Research Fellow John C. Fortier

Congress is not and should not be a doormat in foreign policy. It has formal powers like declaring war and imposing tariffs. Congress's power of the purse gives it great ability to shape our armed forces, our State Department and the way that America projects itself to the world. The power of the purse can also be used to force presidents to change course in the short run, although the debate over the supplemental shows that cutting off funds is a crude tool. Congress also has real oversight powers and can haul administration appointees before congressional committees to account for what they have done.

In addition to its formal powers, there is a real imperative that Congress be involved in the world. In recent years, many have disparaged congressional foreign travel, but such travel is immensely beneficial for the individual members and the institution. How does one legislate or conduct oversight if one's view of the world is from afar? And foreign travel has been one key way that Democratic and Republican members get to know one another.

But none of those powers and imperatives justifies Speaker Pelosi's Syria trip. Congress was not constitutionally intended, nor is it well suited, to conduct direct diplomacy. As Speaker of the House (of the whole House), she bears special responsibility not to step over the line where educational travel turns into advocacy.

Clearly, there is a disagreement between President Bush and congressional Democrats over how to deal with Syria. Democrats have embraced the Baker Hamilton study group recommendations that the United States engage in negotiations with Syria and Iran to find a diplomatic solution to the troubles in Iraq. President Bush has grave concerns about Syria's involvement in Lebanon and support for terrorism, and about inadequate security along the Iraq border. Further, he does not believe that Syria could or would desire to significantly improve America's fortunes in Iraq.

Disagreement over Syria policy is legitimate, but Pelosi went to Syria bearing a message that "the road to Damascus is a road to peace" as well as an olive branch from Israel, which apparently meant to convey no such message.

Clearly, other members of Congress have gone to Syria, including Republicans. But most went to listen, not to bring tidings from the U.S. We have also seen instances of private citizens like Jesse Jackson or former president Carter conducting their own foreign policy. They may be thorns in the sides of presidents, but no one believes that they speak for the U.S. When the Speaker of the House comes bearing messages, it sends the signal that there is another foreign policy team in addition to the president's.

Pelosi, to her credit, has backed off of her statements a bit. And her actions, while over the line, do not compare with the worst offender of this principle, then-Speaker Jim Wright, who unapologetically inserted himself in direct negotiations with Nicaraguan Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega, over White House protests. But still she went too far.

Some defenders of the President overstate their case by hinting that any disagreement over Syria policy would weaken our hand. Let there be loud and spirited disagreements within the Congress and between Democrats and Republicans. But the president is right that the disagreements should not be hand-delivered to foreign capitals by the Speaker of the House, no matter how politely she sips her soup.

John C. Fortier is a research fellow at AEI.