Global Development Matters
CARMA site badge

Congress

The U.S. Congress plays a critical role in U.S. foreign assistance and any efforts to modernize U.S. foreign assistance will require congressional champions and support from both Democrats and Republicans. However, congressional control over U.S. foreign assistance is diffuse and influenced by a range of often competing interests.

Three critical issues affect congressional control over U.S. foreign assistance:

1. Authorizers versus Appropriators
In theory, congressional authorizers determine policy, while appropriators allocate dollars. For example, the House Foreign Relations Committee should define the language and purpose for a development program and authorize federal money to be spent on it, while the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations should decide how much money that program will get and from which account. However, these lines have been blurred in past years and appropriators are now often in the position of setting policy as well as allocating funds.

2. Multiple committees of jurisdiction
Authority over U.S. foreign assistance is also spread over multiple congressional committees, with separate but often overlapping jurisdictions. In the Senate, the Foreign Relations Committee controls a great deal of U.S. foreign assistance, however the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senate Armed Services Committee, Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs, to name only a few, also have jurisdiction over related foreign assistance issues. The same is true on the House side.

3. Influence over U.S. foreign assistance priorities
Congress is influenced primarily by its constituents. Given that the direct beneficiaries of U.S. foreign assistance reside outside the U.S., there has often been a belief that there isn’t a constituency for development in the U.S. This is changing. As the grassroots advocacy campaigns of ONE, Bread for the World, and Center for U.S. Global Engagement demonstrate, there is growing recognition that investing in global development is an investment in America’s future—strengthening its security, its economic opportunities, and its moral value. To summarize, global development has become part of the U.S. national interest, and constituents are talking about it with their members of Congress. Some of the groups with the largest influence with Congress, however, are those with the largest self-interest. They work to ensure that funds are directed to countries, programs and contracts that most directly benefit their own interests. The resulting earmarks (e.g., a certain percentage directed to microfinance programs) and directives (e.g., “tied aid” where foreign assistance programs must purchase American goods), serve an American constituency, but run counter to beneficiary country needs and limits the amount of assistance that gets to the people it was intended to serve.

Modernizing U.S. foreign assistance will require a bolder, harder look at managing these three tensions.

What's New in Congress:

CGD Work on Congress and Modernizing U.S. Foreign Assistance