Congress. Only Winston Churchill was welcomed three times, and one of them was during World War II. My father was there as a Member from Maryland, December 26, 1948. I have a picture in my office. So, it isn’t that there isn’t any respect and admiration even any affection for the Prime Minister and certainly the strong ties to Israel; but, at this time, I think it would be better if we didn’t have it.
I think I’ve said quite a bit on this subject. So you have to ask them how they thought the meeting went, the Israelis. We treated them with great courtesy and warmth and sadness. Thank you.
_______________
The Jewish Citizen
_______________
U.S. Senate
SEXUAL ASSAULT — U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-California) praised Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel for ensuring that victims of sexual assaults in the military may attend alternative training rather than the assault training that other members of the military are required to take. She explained: “This is the least we can do so that these men and women who have been through so much are not re-victimized by exposure to curriculum that can trigger psychological trauma.”
*
TRADE– U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Friday, Feb. 6, made a case against a proposed 12-nation trade deal that he said would be a “disaster” for American workers but good for multi-national corporations wanting to ship more jobs to low-wage nations in Asia. Sanders sent a letter to network news executives questioning why they had ignored an issue which he said has “real-life implications for American families.” He noted that the United States lost more than 60,000 manufacturing plants since 2001 and millions of jobs disappeared in large part because of previous trade agreements. “If the United States is to remain a major industrial power producing real products and creating good paying jobs we must develop a new set of trade policies which work for the American middle class and working class and not just for the CEOs of large corporations,” Sanders said.
*
ISIL–U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) stated: “While I have not seen the President’s proposal for an Authorization of the Use of Military Force to destroy the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, sending an AUMF to Congress is a critical first step. Congress must exercise its constitutional role in authorizing the use of force. Under the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs, the President does not have the authority to conduct an open-ended war against ISIL. ISIL is a group of barbaric terrorists and their extreme tactics display a shocking brutality that must be confronted. But the United States needs a clear strategy for defeating this threat. Congress should revoke the existing AUMFs and debate a strategy for a new authorization tailored specifically for ISIL. A new time-limited and geographically-targeted authorization will help sharpen our policy and align appropriations for the mission. And it must make clear that the United States cannot commit U.S. ground forces to combat ISIL.”
U.S. House of Representatives
CYBER-ATTACKS–U.S. Rep. Ed Royce (R-California), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and U.S. Rep. Eliot Engel (D-New York), the Committee’s Ranking Member, introduced the North Korea Sanctions Enforcement Act (H.R. 757), legislation that strengthens U.S. sanctions against North Korea. Similar legislation passed the House last year, but was not acted on by the Senate. Said Engel: “North Korea is one of the most isolated, cruel and unpredictable regimes in the world. The activities of the Kim Regime threaten regional security through reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons, irresponsibly deploying offensive cyber capabilities, and a range of other illicit activities. The vast majority of North Koreans endure systematic violations of their most basic human rights. Widespread malnutrition, torture, and fear have made North Korea one of the most egregious human rights violators in the post-WWII era. It is past time to hold Pyongyang’s elites responsible for their actions. This bipartisan legislation would strengthen U.S. sanctions and close loopholes used by the Kim Regime to profit from illicit activities. However, effectively enforcing sanctions against North Korea is not something that the United States can do alone—it requires our allies, our partners, and the rest of the global community to join in this effort.”
*
UKRAINE–Calling for more U.S. military assistance to Ukraine against separatists and their Russian sponsors, U.S. Rep. Sander Levin (D-Michigan) said: “Ukraine needs help to find a solution to a durable cease-fire that can lead to a longer-term solution that respects Ukraine’s sovereignty, its future and its freedom to determine its own path. We all know that while there is no purely military solution to what is a political problem, additional U.S. military assistance can help promote a political solution. Therefore, the United States should begin providing defensive weapons that would help Ukraine defend its territory. Such weapons should include anti-tank weapons to defend against Russian-provided armored personnel carriers, ammunition, armed vehicles, and secure communications equipment, among other items. Congress passed the Ukraine Freedom Support Act with bipartisan support. It authorizes such defensive equipment that must be now provided.”
*
MEASLES– U.S. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Illinois), urging parents to vaccinate their children against measles, stated: “The science is clear. Vaccinations work. Vaccinations are safe. Vaccinations do not cause autism. Just this week four scientific experts testified in an Energy and Commerce Committee hearing, that focused on the flu vaccine, that there is no link between the vaccines and autism. The leading autism group, Autism Speaks, agrees that science proves vaccines do not cause autism and is urging parents to vaccinate their children. Measles is one of the most contagious diseases, far more than Ebola, and though not as deadly, can have very serious effects including death. The vaccine stimulates an immune response in 99 percent of those who get both doses. Given these realities, it is troubling that certain political leaders have questioned the importance of vaccines and that some parents refuse to vaccinate their children. This evidence is abundantly clear – we should vaccinate our children. My children and grandchildren have all had their vaccinations…”
*
Local Governments
POLICE PAY–San Diego City Councilwoman Marti Emerald on Friday, Feb. 6, announced a tentative accord between the Police Officers Association and the City of San Diego intended to retain and attract police officers. She said: “At today’s press conference we announced the outcome of the Independent Compensation study I had issued back in October of 2013. To keep experienced and skilled officers from leaving our department, we reached a tentative agreement with the SDPOA that will make our police officer’s compensation competitive with their colleagues in our region – including a 6.6 percent pay raise for officers over the next five years. The next step is to take this to the San Diego Police Officer’s Association and the San Diego City Council for vote.”
Items dealing with Jewish women in Congress are sponsored by Laura Galinson in memory of her father, Murray Galinson.
*
Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World. Your comment on any of these items may be posted in the space provided below or sent to donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com