Senate Power Shift May Have Profound Impact on Foreign Policy by John Shaw It was as quiet and unremarkable a transfer of political power as can be. On Tuesday evening, June 5, at 5:57 p.m., control of the U.S. Senate officially shifted from the Republican Party to the Democratic Party. The GOPís control of the full apparatus of the American government ended and President George W. Bushís political life became far more complicated. The seismic shift in Senate power was the result of Vermont Sen. Jim Jeffordsís announcement May 24 that he would leave the Republican Party, become an independent, and vote with Democrats in organizing the Senate. Jeffordsís decision gives Democrats a 50-49 majority in the Senate with one independent. The move dissolved the laboriously negotiated power-sharing agreement that was reached after the Senate was divided 50-50 in last Novemberís elections. The Senate power shift was publicly confirmed June 6 when Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle (S.D.) was recognized as the majority leader and Republican leader Trent Lott (Miss.) was acknowledged as the Senate minority leader. A slew of Democratic senators have now assumed the chairmanship of important Senate committees. In the realm of foreign policy, Joe Biden (Del.) replaced Jesse Helms (N.C.) as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, Carl Levin (Mich.) replaced John Warner (Va.) as Armed Services Committee chairman, and Bob Graham (Fla.) replaced Richard Shelby (Ala.) as chief of the Select Intelligence Committee. Biden and Levin are certain to press the Bush administration to describe its international goals more clearly and have signaled they will challenge key policies. Biden has already scheduled hearings with senior foreign policy officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell, to provide testimony on different aspects of the administrationís emerging agenda. One question on the minds of observers and analysts is whether Biden will be able to establish any consensus with his Republican colleagues in the committee, and especially the controversial and isolationist-prone Helms. As ranking member, Biden worked closely with Helms on certain issues and has pledged to continue to do so as chairman. He has a record for building bipartisan coalitions with moderate Republicans on such issues as ratification of the Chemical Weapons Convention, repaying U.S. debts to the United Nations, forgiving some of the debt of poor nations and crafting international programs to fight HIV/AIDS. Yet the road ahead is fraught with political landmines, stemming perhaps, from the substantial ideological differences between the Bush administrationís point of view and the beliefs of many Democrats. In particular, Biden has come out as a strong critic of what he views as the Bush administrationís reckless, unilateralist approach to foreign policy. Biden is a strong advocate of arms control issues and supports a multilateral approach to halting the proliferation of chemical, biological and chemical weapons. Biden has also blasted the administration for suspending talks with North Korea (they have since been resumed), for recommending a reduction in funds for a nuclear proliferation project with Russia, for hinting it might remove American forces from the Balkans, and for suggesting that the United States might abrogate the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty with Russia. As chairman, Biden is certain to recast the committeeís agenda. Controversial issuesósuch as missile defense, U.S. treaty alliances, and even Bushís recent about-face on the Kyoto treatyówill likely darken prospects of bipartisanship. In what might be a sign of things to come, Biden was sharply critical of Bushís nominee to lead the State Departmentís arms control programs, John Bolton, saying Bolton has a long history of skepticism toward arms control efforts. Bolton was narrowly confirmed to the post. Both Biden and Levin are fierce critics of Bushís missile defense stance and have argued that while testing and research for missile defense are important they should occur within the limits of the ABM treaty. Daschle has also been sharply critical of the Bush administrationís position on missile defense. "We have said all along that to commit the billions, the tens of billions of dollars, to the deployment to a system that we donít know works just seems to be backward to most of us," he said recently. "Weíre not opposed to research, but to commit that level of revenue to a concept that may or may not prove to be practical or even doable is something that I am mystified by Republican leadership." Levin, as chief of the Armed Services panel, is likely to probe the administrationís missile defense plans and leave out new funds for the program from this yearís defense authorization bill. "The people who want a unilateral breach of the ABM treaty should have the burden of adding funds," Levin told reporters recently. Levin will also play a keyóand probably skepticalórole in examining the new American security policy that is being formulated by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and the funding request that will accompany it. Levin held a hearing in late June on defense policy during which he questioned Rumsfeld sharply and aggressively on national security policy. Lawmakers from both parties have criticized Rumsfeld for not adequately consulting Congress as he has formulated his new security program. Levin has said the Armed Services panel will, under his leadership, take a comprehensive view of the world and the threats that face the United States. "The terrorist threats to usówhich are reflected in World Trade Center-type attacks, attacks on our embassies, on the [U.S.S.] Cole, perhaps using weapons of mass destructionóthese are the most likely threats we face," he said at a recent briefing. Although Democrats and Republicans may share a common concern for terrorism, Levinís comments underscored his belief that the credible threats the United States faces will not be from ballistic missiles fired by "rogue" states. Analysts agree that Democratic control of the Senate may have a profound effect on Bushís agenda because of the Democratsí ability to frame the policy agenda, set congressional hearings to examine issues they want to highlight, and better block Republican initiatives. "There will be a whole new set of political realities," said Bill Frenzel, a former Republican congressman who is now an analyst at the Brookings Institution. "This really helps the Democrats control the agenda. And it will allow them to make the presidentís life difficult from time to time. But there are also risks. They are now responsible for helping run the place. But those are risks that are probably worth having. I think this gives Democrats new confidence and momentum going into the 2002 cycle," he said. Most analysts agree that the next year and half will be a tense prelude to the mid-term elections in 2002. Most experts see control of the Senate as a toss-up, with the Democrats now having a slight advantage. Of the 34 Senate races next year, 20 will be defended by Republicans and 14 by Democrats. Lott told Republicans in early June that "we must begin to wage the war today for the election of 2002." He later softened his words slightly to say that he wants only a "battle of ideas" with Democrats. Democrats say they will use the coming months to build their case for a larger majority in the Senate in 2002. John Shaw is a contributing writer for The Washington Diplomat