CONGRESSIONAL STATF ATTITI.]DES

TOWARD THE

DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND FOREIGN SERVICE OFFTCERS

A Report Based on 25 One-on-One Inrer-views Wkh Ke,t; Congressional Staff

Prepared for the Una Chapman Cox lir:undarion

by

Thomas O. Melialnstilute for the Study of Diplomacy

GCorgetoNn U nt r ,ersi ty\Yashirgton. DC

October 2002

Table of Contents

Fonvard t

E x e c u t i v e S : r m m a r y . . . . . . . . I

P r i n c i p l e R e s e a r c h F i n d i n g s , . . . . . . . . . 4

R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1

Appendix A - Profile of Respotdents . . .. . . .. . .2'7Append ix B -No tesonMethodo logy . . . . . . . . . . 28A p p e n d i x C - A b o u t t h e A u t h o r . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 9

Forwerd

In an arrangement lh&t is unique arnong lhe major powers in u,orld history,American diplomacy reflects a good deal more than deteuninations made bv diolomatsand the policy preferences of rhe President, his cabinet and. advisors. As ererv nresirlentof the past century has learned, the u.s. colgress plays a significant role in the shaping -and implemenurion - of foreign policy.

This role is controversial and complicated in every presidenr's Adminrstration,regardless of the panisan make-up of the congress. Battles over the subsriLnce of pr:licv,as well as or er procedures and prerogatives, recur in every session ol Congress.

For every public exchange between lhe s€cretary of srate and leariing Senatorsand House members, such as are occasiona-lly broadcast by the network tel.uision ne*s,a thousand inreractions occur eacl day bstween ofllcialr in the stare Deprrtmerl (andother agencies) and key sraff in the U.S. Congress. They discuss, debate _ and oftenresoJve - policy issues and spending priodries large and sma1l.

Acdng on behalf of Members who will derermine how much money lhe StateDepartment may spend, and on what. and imbued with confidence that they speatr; onbehiilf ol the American people who have elected lheir bosses, Congressi.nil itaff areper{orce very influential when they intervene on specific poticy or spending issues. Thecounterbalancing power of the State Department derives from Foreign sen,ice officers,greater familiarity with the intemational arena, and the fact that they speak for r.hePresidcnt of the United States. who has also bsen elecred by the Americal people.

The preseni rcport by Thomas O. Melia adds a t,aluable dimsnsion rjJ ourunderstanding of the relationship, as ir occurs on a darly basis, ber*'een rhe large sraffbureaucracies of the State Depanment and the Congress. gased on 25 one-on_oneirterviews he personally conducted during thc congressional recess in August 2002, thisrepon rells us how the state Depa,tment, and rhe rslationship, iooks from ihe vantagepoint ofkey staffers on Capitol Hill. The reporr conve),t, in the staffers' own words,tremendous admiration for the intelligence and commitmenr of the career Foreignsen'ice, as well as immense fn:skation :hat it is so difficult institutionallv to access allthe expertise of the State Department.

This report was done at the request of the una chapman Cox Foundation. in orderto strengthen its own efforts to enhance the professionalism and the prestige of the u.s.Foreign Sen'ice. The Foundation sought to assess the impact made uy sp..iric rneasuresput in place by secretary of state and his colleagues in rhe curen! Depafiment of State.This report re'eals that eariy efforts by colin powell and his colleagues in the stareDepartment have had a positive effect on the relationship - thr:ugh not nearly as great anrmpact on the Deparrmenl's profile on Capitol Hill as hoped for.

Tom Melia is especially well qua}fied to undenalie this imporant research. lnaddition to his background as a professional opinion researcher witi one of the leadingAmerican polling firms, he spent six years in the 1980s as legislative assislant to SenatorDaniel Patrick Mol,nihan @-NY). During mors lhan a dozen years at the NarionalDemocratic Instil.ute for Intemational Afiairs, morcover, he worked with Foreign ServiceOfficers rn Washington and in embassies in more than 50 countries around rhe world. I4r.Melia is curron:ly an Associate al the Instltute for the Study of Diplomacy and an adjunctprofessor aa Coorgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service.

