Congress and Foreign Policy
As a consequence of the doctrine of separation of
powers doctrine:
1. Congress has a large amount of independent
foreign-policymaking power. It is not
dependent on the executive branch, as are
legislative bodies in parliamentary systems, in
discharging such functions as approving
treaties, approving ambassadors, declaring
war, and controlling finances.
2. Consequently, there is the possibility for
gridlock and paralysis when the President and
Congress disagree, particularly when the
branches are controlled by different parties.
General Overview:
I. President
a. The President is generally in charge of
formulating the specifics of policy
i. The executive branch has the
responsibility for administering policy,
therefore has day to day responsibility
ii. The executive branch is also in the best
position to think strategically, given its
access to information
iii. Congress usually defers to the
president, given the need for speed and
secrecy and given the fact that most
members of Congress, for purposes of
reelection, are preoccupied with
domestic policy.
iv. The degree to which Congress will
defer also depends on the international
environment. A benign environment
might invite Congressional meddling,
while a threatening environment might
lead to deference. But the opposite
might also occur. A benign environment
might lead to Congress thinking foreign
relations is unimportant, and a
threatening environment may lead to
Congressional interest, especially if the
administration is perceived as wrongheaded or incompetent
v. There is also party politics involved
1. Both branches controlled by same
party, Congress often defers. If
power is split, Congress is more
likely to interfere.
2. Over the past 20 years, Republican
Congresses have tended to interfere
more with Democratic presidents in
foreign policy matters than
Democratic Congresses have
interfered with Republican
presidents (because Republicans try
to run for office on national
security issues, thus are more likely
to politicize foreign policy).
b. Who is in charge in the executive branch
depends on the president’s style:
i. Clinton mostly interested in domestic
affairs, only involved sporadically
ii. Bush I interested in foreign affairs but
also worked collegially with his Sec of
State and Nat. Sec. advisor
iii. Bush II allowed Sec of Defense and Nat
Sec advisor to set policy; only
sporadically involved and cut out Sec of
State
c. State Department
i. Perceived as elitist
ii. Lost power to Defense and intelligence
agencies in foreign policy matters
II. Congress
a. Has the power to set policy through law
i. Statutes are usually general (though
parts can be specific—no aid to
Nicaraguan contras, for example)
ii. As with all legislation, has to take into
account presidential influence (through
party, mobilization of public opinion,
and veto power)
b. Power over money
Can decide whether or not to fund
programs that may form important parts
of a foreign policy strategy
c. Senate Power of Confirmation
i. Power to confirm or deny confirmation
to key executive branch officials
involved in foreign policy
ii. Can ratify or refuse to ratify treaties
d. Oversight powers
Can hold hearings, investigate officials and
policies, and call for administration officials
to testify and provide information regarding
important policies.
III. In all:
a. Presidents have the most power
b. There are differences in the way presidents
use their power
c. Congress’s desire to interfere depends on a
variety of context
d. Congress has broad, unnuanced powers (cut
off money, deny nominations, etc.) that
takes a long time to translate into policy
changes.
History
Generally history of relationship between the two
branches with regard to foreign policy since WWI
After WWI to early 1930’s: Congress was
dominant, presidents generally passive. Dominant
congressional personalities were isolationist, but it
did approve of active foreign relations policies that
were intended to reduce the chances that the US
would be engaged in another world war.
From the Great Depression to the mid 1960s:
Congress tended to defer to the president. Strong
sentiment in Congress that the US should continue to
play an activist role, though differences regarding
what form that activism should take.
Mid 1960’s to the present: a growing and
sustained disillusionment with the strength of the
presidency, in part spurred by the experiences in
Vietnam. A string of weak presidents (Ford and
Carter) followed by strong presidents (Reagan, Bush,
Clinton) with whom Congress often disagreed on
ideological and policy grounds.
Congressional Structures:
Congress operates through two important structures:
 Parties: help mold the general outlook of
members of Congress; elect the Speaker of
the House and provide Majority Leader for
Senate; provide chairs of committees and
members of committees.
 Committees: groups in which most work
gets done. Are the sites for hearings
(information), oversight, policy legislation,
and appropriations. They reflect several,
sometimes conflicting, viewpoints: those of
party and ideology; the collective mindset of
committee; policy and political interests of
individual members; and district interests of
individual members.
In sum, Congress is fragmented in authority,
organization, and structure.
Exercise of power through lawmaking:
 Definition of policy: makes decision regarding
MFN status, delegates (or not) authority to the
president (fast track authority), budgeting (create
or eliminate executive positions), criminalize or
decriminalize activities (trade with South Africa,
travel to Cuba, trade with Iraq, aid to the
Contras)
 General budgeting power: create and fund (or
eliminate) programs: Marshall Plan, Star Wars,
foreign aid, military aid, dues to the UN, funds
for overseas military operations, earmarked
military funds). Also use of tariffs and other
taxes to raise revenue or protect economic
interests.
 Senate confirmation power: Can be used to
influence whom is nominated. Send signals
regarding qualifications, views. Can hold up
nominations in return for concessions. Can also
use confirmation hearings to air concerns, pursue
a political fight, embarrass the president by
airing controversies and shortcomings.
Exercise of power through oversight:
May force an administration to answer questions,
defend policies, provide solutions to perceived
failures, prepare reports, provide information. May
also use hearings to criticize, condemn, and otherwise
assess policies, and provide the foundation for
exercise of lawmaking power (CIA hearings in 1970s
lead to restrictions on its actions; Fulbright hearings
on Vietnam led to cutback in funding; Iran-Contra
hearings led to examination of administration’s
Central American and Iran policies)
War Powers:
Mostly a moot point. There never has been any
real question as to when we should go to war. Also
the ability of the president to send troops overseas
without such a declaration means that Congress has
relatively little control under these provisions.
Attempts to alter this through the War Powers
Act generally not successful: 1) presidents do not
recognize it as constitutional; 2) under the
circumstances outlined by the act, it is difficult for
Congress to act because of the perception it is
undermining the position of troops already
committed; 3) most power is either informal
(consultation) or part of the budgetary process. It
does relatively little good to declare we are not at
war.
Treaty Powers:
Is important only sporadically: rejection of
Versailles Treaty; rejection of SALT II, rejection of
latest nuclear arms reduction with Russia. These tend
to be the exception rather than the norm. Most power
lies with presidents who negotiate the treaties.
Is also lessened by the fact that most agreements
are now informal, or in the form of executive
agreements.
Important committees:
Senate Foreign Relations Committee; House
International Affairs Committee; House Armed
Services Committee; also various trade related
committees.
Important ideological divisions:
hawks vs. doves; internationalists vs. isolationists;
free traders vs. protectionists.