Foreign Policy in Congress: ‘Micro-Managing’ Decried

Members of the House of Representatives, who routinely dispense federal money in multibillion-dollar amounts, were summoned to the floor recently to decide whether to pay for “religious sensitivity training” for U.S. diplomats. Estimated cost: $50,000.

To some opponents of the program, who prevailed by a vote of 224 to 189, the proposal represented a significant waste of money. “Yes, it is only $50,000 here,” said Rep. Toby Roth (R-Wis.), “but I predict in five years it will be $1 million and from there on up.”

To many others, it seemed merely trivial. As Rep. Larry Smith (D-Fla.) remarked on the controversy shortly before the vote: “This is really not the place to attack the foreign policy of this country--it is de minimis and wrong.”

The 99th Congress, as this incident shows, has been devoting a considerable amount of its time and energy to the task of fine-tuning American foreign policy--a trend that has angered President Reagan and stirred concern on Capitol Hill itself.

Not only have the 535 members of Congress told Reagan how to conduct arms talks with the Soviet Union, challenged his policy toward South Africa and quarreled over the Administration’s proposed funding of the anti-Communist insurgency in Nicaragua, but they also have put their imprimatur on a host of foreign policy issues of much lesser magnitude.

Whether to withhold $5 million in aid from Jamaica, whether to provide new office space for U.S. arms negotiators in Geneva, whether to allow Soviet citizens to work as employees in U.S. missions in the Soviet Union, under what conditions the United States should provide aid to Mozambique--these are the types of questions that are frequently voted on by the House and Senate.

The reason is not hard to find. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Dante Fascell (D-Fla.) said bluntly: “We provide the money; we have a right to say how it’s spent.”

But for Reagan, who argues that the Constitution gives him the sole right to conduct foreign policy, Congress’ frequent meddling has become a major source of frustration. As he recently told Republican congressional leaders, “We’ve got to get to where we can run a foreign policy without a committee of 535 telling us what to do.”

Vice President George Bush, who presides over the Senate, said in a recent interview: “Congress seems to be micro-managing foreign policy more than ever. We have got to find a better balance between Congress’ responsibility for oversight and the President’s responsibility for conducting foreign policy.”

Some congressional critics argue that Congress spends so much time determining the fine points of diplomacy--such questions as the $50,000 on religious sensitivity training--that there seems to be hardly any opportunity to debate the overall thrust of U.S. foreign policy.

On June 6, for example, as the Senate began considering aid to the Nicaraguan contras , Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) accurately predicted that the floor debate, far from concentrating on underlying policy issues, would focus heavily on whether the money could be used to buy trucks, tents and fatigues.

“We are to do what President Reagan has accurately described as micro-managing foreign policy,” Dodd said. “We are going to spend the next eight to ten hours arguing over the nuts and bolts of a particular policy rather than the fundamental question of whether or not over the last four or five years our interests have been advanced or harmed by this policy.”

To such critics, the annual effort to write a foreign aid bill brings out the worst in Congress. As a result of the numerous controversial restrictions that individual members have tried to impose on aid grants, Congress has been unable to agree on a full-blown foreign aid package since 1981 and instead has allowed the assistance program to limp along on stop-gap spending measures.

Funding May be Blocked

When the Senate passed a fiscal 1986 foreign aid bill last month, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.) expressed hope that Congress might enact a measure this year. But it now appears that 1986 foreign aid funding may be stymied in the House by the same old problems--the Reagan Administration has objected to 58 restrictions imposed on foreign aid grants by the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

One new sticking point involves an effort led by Florida lawmakers to withhold small portions of these grants to Latin American and Caribbean countries in an effort to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the United States. For example, the Administration strongly opposes a Senate-passed measure to delay $5 million of U.S. aid to Jamaica until the President certifies that the Kingston government is trying to cut down on marijuana shipments.

In fact, the smallest sums of foreign assistance often prove to be the most controversial. Congress has already spent hours this year on the question of whether the United States should provide $5 million to the non-communist rebels in Cambodia.

Helms a Key Player

The undisputed master at earmarking small sums of money in a way that places significant restrictions on Administration foreign policy is a Republican--Sen. Jesse Helms of North Carolina.

Last month, Helms persuaded the Senate to withhold $18 million in aid to Mozambique unless the President can certify that its leftist government has made certain strides in human rights. Helms’ goal is to impose on the left-wing government the same restrictions that Congress has often applied to rightist regimes.

Helms also frequently tries to use his leverage as a senator to alter State Department personnel decisions, including the assignments of individual Foreign Service officers. At a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last January that was to focus on the overall thrust of U.S. foreign policy, Helms demanded that Secretary of State George P. Shultz explain the Foreign Service assignment of David Noland, who had written a book on Nicaragua.

‘Somewhere in Africa’

“And now where is he stationed?” Helms demanded. “He is somewhere in Africa. How come it is that he’s not being used in Central America?” But Shultz indicated no willingness to reassign Noland, who remains in Botswana.

U.S.-Soviet relations make a popular target for congressional tinkering. In May, the House adopted a proposal by Rep. Jim Courter (R-N.J.) to prohibit U.S. missions in the Soviet Union from hiring Soviet citizens for even menial jobs.

When the Senate tried to tell Reagan to abide by the unratified second strategic arms treaty with the Soviets, conservative senators objected that the lawmakers were encroaching on the President’s sole domain. Yet no one complained when a few senators who had visited the arms talks in Geneva decided that the offices of the American negotiating team were too shabby. The result: a Senate-passed $3 million authorization of a new office building for the negotiators.