The Impact of the 110th Congress on U.S. Foreign Policy
Author: Robert McMahon, Deputy Editor
August 14, 2007
Introduction
Has the Democratic Congress Affected Iraq War Policy?
Will Congress Change Its Approach to the War?
What Other Major Foreign Policy Issues Surfaced in Congress?
Introduction
The 2006 midterm elections brought Democratic majorities to the House of Representatives and the Senate, with a new leadership determined to change U.S. policy in Iraq. Congressional Democrats steadily challenged President Bush but have so far failed to budge policy on Iraq. Similarly, their impact on other foreign policy issues is mixed. Despite an alliance with President Bush, they failed to press through comprehensive immigration reform. On the other hand, they followed through on pledges to bolster homeland security protections and began the process of introducing a new approach to energy alternatives and conservation and use. Experts say the Democratic leadership is unlikely to abandon plans for a timeline for withdrawing from Iraq, in part because of strong anti-war sentiments among party constituents, as well as continuing broader unease about U.S. policy in the region. On its return in September, Congress is expected to face big decisions about funding the Iraq war as well as legislation affecting energy security, immigration, and domestic surveillance.
Has the Democratic Congress Affected Iraq War Policy?
Very little. The 110th Congress took office in January 2007 just as President Bush was announcing his “surge” strategy involving an increase of about 30,000 forces focusing on securing hotspots in Baghdad and Anbar province. Congressional Democrats, pointing to what they said was an electoral mandate and public opinion surveys showing low support for the surge, began early to try to link war-funding legislation to a withdrawal timeline. A bill passed by Congress in April was vetoed by President Bush and there were insufficient votes for an override. Democrats have markedly increased the congressional oversight function this year on Iraq, scheduling scores of hearings on issues ranging from how pre-war intelligence was handled, to abuses of private contracting, and the conduct of the war itself. Democrats began the session vowing to force the defense department to make war-funding requests out of the regular budget, rather than “emergency supplemental” bills that lawmakers from both parties say have been abused by the Pentagon. But after Bush vetoed the supplemental bill pegging funding to a withdrawal, Congress approved in late May 2007 legislation that provided about $95 billion to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The supplemental also approved about $17 billion beyond what the administration requested for domestic programs sought by Democrats that provided non-military programs like hurricane relief and farm aid. Just before recessing, the House approved the regular defense budget bill but decided to keep separate the funding request for Iraq and Afghanistan with the intent of attaching conditions. It was not immediately clear whether the debate over supplemental bills would be sidetracked by larger disagreements over the war.
Will Congress Change Its Approach to the War?
Many experts say this is not likely. Democratic leaders have vowed to continue to push for linkage between withdrawal timelines and war funding on pending measures, hoping public opinion pressure on Republican lawmakers will sway more votes. The sides are set for another showdown after lawmakers return from recess in September when Major Gen. David Petraeus, the U.S. commander in Iraq, delivers his progress report on the U.S. military surge in Iraq. Peter Beinart, CFR's senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy, says Democratic congressional leaders, pressed by an “engaged liberal core,” are unlikely to embrace any Republican efforts for bipartisanship on Iraq that do not include a deadline for a troop withdrawal. But Julian Zelizer, a congressional historian who teaches at Princeton University, says if the administration continues to draw support from Republican lawmakers opposing withdrawal timelines, congressional Democrats could join with Republican moderates in the interest of achieving some legislative progress. “This first round of the fight (over Iraq) was really about changing the debate and getting Democrats to stand up more against the president,” Zelizer says. “I think the next round is about getting legislation.”
What Other Major Foreign Policy Issues Surfaced in Congress?
Homeland Security. Congress followed through on a pledge to complete implementation of recommendations of the 9/11 commission. Major steps in the new bill (AP) signed by President Bush include measures to screen cargo on passenger planes and container ships within five years. But the Democratic vice-chairman of the commission, former Rep. Lee Hamilton, said one failure of the bill was not including the commission’s recommendation for Congress to rationalize its own numerous overlapping mechanisms for overseeing intelligence and homeland security issues.
Domestic Surveillance. Just before their recess, 41 House Democrats and 16 Senate Democrats joined Republicans in approving the Protect America Act, which expanded warrantless eavesdropping on suspected terrorists contacting sources in the United States through Internet and phone communications. The measure expires in six months but soon after passage House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said some sections of the bill were “unacceptable.” Democratic congressional leaders signaled they would take up the issue soon after returning from recess in September. The legislation provoked anger from a number of Democrats and civil libertarians. But some analysts said it provided a way for some Democratic lawmakers to decouple their opposition to the Iraq war from their broader interest in aggressively going after terrorists, and thus not appearing weak on security issues. Said Princeton’s Zelizer: “It kind of takes that national security issue off of the table and the Democrats can say ‘Look, we support very aggressive measures against the terrorists, including expanded surveillance but at the same time we’re not going to support a kind of failed war.’”
Energy Security. House and Senate leaders began the session pledging to take bold steps to improve the country’s energy security. But in their first big legislative initiative on energy, both chambers are divided on some important provisions. The House has approved a measure requiring utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources, and also places $16 billion in new taxes on the oil industry. The Senate bill does not contain such measures but does include a requirement that automobiles and small trucks increase fuel efficiency by about 40 percent, a requirement left out of the House bill. The prospects for a new bill significantly changing U.S. energy policy are uncertain. There are tensions among Democratic lawmakers over issues such as autos’ fuel efficiency standards. In addition, congressional Republicans have said the House package fails to spur new oil and coal production or expand nuclear power.
Trade. Congress declined to renew President Bush’s trade promotion authority, or TPA, which expired at the end of June, dealing a blow to efforts to negotiate new free trade agreements as well as the World Trade Organization’s Doha trade round. Congressional Democrats have also negotiated vigorously to include labor and environmental standards in already negotiated agreements for Peru, Panama, Colombia, and South Korea. The chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), said in August 2007 if Peru adjusts its labor code soon, he would push for a vote on approving the deal (Reuters) in September. The other deals face a tougher road to passage. CFR Senior Fellow Charles Kupchan, who recently wrote about the polarization of U.S. foreign policy in Foreign Affairs, called the failure to renew TPA a “big deal” that is “indicative of the mood of the country on trade issues.” He said he did not expect Congress to turn overtly protectionist in the near future but predicted little enthusiasm for either bilateral or multilateral deal. But business groups said a version of the farm bill passed by the House during the summer had protectionist elements. Their chief concern, shared by many Republican lawmakers, involved a provision to raise nearly $7.5 billion in the next 10 years from foreign corporations with U.S. subsidiaries that would help offset the costs of the bill. The Wall Street Journal said the provision and its “choice of tax targets could reflect growing tensions between agriculture interests and more trade-oriented multinational business lobbies that support the World Trade Organization.” At a Democratic presidential debate in early August sponsored by the AFL-CIO, many candidates said they would seek to revisit provisions of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
Immigration. The collapse of a comprehensive immigration reform bill in June was seen by some experts as a resounding defeat for President Bush. But others also point to the Democratic Party’s inability to build consensus for a measure to address a system widely condemned as dysfunctional. In the absence of major changes at the federal level, a number of municipalities are pushing tough measures to crack down on employment and services for illegal immigrants. Bush has also directed federal agencies to tighten enforcement of immigration laws at the workplace, moves that through their severity could revive interest (LAT) in a comprehensive immigration reform package in Congress, said Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Congress is expected to return this autumn to some elements of the failed immigration bill, including an attempt to create new temporary immigrant program for agriculture.