Diplomats Find New World, Old Challenges on Capitol Hill by John Shaw As Washington, D.C., diplomats go about their work on Capitol Hill, they find a profoundly changed environment regarding international affairs since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But they also confront the same, daunting challenges they have faced for decades in articulating their views before the House and Senate and influencing the complex levers of powers in Congress. Congress is a co-equal branch of the federal government with the executive branch and maintains important responsibilities over U.S. international policy. It plays a key, sometimes pivotal role, over trade, budget and tax policy, as well as in the consideration of international treaties and hundreds of executive branchóincluding ambassadorialóappointments. Interviews with current and former members of Congress, ambassadors, other diplomats, congressional staffers and analysts confirm that embassies are very active on Capitol Hill. Diplomats, lawmakers and analysts agree that embassies need extensive contacts on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue and emphasize that frequent contacts with Capitol Hill are a requirement for working in Washington, D.C. George Saliba, Maltaís ambassador to the United States, said that embassies need to stay in close contact with Capitol Hill but remain mindful of the time and work demands on lawmakers and their key staffers. ìItís important to make contacts with Congress and share information,î he said. ìI have friends in the House and Senate. If I need anything specific I contact them and let them know that I need it. But I donít bother them unless I have something to say or some business to do. We go to the Hill only when there is something that is of specific interest to Malta,î he added. Analysts agree there is no magic formula of staff contacts, emails, policy papers and ambassadorial interventions that will guarantee successful initiatives or even a serious hearing on Capitol Hill. Put differently, working on Capitol Hill is more art than science. Bill Frenzel, a former Republican congressman and now an analyst at the Brookings Institution, said each embassy needs a congressional strategy that is creative, purposeful, strategic and specific to its relationship with the United States. ìI think embassies are doing a lot better than they did five or 10 years ago, but they still have a long way to go,î Frenzel said. ìDiplomats are still nervous about personal contacts with Congress. This is difficult work for most ambassadors and diplomats. It doesnít come naturally. But you have to do it here,î he added. Frenzel and other congressional observers are quick to say that diplomats face a new world on Capitol Hill. When President George W. Bush and the 107th Congress began work in January 2001, foreign policy was not a topic that generated many headlines or much discussion. Reducing taxes, fixing Social Security and Medicare, adding a prescription drug benefit, crafting a new energy policy and overhauling the campaign finance system dominated the rhetoric and the proposals moving up and down Pennsylvania Avenue. But the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 exploded the nationís domestic preoccupations and fundamentally altered the presidential and congressional agenda. Debates between the White House and Capitol Hill shifted to missile defense, the fate of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, overhauling the nationís intelligence and defense programs, halting the spread of weapons of mass destruction, homeland defense, preparing for possible bio-terrorist attacks and reforming the United Statesís economic sanctions policy. And so in 2002, Bush is a self-proclaimed war president and foreign policy matters dominate congressional deliberations. Although lawmakers and Bush are likely to try to shift the focus back to domestic issues as the 2002 congressional midterm elections near in November, foreign policy is certain to loom large throughout the year. If Congress has not exactly returned to the days when all 535 lawmakers sought to be de facto secretaries of state, Capitol Hillís new focus on, and fascination with, foreign policy is a stark reversal from preoccupations of the recent past. For example, in 1998, House Majority Leader Richard Armey (R-Texas) defiantly and proudly held up an $18 billion American contribution to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for months. When asked about the vehemence of his opposition to funds for the IMF, Armey blasted the agency and said he didnít have a great deal of interest in the outside world. Armey noted that he had not left the United States since 1986, his first term in Congress, and said he didnít think he was missing much. ìIíve been to Europe onceóI donít need to go again,î he said, adding that he had no desire to visit Asia. Few, if any lawmakers, are now saying the outside world doesnít matter. ìThe world changed for all of us on Sept. 11. Interest in foreign policy, which was once very minimal for many in Congress, is now nearly insatiable,î said Sen. Richard Lugar, (R-Ind.), the second-ranking Republican on the Committee on Foreign Relations. Lugar noted that Congress is now riveted with foreign policy. ìWe have endless briefings. The administration has sent us a plethora of requests, and there is no indication this will change during the rest of the Bush administration. There are so many important things to consider and to do,î he added. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), also a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said congressional interest in foreign policy is now striking and significant. ìWhen I first came here in 1996, not many people wanted to come on the Foreign Relations Committee. In fact the leadership had to do some cajoling to get people to join the committee. Not anymore. This is the place to be. A lot more people are interested in foreign policy these days,î he said. Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, said lawmakers are plunging into international issues that they had scant interest in before the September attacks. ìOne good thing to come out of the tragedy of Sept. 11 is that there is a lot more interest in foreign policy in Congress. People are getting much more engaged. A lot of people who were afraid to take one overseas trip for fear of it being called a junket are much more engaged and interestedóand without apology,î Wellstone said. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Bob Graham (D-Fla.) said Congress is tightly focused on terrorism but adds that lawmakers are more engaged in a wide variety of international issues. ìThe war against terror is going to dominate our agenda in 2002, but there are many international issues that have to be of concern to us,î he said. One indication of how markedly the world has changed since Sept. 11 is the relatively non-controversial passage of the 2002 foreign assistance budget. This portion of the federal budget has fallen sharply in real terms over the past two decades and usually generates fierce battles in Congress. But Congress passed a $15.4 billion package last fall plus an additional $1 billion from an emergency funding bill. This represents a 9 percent increase in foreign assistance funds from the previous year. In the House, Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Douglas Bereuter (R-Neb.), both senior members of the House International Relations Committee, are leading an effort to boost the foreign aid budget. They drafted a letter to the White House that has been signed by about 90 House members calling for an increase in funds. ìThere has been a huge change in the attitude toward foreign policy in Congress since Sept. 11,î Berman said. ìThere is a growing awareness of the importance of international engagementóin terms of the military, in terms of intelligence and in terms of foreign assistance programs. This is the time to try to increase the budget for these programs. And people up here are now more willing to stand up and support this effort,î he added. It is this new mood and this expanded agenda that embassies should be mindful of as they deal with Congress, lawmakers and analysts say. Lugar said diplomats posted to Washington, D.C., are becoming more sophisticated about the workings of Congress and its role in formulating American international policy. He said, for example, that diplomats, when pressing their cases on various issues, are meeting with rank-and-file members, not just committee chairs and House and Senate leaders. ìI think theyíre becoming more familiar with wh at it takes to get things accomplished in Washington,î Lugar said. Analysts say that for embassies to advance their agendas they need to get plugged into the workings of important committees on Capitol Hill. The Senate Agriculture, Appropriations, Armed Services, Banking, Budget, Commerce, Energy, Environment and Public Works, Finance, Foreign Relations, Governmental Affairs and Intelligence panels all have jurisdiction over various international issues. In the House, Agriculture, Armed Services, Appropriations, Budget, Energy and Commerce, Financial Services, Intelligence, International Relations, Transportation, and Ways and Means panels are all involved in international affairs. John Shaw is a contributing writer to The Washington Diplomat.