A Democratic senator continues to block an amendment to a defense spending authorization bill Tuesday meant to protect state and local governments that reject anti-Israel boycotts.
The amendment was an outgrowth of the Combating BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) Act of 2016, a bipartisan bill designed to protect state and local governments that divest from BDS-linked businesses. Senators Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) crafted a corresponding amendment in May to be included in the National Defense Authorization Act.
But shortly after the amendment was introduced, Ohio senator Sherrod Brown, the ranking Democrat of the Senate’s banking committee and a potential pick for Hillary Clinton’s running mate, refused to clear it. According to a congressional source, Brown objected to the term “Israeli-controlled territories,” which opponents of the amendment argue prejudges the outcome of potential Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Kirk has claimed, however, that this language is central to the measure. The language also has precedent, as it is present in pre-existing legislation.
Still, Kirk and the other sponsoring senators revised the amendment earlier this month, adding a clause that assured the bill would not prejudge the outcome of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Brown remained mum until a piece in Tablet revealed his objection and angered his pro-Israel supporters, according to a congressional source.
Brown’s office told the THE WEEKLY STANDARD Tuesday afternoon that the senator was not objecting to the amendment and did not mention any opposition to the measure’s language.
“Senator Brown strongly supports Israel and efforts to combat BDS efforts directed against Israel and he worked with his colleagues to clear the legislation for consideration on the Senate floor,” a spokeswoman said.
When asked whether he was opposed to the amendment, Brown told TWS that the banking committee cleared the measure Monday, though it had been introduced days before.
“We cleared it yesterday. The banking committee cleared it,” Brown said.
But the measure still faces roadblocks. Brown’s objection was immediately picked up by Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, an Israel critic who wrote a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry in February asking the administration to investigate Israel’s “gross violations of human rights.”
Leahy objected to the anti-BDS measure on the grounds that it was non-germane and “bad policy.” During the NDAA hearing Tuesday, Arizona senator John McCain also said that senators were objecting to amendments, “no matter whether those amendments have any validity or any support,” in order to get their own amendments passed.
In response to reports of his efforts to block the anti-BDS measure, Leahy pinned its failure on Utah Senator Mike Lee’s “blanket refusal to allow any amendments” on the Senate floor.
Despite pushback from Leahy, Kirk’s stand-alone bill survives—and now that Brown has expressed support for the revised amendment, the Ohio senator seemingly has no reason to object to the bill.
Update: Leahy’s spokesman tells TWS that the Vermont senator opposed the amendment due to its language.
“Senator Leahy, who over many years has written and voted for more successful funding legislation for Israel than any other member of Congress, supports the BDS amendment in principle,” Leahy spokesman David Carle said. “But like several other senators he does not agree with the definition in this version that equates Israel with ‘Israeli Occupied Territory.’ That is factually inaccurate, it is contrary to decades of U.S. policy under Republican and Democratic administrations, and it should be thoroughly discussed in committee and then on the Senate floor — not as an 11th-hour hastily drafted non-germane amendment to a U.S. Defense Bill.”
