Chair: Dick Clark, Aspen Institute Chuck Hagel, US Senate Jim Kolbe, US House Judy Biggert, US House Rapporteur: Tatiana Gfoeller
Senator Clark opened the session by asking what it would take to convince the Congress to pay more attention to foreign affairs. He recognized that the nation's focus is presently on domestic issues but saw new opportunities for foreign policy funding ahead. Clark introduced Chuck Hagel, United States Senator from Nebraska, stating that no freshman senator has had such a positive impact on foreign policy as Hagel.
Senator Hagel noted that the foreign affairs budget had plummeted in the last 20 years with 1985 as the high water mark. The low mark had been reached with the present Administration. Hagel argued that to play our role in the world, we need resources devoted to foreign affairs. Whoever the next President will be, the hard fact is that he will have to govern a divided country for the next four years. However, Hagel was hopeful that some good could come of this tenuous split since the next President would be forced to govern in a more bi-partisan way than ever before. The new President should not shirk his duty of asking for an increased budget for foreign affairs but should concentrate on connecting this necessity to the reality of the world at large.
Hagel expressed the belief that the American political class tends to underestimate the American people. When phrased correctly, people understand perfectly well how important foreign affairs are. For example, ask them: is world stability important; are open markets important? They will respond with a resounding yes. The key is to make the issue relevant for them. Hagel thought that the next President needs to bring in a team which knows how to make foreign policy relevant to people. If he does that, he will be able to forge a bi-partisan foreign policy in the Congress and make it work.
In response to a question, Hagel pointed out that the latest political campaign saw a lot of talk about reforming entitlements, health care, and other government programs that will have to be paid for. How are we supposed to pay for that except by growing our economy, he asked. We need to find new markets. Instability in the world shrinks market opportunities. This needs to be explained to people, he argued. In another response, Hagel cited the Defense Department as a model of how the State Department could work better with Congress. Since State does not have the same kind of domestic constituency as Defense, the President must focus specifically on State and make the same kind of effort the Defense Department makes with the Congress.
Representative Jim Kolbe began his presentation by stating that he agreed with the overall premise of the seminar: a low investment in foreign affairs has a high cost. He commended the organizers for focusing on a timely topic, especially as we go into a new Administration and Congress.
Kolbe said that his service on both the Appropriations and Budget Committees have shown him the necessity of balancing competing needs. It was indisputable that foreign affairs usually got the short end of the stick. He pointed out that only about one sixth of the U.S. government budget is available to fund discretionary demands and that translates into fierce competition for a very small share of the pie. Since the foreign affairs account does not have a constituency (except for Israel, which has a strong lobby), it becomes the easiest to push aside.
Kolbe acknowledged that many members of Congress do not see the need for continued funding for foreign affairs. Many constituents ask him why we spend so much money on foreign aid? When he tells them that it is a mere 1% of our overall budget, they do not believe him. He argued that Members of Congress need to make the case that the money we spend on diplomacy is directly linked to the money we spend on defense since diplomacy is our first line of defense. Strong advocates for this cause need to be developed; they should start early in the legislative process, thinking of it as a long-term problem needing a long-term solution and paying special attention to building domestic coalitions.
The last speaker of the seminar was Judy Biggert, U.S. Representative from Illinois' 13th District. She began by describing how a Member of Congress thinks. He or she is typically most interested in how issues play back home. As a member of the House, he or she is faced with a never-ending reelection campaign. If foreign affairs advocates want members of the House to travel, they must therefore compete with the re-election demands of being back home. Trips overseas are often labeled "junkets" with potentially serious negative consequences for members.
On how to get Congress to pay more attention to foreign affairs, Representative Biggert suggested focusing on House newcomers. The incoming class of 2000 has 43 new members, a dozen of whom have some international or military experience, according to her count. They should provide fertile ground. Biggert urged the foreign affairs community to get to know this freshman class, offer them relevant briefings and invite them to travel abroad. However, the quickest way to prick their interest would be by working through their constituents, wherein their primary interests and loyalties lie.
During the final question period, a journalist asked the panelists how the divided state of the in-coming House and Senate would affect efforts at bi-partisanship and what effect it would have on dragging domestic questions into foreign affairs, as with the Mexico City language on abortion. Representative Kolbe suggested that unfortunately the situation could lead to more gridlock. A very cautious President and Congress would pursue a limited political agenda during the up-coming two years. On the positive side, that would probably mean that most divisive issues (such as the Mexico City language) would be dropped. Representative Biggert described herself as more optimistic: this last election proved to her that the people are tired of partisan politics. She argued that the voters want their leaders to move the agenda more to the center, focusing on what unites rather than divides us.
Director of the Institute for the Study of Diplomacy Casimir Yost returned to the question of framing the case for foreign affairs issues and programs. He said he had heard two themes being expounded during the seminar. One had to do with the enormous opportunity for the United States to reinforce its values and interests in the world. The other theme dealt with the level of international risk increasing for us. In framing the rationale to the Congress for devoting additional resources to foreign affairs, which of these themes would it be more effective to emphasize? Biggert answered that on PNTR for China, for example, the emphasis had been clearly on opportunity, while the present situation in the Middle East presented more of a risk scenario. Kolbe agreed with Yost that the two themes are not mutually exclusive. He thought it better to focus on opportunities but thought that in all likelihood, some terrible crisis in the next four years would bring us up short and demonstrate the risks involved.
Another questioner asked what reforms the Congress would like to see the State Department undertake before it would respond with more funding. Kolbe focused on personnel reforms, streamlining the Department's functions and operations, and addressing security issues better. Another questioner made the point that to foster the global competitiveness of their districts, Members need to be open to increasing funding for programs allowing for this kind of grass-roots global engagement. Biggert responded that as a minimum, Congress should "do no harm." Kolbe agreed with the questioner's premise that foreign policy must be built on the grassroots, but cautioned that they are neither broad nor deep. Kolbe clarified that his intention had not been to suggest the melding of funding for State and Defense; rather, he emphasized the necessity of convincing people that diplomacy is the country's first national security defense. While agreeing that there was too much micro-management of State by Congress, Kolbe did not think Congress would give up this practice any time soon. The last questioner referred to a recent RAND study recommending to the President-elect that he propose a foreign affairs budget to Congress as a first step in reorganizing committee responsibilities, combining the first and second lines of defense already mentioned for the purpose of appropriations. Would that be feasible? Kolbe expressed the view that combining jurisdiction over State and Defense in one subcommittee on national defense could lead to a draining of resources from diplomacy to the military. He agreed that it would be a good idea to take a serious look at a possible reorganization of committee responsibilities but was not optimistic that this would happen soon.