We are grateful to Mr. Melia for his work on this study, a.:rd we are grareful to tlteUna Chapman Cox Foundation for mak.ing rhis research possible.

Casimir YostDircctorlnstitute for the Stud1, of Diplomacy

Executi:,e Sumnury

Proiessional staff working on foreign afiairs issues in posirions of influence in theU.s' congress stroagly admire the men and women of rhe u.i. Foreig:: Service for thelrintelligence, their commitment to public sewice * ar:d especially for their williagaess tospend so much of their careers in hardsl.rip posts abroad.

. Horvever. rwentv-five one-on-one inlerviews with key congr-essional slaffl reveallhar an endun g perceplion ofthe Foreign service as "arrogant" and insufficientlyresponsive to rhe Legislature limits the state Depanmenfs abiliay io mobilize supporr forlmponant poi ic l and budeelury issues.

Some Hill staffels have heard about, or seen in practica, a grearer openncss andmore outreach on the paft of the Department under secrerary of Stare colin powcll, butmost ol those interviewed have no!. Democratic congressionai aides working aroundliev commlttees &re most alert to this inrtiadve (perhaps because Republicans ar? morelikely ro see snhanced access and responsiveness as an unremarkaLrie panisan perquisite).

Other key findings from this research include rhe follorving:

i The predcmilant view among Congressional staff intervierved is that theUnited Staiss should invest substantially greater resources thirn it does inAmericr's diplomaric effort.

o None of them, however, cxpect substanlially greater resources to llowto the Sure Deparrment any time soc,n. This is due mainly to thehigher priority Members of Congress generally atlach ro domestjcneeds, reflecting in turn the 3e.ntiments of their consdtuents.

o The poor quality ctf tire Depanment's in:eracliol with Congress ovel along period of tims, however, is seen as a distinct obstacle, as weli.

) Congressional staff members are frustrated that the inlelleclual prowess andpolicy expenise that impresses rhem in encounrers wirh individ;al FSOs isofren so difficult lo access ivhen it matters to them. While many knorv FSOswho are forthcoming and effective in deaiing rvith Congress, most say lhat theForeign Senice is characterizcd by,,eiitisn" and an "a:roganee,, thal alienatesthe Congress.

' The men and women intervicwed for this projecr ari broadry represenrative of those currently adlisingsenators and Representativcs in terms of therr poliricar iacrinarion, levels ofexperience and range of -

responsibilides. They are e'enl)'divided berween House and senate, Democrats and Republicais, andinclude an appropriltc mix of personal and committce sraff, as wcil as *rose dealing wirir aurhoriiing andappJoprialions issues. The Appendices descritte mor€ iully ths rcsearch methodology and rhe profilJ ofJespondents.

In the view of Congressronal staff, rhis standoffishness is reinforced bylong periods abroad, which fosters a rootlessness that leads manyFSOS !o be overly absorbed in the intem&l rvorld of the Departrnenr.

In some cases, this Exacerbales an unfo(unate "careerism" in whrch -senior Republican staff, in particula., belleve - tbe goal ofadvancemsnt in the Foreign Service crowds out a ibcus on adlancingAmericr's interests in the wodd.

The estrangemcnt between Capitol Hill ard Foggy Bottom is also atributed tosomething more calculating - a determinadon by the State Department, borneof overconfrdence in its own expe{ judgments. that Congress simply oughtnot play a central role in foreign policy formation, as it does in other areas.Staff are aggravatod that the Department prefers to notify Congress aboutpolicies only afier they are decided, rafter !han to incorporate Congressionalinleresrs and insight into the formulation of policy

Fn:m the Congressional point of view, thrs resistance is seen no{ only as ahindrance in their own work, but counrerproducdve for lhe Department, too.Republican and Democratic stiilTers working on appropriations sutrcommineesin each chamber say fhat this adversely affecrs Srate's funding levels.

Notwithstanding a broadly shared presumption thar FSOs are mosrlyDemocrats, Congressional stafi generally admire rheir nonpaftisa^nship on ihejob. This is seen as emblematic of the professionalism of the Service and rtcontributes lo their high regard for the lSOs with whom they inleract.

