scholarly journals A Troika of Fellows

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (04) ◽  
pp. 815-818
Author(s):  
Harun Dogo ◽  
David Sklar ◽  
Chris Tausanovitch
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Fellowship Program ◽  
Unique Role ◽  
Finance Committee ◽  
Republican Conference ◽  
Rules Committee ◽  
Armed Services ◽  
Committee Assignments ◽  
Congressional Policymaking ◽  
Different Parts

This year was an unusual one for the APSA Congressional Fellowship Program—three fellows were placed with the same congressional office. The fact that three fellows, each with very different backgrounds, were drawn to the Senate Finance Committee, says something about the unique role that the committee plays in congressional policymaking. As one of the “A”s of the four “Super-A” committees, along with Appropriations, Armed Services, and Foreign Relations, the Senate Finance Com-mittee is one of the committee assignments most sought after by Senators. Its vast policy jurisdiction enables members to affect many different parts of the economy, society, and government. In addition to Chairman Baucus, the majority membership of the committee includes chairs of six other committees: Senators John Kerry of Foreign Relations; Jeff Bingaman of Energy and Natural Resources; John D. Rockefeller of Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Debbie Stabenow of Agriculture and Forestry; Kent Conrad of Budget; and Chuck Schumer who serves both as chairman of the Rules Committee and the Democratic Policy and Communications Center. On the minority side, in addition to the ranking member, Senator Orrin Hatch, the panel includes three ranking members of other committees: Senators Chuck Grassley of Judiciary, Olympia Snowe of Small Business, and Mike Enzi of Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. They serve alongside with the Republican Whip Senator Jon Kyl, the Republican Conference Chair John Thune, and the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman John Cornyn of Texas. This concentration of senatorial experience testifies to the importance of the work undertaken by the Finance Committee.

Concepts of Foreign Policy

Worldview ◽  
1965 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 4-6
Author(s):  
Quincy Wright
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Foreign Policy ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
United States Foreign Policy ◽  
Armed Services Committee ◽  
Armed Services

There are a number of reasons to believe that fundamental changes are necessary in United States foreign policy, and some of these reasons have been developed in recent statements by Senator William J. Fulbright (Arkansas) of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Richard Russell (Georgia) of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Frank Church (Idaho), Senator Wayne Morse (Oregon) and others. In such a reconsideration, the basic objectives, the means for achieving them, and the limitations of American capability should be considered.

Reforming National Security Oversight in the Senate

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda L. Fowler
Keyword(s):  
National Security ◽  
Department Of Defense ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Public Deliberation ◽  
Foreign Affairs ◽  
The Self ◽  
War Powers ◽  
Armed Services ◽  
Practical Recommendations ◽  
Over Time

This chapter challenges the efficacy of reform proposals currently circulating in Washington and makes practical recommendations for improving the capacity of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees in terms of oversight of national security. These recommendations look beyond consultation about the initiation of conflicts to generate a more robust review of the implementation of administration policies over time. The focus is on the underlying incentives that drive committee inquiries into the performance of the Department of Defense and the State Department, with an eye to the self-correcting mechanisms at the heart of the Constitution that balance relations between the branches. The chapter argues that well-functioning committees that promote the rule of law in foreign affairs through regular, predictable, and public deliberation make a revised war powers act unnecessary; in the absence of such regular order, new rules for consultation seem likely to fail.

Guarding the Guardians through Oversight

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda L. Fowler
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Executive Branch ◽  
Public Hearings ◽  
Armed Services Committee ◽  
Armed Services ◽  
Legislative Influence ◽  
Abu Ghraib Prison ◽  
Previous Scholarship

This chapter reviews previous scholarship about congressional scrutiny of the executive branch and about general patterns of legislative influence on foreign policy decisions. In the spring of 2004, the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee proposed public hearings regarding the conduct and objectives of the Iraq War. A month later, Senator John Warner, chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, scheduled two days of hearings to investigate abuse of detainees at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib Prison. The chapter examines the hearing activity of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees from 1947 to 2008 to assess the overall trends in oversight and identify similarities and differences in their behavior. It also considers what scholars know about congressional involvement in U.S. foreign policy, what they have concluded about oversight of national security more generally, and why these perspectives do not appear to fit together.

