UNIVERSITY OF POTSDAM
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS AND SOCIAL SCIENCE
SEMESTER: 06

All politics is local –
congressional decision-making in foreign policy

by: Karl Lemberg

1 Introduction 3

2 Congress and its Role in Foreign Policy  4

2.1 Constitutional Perspective 5
2.2 Historical Perspective 6
2.3 Institutional Perspective 7
2.4 Summary Part I 10

Intermezzo 10

3 Factors that shape foreign policy decision-making 13

3.1 Party 13
3.2 Interest Groups 15
3.3 Public Opinion 18
3.4 Constituency  20
3.5 Fellow Members 22
3.6 Staff 23
3.7 Political Ideology  24
3.8 Summary Part II  25

4 Conclusion  26

5 Appendix  29

6 References 34

1 Introduction

The dominant player in international politics is unmistakably the United States of America. U.S. economic, military and cultural superiority is shaping world politics and setting the stage for the next generation. U.S. foreign policy features the image of the United States President and to a lesser extent that of the Secretary of State and Defense. They are the predominant figures that drive U.S. foreign policy on the international stage. The system of checks and balances neatly involves two branches of government – executive and legislative – in a construct of interdependence. Congress is the government branch of ‘the people’. The two-year term cycles for House Representatives and the large number of districts make Congress the most ‘representative’ institution in the U.S. government. In contemporary political science the state of being represented is described by ‘Principle-Agent-Relationship’, in which the representative – the agent – closely represents his constituency – the principle.¹ "It doesn′t pay off for my constituency" ²

said Rep. Grace Napolitano (D-CA) when asked, why she wanted to get off of the House International Relations Committee (HIRC). This incident was my first impression of foreign policy in the U.S. Congress. Having heard that, I went to a HIRC oversight hearing to see how they conduct their business. What struck me most was the fact that the members devoted approx. half of their speaking time of total five minutes to the actual issue at stake and the other half to an issue that was absolutely irrelevant to the pending business. As I found out later, the irrelevant issues were important for the individual member to have been mentioned to the panel³ and C-SPAN⁴. The subsequent past months I spent on ‘the Hill’, observing congressional (foreign) policy- and decision-making, with three leading questions bearing in mind:

1. Is the U.S. Congress important for U.S. foreign policy?
2. What factors influence decision making in foreign policy?
3. Does constituency play a role in the making and shaping of foreign policy?

Having these three questions in mind, I will continue the discussion from my seminar presentation⁵ in which I have talked about strategic voting in the committee system and highlighted from the seminar-text that shows Members of Congress representing their constituency reflecting constituents’ preferences,⁶ which means they serve "as a delegate or deputy of the particular constituent"⁷. The first part of this paper will deal with the institution ‘Congress’ and how it is involved in foreign policy and how Congressmen and -women are involved in foreign policy making. The second part of this paper analysis factors that influence Members of Congress acting on foreign policy issues. The continuum of involvement ranges from the passive (minimum-) involvement that is the decision-making process regarding floor-votes (voting behavior), via advertising, credit claiming, and position taking to the active involvement of policy-making. For the purpose of this paper, I define ‘foreign policy’ as an action, carried out by individuals or institutions that are aimed at achieving a policy outcome in foreign countries or in the international community.

2 Congress and its Role in Foreign Policy

Glimpse: Congress represents a people of whom 80 per cent do not posses a passport; in fact, a substantial number of the Member of Congress (MC) do not possess a passport either. In this part of the paper I want to find out, if ‘It doesn’t pay off for my constituency’ implies ‘It doesn’t matter to Congress’. I am going to examine, if Congress is willing and capable to engage in foreign policy? To get an impression of to what extent Congress is working on foreign policy issues, I looked at the complete 1st session of the 107th Congress, counted the roll call votes, and categorized them in issues areas. I came up with following numbers (CHART A): 44 out of 1105 roll call votes were issued in the foreign policy area. That is 3.98% of all given votes, but more than four votes above the average.⁸ We now know that Congress is in fact dealing to certain extend with foreign policy issues but we could also assume that the low number indicates a secondary role foreign policy issues. Having that in mind, I will now look at how Congress is situated in the foreign policy making process from a constitutional, historical, and institutional perspective.

2.1 Constitutional Perspective

“In no area is the constitutional imbalance more striking and more alarming than in the field of foreign policy” Senator Fulbright (D-Ark.) 1965.⁹ Although the constitution does not explicitly mention who has the authority of managing foreign affairs¹⁰ the role of the ‘foreign affairs manager’ has been clearly taken by the President. The President is the Commander in Chief, chief negotiator, and chief diplomat. His cabinet supervises executive institutions such as State Department, Department of Defense, CIA, and NSC. When the founding fathers Hamilton and Madison created the omnipresent system ‘of checks and balances’ applicable to all fields of government activity, they created interdependence between the two branches. The Constitution delegate under Article 1, section 8 an array of specific and implied foreign policy powers to Congress: the power to declare war, raise and support armies, provide and maintain a navy, to regulate land and naval forces, and to regulate trade and immigration. More significant is the power to appropriate funds – “power of the purse" – and the right to congressional oversight. In addition to the separately delegated powers, some powers are shared between the branches.¹¹ At first sight this looks quite straight forward, but a second looks reveals problems that might arise. An emblematic example is the constitutional struggle between Congress and the President about the right to begin war. While Congress has the right to ‘declare’ war, presidents – as commander in chiefs – have often used their power to initiate war (McCormick). On the proviso of national security interests, the President is able to engage the military on a foreign nation’s soil for as long as sixty days before he has to seek congressional approval Congress.¹² Thus the quarrel about the war power has been clearly won by the President, despite a congressional attempt¹³ to bind the right to Congress in 1974. Altogether, certain constitutional provisions – and their interpretations – give the foreign policy prerogative to the President.

2.2 Historical Perspective

[...]

1 Lane, Ersson: The New Institutional Politics – Performance and Outcomes. London 2000, pp. 38-73.

2 02/06/2003, Washington D.C.

3 In this hearing it was Secretary of State Colin Powel presenting the State Department’s policy outlook for fiscal year 2004.

4 C-SPAN (Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network) is the TV station that broadcasts continuously floor and committee action, as well as press conferences and speeches uncommented to the public.

5 Presentation was held 11/20/2002.

6 Kathleen Bawn analyzed a roll call vote on the EMB (Energy Mobilization Board, 1979) bill and identified a relationship between certain characteristics of the districts/constituencies and the members′ voting record. (Bawn, Kathleen, Strategic Responses to Institutional Change: Parties, Committees and Multiple Referrals, in: Public Choice 33, 1996, pp. 239-258.)

7 Dye, Greene, Partheinos: American Government: Theory, structure, and Process, Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Belmont, California, 1969; Chapter 9 – In Congress Assembled, p. 212. All Politics is Local

8 That does not imply anything. We do not know how the volume of each single piece of legislation was nor do we now the importance of each bill. In fact only six issue fields had more votes accounted for. These six fields totaled 611 votes and constituted the major part (55.29%) of all votes. See Chart A in appendix.

9 Ryan C. Hendrickson: The Clinton Wars - The Constitution, Congress, and War Powers. Vanderbilt University Press. 2002. p.14.

10 The words “foreign affairs, foreign relations, foreign policy, and national security do not even appear in the original document.

11 Such are in the area of treaties and diplomatic appointments.

12 Just for the record: American military engagements in Grenada in 1983, Argentina in 1983, Panama in 1989, and Haiti in 1994 were completed before t he sixty day deadline closed.

13 One of the few incidents when Congress overrules a presidential veto.