While stalfers in borh parties and in both houses note tbat FSOs'experienceabroad enhances their understalding of the views of foreign govemments,there is virtually no suggestion lhat it affects the parnorism or the commitmentof American diplomats. There is, however, a strong setrse that diplomats tendto become disconnected from American society and so may not always defendand assen U.S. interests vigorously enough. This perception is shared byDemocrats and Republicans alike, though it appears to be a more significantissue for Republican slaff in the Senate.

The Stale Deparment's Legisladve Affairs Bureau, "H", is sometimes seen asa useful way to access the State Depanment, but more frequently it is vlewedby peopie on the Hill as an obstacle to sffectlve communication.

The Depar|ntent of Defense is viewed by Congressional staffers * includingliberal Democrats and others who are concerned about what thsy se€ as thePentilgon's curent "domination" of American foreign policy making - ashaving a more effective approach to Congressional relalions than does State.

o Senior s:aff, especiallv, believe that )OD assigns its brightest ,,up andcomers" to Congressional liaison duries. whereas the Srate Departmentdoes not. This is thought to rcflect State's low regard for Congress(and thrrs by extension, &e American public).

o DOD is clearlv seen as much more pro-actjve in reaching olt to staffat all levels, and much more willing than Srate ro provicle informalbriefings by phone on evetts and thejr implicadons.

Secretary of State Cotin Powell is widely undersiood to have ratsed moralewithin the Foreign Servrce. Powell and his teanr are seen to be much morecommitted to rhe Forcign Ssrv.ice as an institution than rheir predecessors.

Only.about a third of Congressional srafl dealing with foreign affairs haveheard that Secretary Porvell has instructed the Department to be moreforthcoming and accessible in its dealings with Congress. Most of these few,including Democrats, have seen Langible evidence of the policrv.

Suggesrions ori how the Departrnent of Stare car elhance its standing amongcongressional staff mainly revolve around the manner in whlch information.isprovided to Congress. The most frequent suggestion is that the Departmentshouid be mors pro-active and less formal in providing rnformarion andanalysis when requested - and even before i1 ls requested _ rather thar oniy"at the polnr of a gun." Other specific ideas i:rclude:

o Upgrade rhe place of "H" in rhe Srate Depafiment culrure by deailingto liaise with Congress (perhaps even by djrecred assignment) the verybest FSOs, with interesting - even glamorous _ experience abroad.

o Utilize the Pearson Fellowship program be[er to gain insigbt for fieDepartrnent on lbe folkways of Capitol Hill, and ro expa::d friendlycontacls, such as by linking the fellowships to srinrs in ,,!l'or othjrkey posts in washington.

o Bring "the Congressional perspective', more visibly into policy-formation, perhaps by inviting Congressional aidei :nlo worrrnsgroups or roulcltable discussions of pending issues or cnses.

o Orientation briefings for junior Congressional staff {and others) rharwould help de-mysrify the State Depanment and the funcrions of ilsmany bureaus and offices, both on the Hill and at Main Srate.

o Draw a larger pool of Congressional staff into the ..Washineton tradecraft" courses at FSI, both to help de-mystify Congress for FSOs _ andalso to give Congressional staff more ownership oi, and responsibilityfor, horv State interac$ wirh Capitol Hill.

Pincip aI Re s earc k F inding t

Congressional stafT admire the people of the Foreign Service fo: tleir intelligenceand rommitmen, to public service

Twenty-five one-on-one interviews with professiolai staff workirg on foreig:raffairs issues in pr:sitions of influence in the U.S. Congress inchcate they strongly admirethe men and rvomen of the U"S. Foreign Senice.'

These Congressronal staff have a gelerally high regard for Federal employees irmost agencies, rvhom they see as hard-working, sman and effecdve in many ways thatare not appreciated by the public at large. Several go on to express dismay tiat thecontemporary political system and popular culture hold governmenl. workers in such lowregard. As one conservative advisor to a senior Republical Senalor says, "I kno$ themph of the apathetic bureaucrat, but I have never met him."