Puget Sound's Security Codependencyand Western Cold War Histories, 1950–1984

2011 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 268-293
Author(s):  
Brian G. Casserly
Keyword(s):  
Cold War ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Puget Sound ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nuclear Movement ◽  
The Public ◽  
War Experience ◽  
Armed Services ◽  
The Military

Puget Sound provides a case study of significant changes in the West's Cold War experience and illustrates that this era can be understood in terms of two distinct phases, with a turning point in the late 1960s/early 1970s. This transition saw shifts in relationships between Puget Sound residents and the military, from a traditional, almost unanimous support for the military's presence in the region, to the development of a much more hostile attitude among some segments of the public. This change reflected growing concerns about the environment and skepticism about military-related economic growth. It was also shaped by concerns about nuclear weapons and the role of the armed services in U.S. foreign relations, the result of the rebirth of the anti-nuclear movement across the United States in the 1970s.

scholarly journals Opposing the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty in the U.S. Congress: Ideological analysis of Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committee Hearings

2019 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-72
Author(s):  
Teemu Mäkinen
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Relations ◽  
Republican Party ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Senate ◽  
Missile Defense ◽  
Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty ◽  
Nuclear Arms Control ◽  
Armed Services ◽  
Control Regime ◽  
The U.S

The United States Senate voted to ratify the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia in 2010 by 74-26, all 26 voting against being Republicans. The change in the voting outcome compared to the 95-0 result in the 2003 SORT vote was dramatic. Using inductive frame analysis, this article analyzes committee hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations and the Armed Services committees in order to identify competing narratives defining individual senators’ positions on the ratification of the New START. Building on conceptual framework introduced by Walter Russel Mead (2002), it distinguishes four schools of thought: Jacksonian, Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian, and Wilsonian. The argumentation used in the hearings is deconstructed in order to understand the increase in opposition to the traditionally bipartisan nuclear arms control regime. The results reveal a factionalism in the Republican Party. The argumentationin opposition to ratification traces back to the Jacksonian school, whereas argumentation supporting the ratification traces back to Hamiltonian, Jeffersonian and Wilsonian traditions. According to opposition, the Obama administration was pursuing its idealistic goal of a world-without-nuclear-weapons and its misguided Russia reset policy by any means necessary – most importantly by compromising with Russia on U.S. European-based missile defense.

Extreme Advocacy Leadership in the Pre-Reform House: Wright Patman and the House Banking and Currency Committee

1985 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-206 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Owens
Keyword(s):  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Politics ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Congressional Committees ◽  
Rules Committee ◽  
Armed Services Committee ◽  
Advocacy Leadership ◽  
Armed Services ◽  
Bear Witness

Committee chairmen in the United States House of Representatives were often very powerful figures until the reforms of the early 1970s – as the numerous tales about those stereotyped villains, the southern Democrats, bear witness. Yet, surprisingly little explicit typologizing about leadership in congressional committees appears in the academic literature despite a growing awareness of the different goals which congressmen pursue and the variety of environments in which they operate. Just two different models of chairmen's power were developed in the context of the pre-reform Congress. In the 1950s and early 1960s, the accepted view, perhaps caricature, was that committee chairmen were autocratic, obstructionist (at least as far as liberals were concerned), conservative, possibly senile, and more than likely representative of constituencies outside the mainstream of national politics. A list of chairmen seen as fitting into this mould would include men such as ‘Judge’ Howard Smith, chairman of the Rules Committee from 1955 to 1967; his somewhat less skilful successor from 1967 to 1972, William Colmer of Mississippi; Graham Barden, the provocative chairman of the Education and Labor Committee between 1953 and 1960; and the authoritative Carl Vinson of Georgia, chairman of the Armed Services Committee for seventeen years until 1966.

Return to the Rule of Law in International Affairs

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda L. Fowler
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
National Security ◽  
Rule Of Law ◽  
Foreign Relations ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Major Barrier ◽  
Political Issues ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Legislative Oversight ◽  
Armed Services

This chapter examines normative political issues regarding the importance of legislative oversight in fostering the rule of law and public deliberation about foreign policy. Some observers of U.S. foreign policy argue that lawmakers ask too many questions and damage the nation's interests abroad with untimely inquiries. The performance of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations committees thus raises broader issues about whether public accountability in international affairs is desirable or even possible in the twenty-first century. The chapter first provides an overview of the paradox of public opinion and oversight of national security before suggesting that a major barrier to a more constructive role for lawmakers in international affairs is not the Constitution, but the large number serving today who have very limited legislative experience. It also discusses the risks to the presidency that result from asserting executive supremacy over national security.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document