As members of Congress, we may disagree with the administration's position on foreign policy matters, but the fact remains: the Executive Branch is tasked with handling diplomatic matters.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There is no part of the executive branch that more exists on the outer edge of executive prerogative than the American intelligence community - the intelligence community, CIA, covert action. My literal responsibility as director of CIA with regard to covert action was to inform the Congress - not to seek their approval, to inform.
Diplomacy is fundamentally working with people, bringing people together to deal with difficult issues.
Congress has shortchanged not only foreign aid but foreign policy. A mistaken notion that diplomats are unimportant and hence undeserving of support grips conservative legislators, especially.
White House and State Department foreign-policy experts are overwhelmingly directed towards military and diplomatic issues, not development issues.
We only have one president and one secretary of state, but our founding fathers very clearly insisted that Congress play a significant role in foreign policy.
I don't think that anybody should be ruling in or ruling out anything while we are conducting diplomacy.
It's the job of the president to negotiate, but it's the job of Congress to approve.
In the Senate, there is a wide spectrum of views on foreign policy.
In recent years, Republicans have argued that Congress is a more responsible policymaker than the executive branch. But when it comes to regulation, Congress is often much worse, and for just one reason: Executive agencies almost always focus on both costs and benefits, and Congress usually doesn't.
The Senate are a branch of the treaty-making power, and by consulting them in advance of his own action upon important measures of foreign policy which may ultimately come before them for their consideration, the President secures harmony of action between that body and himself.