In this context of favorable sentiment toward govemment employees overall,Congressional staff:re especially impressed by diplomats' rntelligence, their iacility ri,ithlanguages and their commitment to public service. Repub cans and Democrats alikepraise Foreign Service Officers for their expenise regarding countries around the world.

In the State Depatlment lau Inve all tlrcse u,onderful, highly educated, publicservi.ce oientetl progressive inte.mationalists, And I mcan progre-tsive in a nrvt'panisan sense - coopelatit,e, problem-solving, t,aluing preventian, rtaluing thesophistication lhat goes into that. ... Tlte,t are the nnst amazing substantiveresources fu foreign policy and intenntional issues that we lruve as a nation.(Mirl-lewl Democratic House aide)

Mt expeience is that they're like tlte brightest folks with rrlhom I weftt to gradscltool in international affairs. The ones who really wanted to know hov' theworld v'ork and really go below the surface. (Senior Repu.blican Sencte aide)

There is a sense here that those peaple are almost held in awe in the ability theyhave to leatn languages, to undersland a pa.rtiu.lar countrj or calture, So that'sth.e vem positive perception of Foreign Se*-ice Officers wlrcn they are lrcre irtW ashingt on, ( Mid-level D emacratic Senate aid.e )

Highly educated, patiatic, dedicated to tbe principles of their country. (Mitl-level. Republican House committee staffl

That Foreig:r Service officers are willing to spend so much of a careet abroad lsseen as a double-edged sword - "excitrng" and "interesting, for the right kind of person,"though also accompanied by a great deal of hardship. While only a few of rhose

" See Appendix A for ar ovcrview of thc respondelts, and Appendix B for a discussion of fte Eethodologlof :he research.

lnrsJvlewed say unprompred that the life of a diplomat is "dangerous," rhore is a greatdeal of empathy for the difflculries associared wilh frequent relocation bsnveen ciunrries,especially for rhose wi:h working spouses or ehil&en.

It could be very excitittg and very, rery itxteresting. But I think it u,oultl be ven,,very dfficuh. ... Picking up and moving eretj t to rtr lhree years. hwoutd not bean east thirlg to do for anybody who wanted a family, panicutarly afemale.(Mid-level Republican Senate aide )

There is a dedicatio, that is required for this line of work - eNen more so nowbecause peaple are lfuing in dangerous places. Embassies d.o get bombe.t;Atnefi.cans are targeted. So there is a v,illingness to take on.sime risks that Ithink a lot ofpeople otheraise would nor rta. (senior RepubLican Housecommittee staff)

I have a lot of respect lor peaple who are v,illing to constantly gel ttp arul. motcerery lhree tedrs at a dffirent posting, I can't help but think th.at oi a personalLevel, that must wreak havoc on sonteone,s persortal life. Certainh, it must givethem a sense of rootlessness, (Senior Republican House committee stef)

I &ink some people just thrive and love the intemational aspect ctl i, the traveland the oppot"tuniries ro meet with tlignitaries in otrrcr cauntries and. entert,i,thern and leatn about tltose culntres. (Bur) there are defnitely ,rtnn,e. seriousdon'nsides. The living conditions are less thntz favorabie, it,s unsafe, it,s scat1.(Senior Democratic House aide)

People who deal with foreigrr affairs on rhe Hi often share the kinds of inrerestsand educarional background that charactedzes FSOs, About a qua(er 0flhoseinterviewed say they had serious)y considered caeers in the Foieign senice, ancr othershave close fricnds who have done so.

I had considered that rotie, as most people tlo who hat,e an IR depree closometime in their studies (Mid_Level Republican Senate aidel

ln colle ge evetlone wanted to be a Fore.ign Service fficer- But rhen the, v)er.t torhe exam, and they staned tatking to people, and. it rumed our rc be a v,iole lotless glantorous than one wourd hcive tho ghr. (Mid-rever Repubrican House aid.e)

I i)anted to be a Foreign Senice Afficerfor a long time and decicled I wasn,tsuitedfor it. I have this amazing respect for what ther- do; armost like ir is a*e-inspiing, (Junior House Democratic aide)

Yea admirarion for individual FSos, and their cor:imitment to pubric service *expressed by virtually every staffer - does not translate into a strong jositive impressionof the state Dopartment as an agency. Fewer than half of those interviewed mentionedstate when asked which agency or bureau in rhe federar government consisrently ..attracts

the bcst talcnt mcst often. '' The Depanment of Justice is mentroned by several, andUSTR, DOD, the NSC ald the intelligence conmunity are each raised a couple of times.Only two, however, say *re Stare Depanment is "generally the weakest in terms of itspenonnel" - one a Democrat irnd one a Republican, each wirh loag experience wirh theSenate Foreign Relations Committee.

