FEDERALhearing transcript

Senate Hearing on Presidential and Congressional Authority Over International Agreements

Original title: THE PRESIDENT, CONGRESS, AND SHARED AUTHORITY OVER INTERNATIONAL ACCORDS

January 1, 2019

foreign policy separation of powers international agreements constitutional law treaties executive authority

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

The Frame

What this does

This hearing addresses the constitutional process for how the U.S. enters into binding international commitments, which directly impacts the legal basis for foreign policy actions and the extent of congressional oversight over the executive branch.

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

U.S. Senate

The Senate's constitutional role in providing advice and consent on treaties is the primary subject of the hearing.

The President

The hearing examines the scope of executive authority in conducting foreign policy and entering into international agreements.

What changed

Last recorded activity January 1, 2019.

What's next

Next step not available in the current record.

Summary

The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing to examine the balance of power between the President and Congress regarding the creation and termination of international agreements. Senators and experts discussed the historical shift toward s over formal treaties and the need for congressional oversight in foreign policy.

Key Facts

The hearing took place on December 5, 2017, to discuss shared authority over international accords.
Over 90 percent of binding international agreements entered into by the U.S. in the last 80 years have been executive agreements rather than formal treaties.
The committee is examining executive authority regarding war-making, nuclear weapons, and international agreements.
The Chairman stated that the committee aims to ensure the Senate upholds its constitutional role in the treaty and agreement-making process.
The hearing included testimony from legal expert Curtis A. Bradley and former National Security official Avril D. Haines.

Why It Matters

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between a treaty and an executive agreement?

A treaty requires Senate approval, while s are entered into by the President, often with less direct congressional input.

Why is the Senate concerned about international agreements?

The committee is concerned that the executive branch has increasingly bypassed congressional input when entering into or terminating binding international agreements.

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift100% confidence

Historical shift to executive agreements

The hearing highlights a long-term trend where over 90% of international agreements are now executive agreements rather than treaties.

Curtis A. Bradley

Connected Entities

personBenjamin L. Cardin“Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations”Map →

personCurtis A. Bradley“Professor at Duke University School of Law and hearing witness”Map →

personAvril D. Haines“Former Principal Deputy National Security Advisor and hearing witness”Map →

personBob Corker“Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations”Map →

organizationSenate Committee on Foreign Relations“The committee conducting the hearing”Map →

Sources

Open source document

www.govinfo.gov

Analysis Score

0–100

Significance65
How much this matters to a regular citizen
Controversy40
Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
Entertainment10
Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
Buzz15
Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools