Specter Seeks to Undercut US-PLO Dialogue

By Dennis J. Wamsted

The Reagan administration's decision to initiate face-to-face discussions with representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization in mid-December stunned Israel's congressional supporters—but only momentarily. By late January, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA), had launched an effort to curtail such talks.

Specter, a second-term Republican who sits on the powerful appropriations and intelligence committees, said the new administration should "reexamine the merits of our dealing with the PLO" and "require the substantial showing by the PLO of deeds instead of rhetoric." Negotiating, rather than fighting, whenever this is possible, has always been a part of American political culture. Therefore, it is unlikely that Specter will succeed in derailing the nascent US-Palestinian dialogue. But, without doubt, he and Israel's other congressional supporters will continue to try to disrupt these longoverdue discussions.

Indeed, two of Israel's most vocal House backers, Reps. Mel Levine (D-CA) and Larry Smith (D-FL), reportedly tried in early February to send a letter to Secretary of State James Baker urging the Bush administration either to cut off entirely, or at least sharply limit, future US-PLO discussions.

This letter was quashed, at least for the time being, by Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Dante Fascell (D-FL), according to a report by syndicated columnists Rowland Evans and Robert Novak. Notwithstanding this setback, Smith and Levine, both of whom are Jewish and sit on the Foreign Affairs Committee's Europe and the Middle East subcommittee, will undoubtedly renew this or a similar effort at a later date.

Levine has received more money from pro-Israel political action committees (PACs), $35,550, over the past three elections than any other member of California's House delegation. Smith has accepted an astronomical $122,580 from pro-Israel PACs over the past six years, far more than any other representative or senator from Florida. Fascell has accepted $61,750 from pro-Israel PACs.

The Leadership Lineup

Changes abound on a couple of committees and subcommittees that play a key role in shaping US Middle East policy. Perhaps nowhere is this better illustrated than on the Senate Appropriations Committee, which along with its counterpart in the House, earmarks the roughly $3 billion a year in US government grants that keep the Israeli economy afloat.

Former Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-WV) has taken over as committee chair, replacing Sen. John Stennis (D-MS), who retired at the end of the 100th Congress. Of even greater importance, at least for US Middle East policy, is the switch that occurred on the foreign operations subcommittee. Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI), one of Israel's most ardent congressional supporters, stepped down as the subcommittee chair, although he will remain a member of the panel, to assume control of the defense subcommittee, which had been chaired by Stennis. Inouye was such a good friend of Israel's, in fact, that the Israeli government recently established a scholarship fund in his honor at the Weizmann Institute of Science. Assuming control of the foreign operations panel will be Vermont Democrat Patrick Leahy, who differs markedly from Inouye and, before him, Sen. Robert Kasten (R-WI), in that he is not avowedly pro-Israel.

Other senators sitting on the foreign operations subcommittee include: Bennett Johnston (D-IA); Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), a strong supporter of Israel and an equally vocal opponent of arms sales to America's Arab allies; Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), who is Jewish and a vocal proponent of strong US-Israeli relations; Tom Harkin (D-IA); Barbara Mikulski (D-MD); Mark Hatfield (R-OR); Alfonse D'Amato (R-NY), a strong supporter of Israel; Warren Rudman (R-NH), who is Jewish and strongly supportive of Israel; Arlen Specter (R-PA), who is also Jewish and a consistent supporter of Israel; and Don Nickles (R-OK),

A notable change also occurred on the House Appropriations foreign operations subcommittee after Rep. Jack Kemp (R-NY), a longstanding supporter of Israel, left the House to run for the Republican presidential nomination. The chairmanship of that subcommittee will remain in the hands of Wisconsin Democrat David Obey, who has displayed objectivity in debates over foreign aid and Middle East policy.

Also noteworthy in the House was the decision by Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) to seek a seat on the House Budget Committee. This committee's role in the foreign aid process is less obvious than that played by the appropriations and foreign affairs committees. The Budget committee establishes the ceiling for each account—including foreign affairs, defense, and energy to name just a few—in the federal budget. Once this ceiling or "mark" is established, the authorizing and appropriations committees are free to disperse the funds in any manner they choose—but they cannot raise the "mark" over them by the Budget committee.

The Budget committee could, for example, earmark 10, 12, or 14 billion dollars for the fiscal year 1990 foreign aid account, while leaving it up to the foreign affairs and appropriations committees to establish aid levels for particular countries. Consequently, for those interested in protecting aid to Israel, the higher the Budget committee's "mark," the more funds Israel is likely to receive. This process is of particular importance in the tight budgetary environment confronting both the 101st Congress and the new Bush administration. This may be one of the concerns that prompted Rep. Berman, who has accepted $11,500 from pro-Israel PACs in the past three elections, to move to the Budget Committee.

Arms Sales, Continued

Arms sales to the Arab allies of the US in the Persian Gulf, particularly to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, will, as reported in last month's Washington Report, play a central role in the Bush administration's policy toward the Middle East. The administration is considering selling more than 500 of the country's most advanced tanks to those two countries, as well as upward of 40 F-18 jet fighters to the United Arab Emirates according to a classified, but widely reported, compilation of possible sales presented to Congress last month. The tank sales alone could be worth upwards of $1.25 billion to General Dynamics Corp., the M-I's manufacturer.

Specifically, the proposed sales include:

315 M-1 Abrams main battle tanks to Saudi Arabia;
200 M-1 tanks to Kuwait;
150 Hawk anti-aircraft missiles to Egypt; and
Helicopters and upward of 200 Stinger air-to-ground missiles for Israel, in addition to equipment already committed from prior years.

Although the list includes no mention of a jet fighter sale to Saudi Arabia in 1989, an attachment indicates that the kingdom will likely be in the market in the near future for new aircraft to replace its aging, US manufactured F-5 jets. Congressional opposition, coordinated by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), twice prevented the Reagan administration from selling jet fighters to the Saudis. Both times, the Saudis turned to the United Kingdom, signing arms sales agreements for Tornado aircraft estimated in excess of $30 billion. How the Bush administration will handle this controversial issue remains unclear, but some congressional sources speculate that the tentative sale to the UAE may be a trial balloon designed to gauge the degree of opposition to a future sale to the Saudis.

Dennis Wamsted is a free-lance writer specializing in the US Congress and Middle Eastern affairs.