Constraints Of The Anchor Or The Dominant Of The Rudder?

As stipulated by the Constitution of the U.S., the president and the congress sharepower in foreign affairs. Based on committee system, the leverage American congresshas over foreign affairs is effected, to a large extent, by the International RelationsCommittee of the House of Representatives and the Foreign Relations Committee ofthe Senate, the latter is more influential of the two.Focusing on the roles played by the Foreign Relations Committee in the foreignpolicy making process in the mid and late 1990's, this thesis is intended to clarify:1 .To what extent the Foreign Relations Committee has influenced American foreignpolicy making process; 2 and how the political inclination and idiosyncratic traits ofthe chairman of the committee steer the operation of the Foreign Relations Committeeduring this period of time.With a combination of mechanism analysis and case study, the research spans fromthe 104th congress to the 106th congress. The thesis consists of 3 parts:The first part gives a generalization of the committee system, the mechanism of theForeign Relations Committee and the historical background of the time span.The second part explores the involvement of the Foreign Relations Committee withforeign policy making process. Several typical cases are used to demonstrate apowerful Foreign Relations Committee.The third part depicts the operation style of the Foreign Relations Committee in thepolitical milieu of the mid and late 1990's. Firstly, the Committee was active inforeign affairs in the 1990's and changed the enervating image of 1980's. In mostcases, the Committee can anchor the policy making process despite the fact that thepresident enjoys more clout. Secondly, the Committee's influence varied in differentfields and is unlikely to win all the time; Thirdly, the operation of the Committee inthe period of time, under the leadership of Mr. Jesse Helms, had been deeply markedby the notorious chairman.