Senate Leadership Shift Bodes III For US Middle East Policy

By Dennis J. Wamsted

In October, Senator John Stennis (D-MS), the powerful chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, announced that he would not seek re-election in 1988. The octogenarian's decision to retire following more than 40 years of congressional service could have as much influence on future US Middle East policy as next year's presidential elections. It means that Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV), currently the Senate majority leader, will become the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee. If, as now expected, the Democrats retain control of the Senate, Byrd would have to choose between seeking another term as majority leader or assuming the chairmanship of the powerful appropriations panel. (Although Byrd would not be proscribed from holding both positions, each is extremely time-consuming, and it is unlikely that the West Virginian would attempt the dual, often conflicting responsibilities.)

Byrd was first challenged in 1984 for the Democratic leadership position by Senator Lawton Chiles (D-FL). Although Byrd defeated Chiles handily, 36-11 (at the time the Republicans controlled the Senate), the challenge was an early warning of Democratic discontent. Late last year Byrd was challenged again, this time by Senator J. Bennett Johnston (D-LA), currently chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Johnston withdrew shortly before the actual vote and many congressional observers have speculated since that an "understanding" had been reached whereby Byrd agreed not to seek another term as the Democrats' Senate leader following the 1988 elections. Whether such an understanding was actually reached in 1986 is unimportant now, since another position with similar prestige and power is now available for Byrd.

The only thing Byrd has said publicly is that he has not yet reached a decision. In the past, however, he has said he cares little about his position in the Senate, but is intimately concerned with how he can "best serve the people of West Virginia." Moving to the chairmanship of the appropriations panel would give Byrd many such opportunities.

The Rise of Senator Inouye

Beyond Byrd, Senator Stennis' decision to retire will directly affect the career of at least one other senator—Democrat Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. Indeed, Stennis' retirement decision has such grave ramifications for US Middle East policy precisely because of its indirect boost to Senator Inouye's leadership aspirations. Senator Inouye, one of Israel's staunchest congressional allies, currently holds the third-highest leadership position among Senate Democrats, serving as secretary of the Democratic Conference.

The Hawaiian has previously expressed his interest in becoming majority leader of the Senate, but has deferred from challenging Byrd for the position. If Byrd were to step aside, however, that would pave the way for Inouye to seek the position. On the other hand, if Byrd decides to seek another two-year term as majority leader, Inouye—who is currently chairman of the appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations, which sets aid levels for countries worldwide, and the committee's third-ranking Democrat—would be in line for the chairmanship of the appropriations panel.

Regardless of Senator Byrd's decision, it is apparent that Hawaii's Inouye will occupy a central position in Senate Democratic politics in the next Congress. This development should be of concern for anyone looking for an evenhanded US Middle Eastern policy: Senator Inouye has proven convincingly in years past that, for him, US support for Israel is the only issue that really matters in the Middle East.

Inouye: A Brief Look Backward

Inouye, for those Washington Report readers who have forgotten, was the co-author, along with fellow Senator Robert Kasten (R-WI), of an amendment in 1985 that would have reduced the interest rate on Israel's outstanding loans from the US to a concessionary five percent from the then prevailing market rate of about 12 percent. The amendment would have saved the Israeli government an estimated $500 million in the short term and upward of $8.5 billion in foregone interest payments over the course of the entire repayment loan period. Staff estimates placed the cost to US taxpayers at about $4 billion.

Inouye was also chairman of the 11-member Senate select committee that "investigated" the Iran-contra scandal earlier this year. The select committee, which along with a similar House panel spent some 11 months investigating the Iran arms sale imbroglio, studiously avoided any serious consideration of Israel's role in the affair. In fact, Inouye was so eager to protect Israel that he pronounced the Israeli government innocent of any wrongdoing even before the congressional investigation had really started. During a December 1986 trip to Israel, Inouye reassured Israeli government leaders that nothing would threaten the "special relationship" between the two countries. Specifically, in an interview with the Jerusalem Post in December 1986, Senator Inouye said: "I don't believe the facts as I see them could justify any conclusion that American-Israeli relations will be weakened or damaged" by the Iran arms affair. In essence, the investigator had pronounced the indicted party innocent long before either congressional panel had even begun its investigation.

Inouye's pronouncement also predated the submission of the presidentially-appointed, three-member Tower Commission's final report. Less concerned about day-to-day political issues, commission member Brent Scowcroft blamed Israel directly for the unsuccessful Iran arms sale initiative. "There's no question that the Israelis encouraged if not...initiated this policy, and that they did whatever they could when it appeared to be flagging," Scowcroft said after the commission filed its final report.

Similarly, throughout the actual congressional investigation, Inouye worked to steer the select committee away from issues involving Israel. For example, even after Lt. Col. Oliver North, the key witness in the messy Iran-contra affair, implicated the Israelis directly during his public testimony, Inouye and the two congressional panels refused to probe deeper into Israel's involvement and/or responsibility for the failed arms transfer policy.

Finally, even though Inouye has not faced serious political opposition in years—the Hawaiian received well over 70 percent of the popular vote in both his 1980 and 1986 re-election campaigns—he has been a consistent favorite of pro-Israel political action committees (PACs). In addition, he is consistently asked to speak before pro-Israel organizations nationwide. For these appearances, Inouye received at least $20,000 in honoraria from 1980-1985. In 1983 alone, Inouye received $6,000 from the United Jewish Appeal, one of the premier dispensers of pro-Israel honoraria.

A Look Ahead

From the above, it is difficult to be optimistic about the 101st Congress, even though it is more than a year away. Despite his public reticence, congressional insiders say it is likely that Majority Leader Byrd will step down following the 1988 elections. This will open the door for Senator Inouye, although to be sure he would likely face opposition from Senator Johnston and perhaps even Senator George Mitchell (D-ME), both of whom also aspire to the majority leader's chair. Should Inouye become the next majority leader, US Middle East policy would be seriously undermined.

Equally ominous is the possibility that Inouye could become the next chairman of the Appropriations Committee. Israel already enjoys highly preferential status in the competition for increasingly scarce foreign aid dollars. Inouye's ascension to the committee chairmanship would further cement Israel's status as a virtual "blank check" aid recipient.

Dennis J. Wamsted is a free-lance writer specializing in Congress and the Middle East.