Congress and Foreign Affairs.

• Author: Harter, John J.

It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, or more dangerous to handle, than to institute a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it. -- Niccolo Machiavelli, 1532 Rhetoric about "runaway government spending" contributed to striking Republican victories in the 2010 Congressional elections, but those who roar the loudest about deficits and the growing national debt fail to propose spending cuts that would significantly affect the deficits. They conspicuously ignore the enormous outlays for our military actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention anachronistic Pentagon establishments in Europe, South Korea, and countless other countries. They rarely speak of extravagant weapons systems--like the F-22 fighter aircraft--that Congress forces on a Pentagon that doesn't want them. The recent explosive growth of the intelligence community and its increasing drain on our national budget is totally exempted from public discourse.

Meanwhile, our infrastructure is crumbling: our highways, bridges, sewers, and water pipes are falling into disrepair to a degree that menaces public safety. Our schools, from pre-school through graduate school, are starved for resources and struggling to stay afloat, falling far short of public needs. Our economic health requires a massive shift from our bloated military and intelligence communities to public investments that yield economic returns. Pending recommendations of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform will inexorably demand scrutiny, debate, and action by the new Congress. Since its expected push for cuts in spending may include recommendations to reduce defense budgets that are bound to be controversial, it is timely to review some relevant history.

THE CONGRESSIONAL ROLE IN FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Two leading experts on Congress call our national legislature The Broken Branch, (1) pointing to its legislative stalemates and near-record-low public approval. They excoriate its failure to check and balance the Executive Branch. They cite its refusal to track the abysmal record of the Department of Homeland Security before and after Hurricane Katrina. They build a powerful case for overhauling Congress, concluding that if the major changes needed are to come about they are "most likely to originate outside" Congress. (2) Curiously, their much acclaimed analysis ignores the failure of Congress to deal objectively with relations between the United States and the rest of the world.

The Constitution endows "the First Branch of Government" with sweeping foreign affairs responsibilities, namely the powers: (1) to declare war; (2) to raise and support armies; (3) to confirm or reject treaties and appointments of major officials; (4) to probe abuses, expose corruption, and evaluate existing and proposed laws; and (5) to control federal purse strings, i.e., "to lay and collect Taxes ... to pay Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare." (3)

However, Congress sharply reduced Americans' ability to evaluate our foreign affairs objectively when it enacted the National Security Act of 1947, which created the secretive Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) with a top-secret mandate to find enemies and to shield the sources and methods it relied upon from public discovery, a formidable military establishment with a duty to develop top-secret contingency plans to respond quickly to any perceived threat anywhere in the world, and a National Security Council as a top-secret channel between those agencies and the President for approving clandestine acts and military plans. Our obsession with geostrategic issues since that time has effectively vitiated the capacity of the Department of State to integrate economic issues, the pursuit of international law, reliance on the United Nations system of organizations, and human rights considerations into its global responsibilities.

Throughout American history tension and conflict between the executive and legislative branches of government have often marred the conduct of our foreign relations. For the first century, the framers' design that made Congress the first among equals was honored: Congress generally set the national agenda, especially regarding matters of war and peace. During the twentieth century our Presidents increasingly ignored the constitutional constraints that inhibited their predecessors by unilaterally deploying military forces outside the United States. Presidents Theodore Roosevelt, William Howard Taft, and Woodrow Wilson launched forays into Mexico, Central America, and the Caribbean that exacerbated long-term instability and stunted indigenous political development in those countries. After World War II the congressional role in international affairs continued to atrophy, as the Executive Branch began to inform rather than consult Congress regarding matters outside our borders. President Truman virtually bypassed Congress when he sent troops into Korea in 1950, setting a precedent cited by subsequent Presidents who felt it was necessary for the United States to wield its power around the world.

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs are supposed to be the principal congressional bodies for overseeing U. S. foreign policy. In practice, these committees have had steadily shrinking influence on the overall conduct of U. S. relations with other countries, as the Intelligence, Armed Services, and Appropriations Committees (and, to a lesser degree, the Finance, Agriculture, and Commerce Committees) have assumed growing influence over international activities. No congressional mechanism exists to coordinate the bewildering array of activities spawned by these disparate bodies. The residual jurisdiction of the two committees nominally responsible for monitoring U. S. foreign affairs thus excludes military, clandestine, and other programs that deeply impact U. S. relations with other countries.

CONGRESS AND NATIONAL SECURITY

The National Security Act of 1947 diminished the role of the foreign affairs committees by launching a super-secret national security establishment that operates outside meaningful congressional surveillance. Many critics have pointed to the danger inherent in this situation. (4) The 1947 legislation also contravened the foreign policy design Secretary of State Cordell Hull framed during World War II that envisaged an emphasis on international economic issues, collective security, and international law under the umbrella of the United Nations.

With the advent of the cold war, congressional committees that empower the Pentagon began dispensing enormous sums allowing the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps to underwrite a long series of wars and military interventions and to provide military assistance to governments around the world. Massive military intelligence budgets were routinely approved--and sometimes even increased--by Congress, even without seeking testimony by impartial experts as to their merit. Membership in the Armed Services and Defense Appropriations subcommittees became highly prized because it enabled members to bring military installations and defense industries to their home districts. It was a wonderful way to dispense "pork."

Not coincidentally, Congress continued to oppose unifying the military services into one large management unit, in part because individual senators and congressmen benefit from a decentralized military that opens more avenues for defense spending, providing more jobs for voters in their districts. As far as military bases and operations are concerned "the question before Congress almost always is not what to build but who should build it," according to a prominent expert. (5) Lobbyists always ensure that more gets built than military experts recommend.

With a more efficient structure, military installations would be...