Election Year Politics

By Dennis J. Wamsted

When the 102nd Congress returns from its Thanksgiving adjournment in late January, it will be only 10 months away from the November 1992 elections, in which all 435 members of the House of Representatives and 35 senators, as well as President Bush, must stand for re-election. In the past, election-year politics likely would have prompted Congress to boost aid to Israel either directly, by increasing its economic or military assistance, or indirectly, by providing guarantees or other disguised benefits. This year, however, could well be different—very different—from the past.

Questioning Foreign Aid

With the US economy mired in a recession that defies prediction, and constituents increasingly troubled by a host of serious domestic problems, legislators from both parties began questioning American foreign commitments last fall, particularly the foreign aid program. This first became apparent in September, from the ease with which President Bush enlisted congressional cooperation in delaying consideration of $10 billion in loan guarantees for Israel until early February 1992, even though the Israeli government and some of its US supporters wanted immediate congressional action.

The unusual decision to delay consideration of the loans, which forced Congress to cross the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and other sections of the powerful pro-Israel establishment, seemed to have something of a cathartic effect on members of Congress, enabling them to speak out on foreign aid. This program has never been politically popular. Not since 1985 has Congress enacted foreign aid authorization legislation. It's been an Israel lobby axiom that without the traditional desire to support Israel, particularly by members of the Democratic Party, Congress would never pass any foreign aid legislation. Now, with even Israel no longer sacrosanct, congressmen began to give voice to their unhappiness with the many foreign commitments of the United States.

For example, in a largely symbolic vote, the House rejected the conference report on the foreign aid authorization legislation in late October. In addition, during consideration of the fiscal 1992 defense authorization legislation, initial widespread opposition forced two powerful chairmen, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Les Aspin (D-WI) and Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sam Nunn (D-GA), to withdraw a proposal to permit the administration to spend up to $1 billion in Defense Department funds to provide aid to the Soviet Union.

Mitchell's Move

Particularly inauspicious for potential aid to Israel was a proposal by Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell (D-ME). During fall debate over extending US unemployment benefits Mitchell proposed freezing US foreign aid at current levels to help pay for the program, which will cost roughly $5.3 billion.

Mitchell, a traditional supporter of Israel, exempted both Israel and Egypt—the two largest recipients of US foreign aid—from the cuts in his carefully crafted proposal. While nothing came of Mitchell's suggestions, the precedent—that foreign aid could be tapped to fund domestic programs—was established.

At the same time, Senate Minority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS) released another proposal that would have frozen all foreign aid, including that for Israel and Egypt, and used the funds to underwrite a number of popular domestic tax breaks. Dole also criticized Mitchell's approach, saying it would divide US foreign aid recipients into two classes. This approach "says that a couple of countries are so special they should be 'fenced,' but the rest of the world just isn't in their league," he said in a mid-November press release.

Although the Majority Leader's plan did not affect Israel, it cleared the way for other congressmen—more concerned about domestic needs and less worried about the pro-Israel lobby—to do so. Specifically, Congressional Quarterly quoted Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, as saying that the proposal could lead eventually to cuts in aid to Israel. "When you begin to light matches, " he reportedly said, "you don't always know where the fire will stop."

A Procedural Point

While congress members are turning their attention increasingly toward domestic affairs, there is one procedural point preventing Congress from gutting the foreign aid program to fund other projects closer to home: Under the 1990 budget agreement negotiated by Capitol Hill and the White House, separate spending caps were established for international, defense and domestic spending. The agreement also prohibits trading cuts in one area for increases in another.

Congress, however, is increasingly unhappy with the 1990 pact, particularly since it has failed to accomplish its stated goal: controlling the budget deficit. Should Congress change the terms of the agreement, given current congressional attitudes, the foreign aid program could be in for real difficulties.

The Outlook

Congressional activity in the next several months is likely to remain focused on domestic affairs, particularly during the early presidential primaries this winter. Consequently, substantial aid requests for any foreign endeavor are likely to receive short shrift, including the planned $10 billion in loan guarantees for Israel. Whatever the actual cost to the US Treasury, many congressmen are fearful of voting for a $10 billion foreign program because of the local political ramifications.

As such, the request probably will be downsized or delayed again until later in the year. Also, it is likely that a measure such as the one drafted by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) last September—to reduce the loan guarantees by an amount equal to the money Israel spends on settlements in the occupied territories—will be added to any loan guarantee provision considered by Congress. Such a provision would give congressmen the cover they need to defend a vote in favor of the guarantees, since they could say they had enacted a tough oversight provision.

On the question of Israel's regular aid allotment, now more than $3 billion a year, it is unlikely that this will increase this year. There isn't any money in the Treasury, and what money there is, Congress finally has decided to spend on domestic programs.