Those rvho have worked briefly in the DeparLment of Slals in one capacity oranother are not lett with great fondness for the organization or for the Foreign Service.Indeed, several who worked in political appointments at senior levels in previousAdminisrarions, or ssrvod as intems during their university years, came away from thatexperience with strong negative impressions (as well as some positive recollections).

I itttemed at the Sraie Department before I ever came to the llill. Tlte aninzosih,benteen the State Depanment and other depamnents and c;ther agencies ofgo\,enzmenl, I v,as very surpised abouL 'Ihere was this, Iike, partisanship, like uson the llill. 'We should be in charge aftltis.' or 'Our Assisrant Secrelau is betterthan theirs.' Et cetera. (Junior Republican llouse aide)

W*n I was ta intem durirg college a the U.S. em.bassy in Madrid, tnyprcvailing perspe€tive w-as 'Wy are aLl tlrcse brilliant people chained to theirdesks ?' There is sonething about tlrc system tlwt is really sick. ( Mid-levelDenocrati c H ouse ai.de)

Part of the reason Congressional staff do not warm to &e State Department istheir impression of it as a vast, slo\r-moving bureaucracy in which pecple their oun agehave much less responsibility and authonly than they do. This contrasts u'ith the lean,hyper-fast decision-maliing elvironmen! tley u!derstand Capitol llill to be.

I wouldn't want to be in tlrc Foreign Service because ! think it takes msny, man,years before you can actually be in a position to dr:t anything other than to kind ofob,serve and repofl and carry out ptslicies thut are decided. tvell above t'our leveL(Senior Republican f'Iouse comrstittee staff1

h can probably be fi-ustrating because 1,otr know you ale a cog in a wheel, moreor less. (Mid-level Republican House comtnittee staff)

'l'his is really the only place v'here sonre kid nukirtg 30,000 doltars ayear. ttNa|ears oul of college, can kick the crap out of en assisront secretary who's been intlrc diplomatic corps for fifry years, and he cast do it quite easily any day he wantsto, at atry briefing he *-{ints to. I think all thc depa*nents have trouble graspingthat. (Mid-let'el Repuhlican Senate aide.)

Moreover, Congressional staff - who are often seeking to find ilre argument orinitiarive that sels their boss apafl from the pack - see the Srare Dspartment as a place*,here the cautious, quiet person thrives and creativrty is discouraged. They s.e

themsslves, in contrast, as havi.g to be quick-footed and assenive, even combative, inrvays that FSOs would never be.

Itwouldbeven stultifying, .from an intelleaual point of view. I don't htow if theForeign Sentice Institate pounds a certain way of thirrking inta people or nat. Bulit is true thzy are taught a certain way ta approach foreign policy and tlwtuncotuentional, outside4he-box think ry is discouraged. To me that would berery frustrating. (Senior Republi.can Senate aide)

The system does not encaurage creatitity .,. ta b€ credtive and to push creativeideas, yau'\,e got ro buck up against a lot of dffirent bureous, an.d be willing to beaggressit,e and a pain in the bun. The systent doesn't encourage that. It,s more if)ou unpress your superiors, you moye up, (Senior Democratic Senate contmitteestaffl

I'm an oulsidc observer (of State) so I may not ltave the best i4fonnation, but Idon't get a sense that people are reall.t necessaily fghting hard and are willingro raise hell aboul policies. lts just nry etpeience up here, unless yrsu,re v,illingto reall), you know, ttork hard and prorest a.nd get in people,s faces, norhing getsdone araand here. (Senlar Republican Hrxrse cammittee sta{f)

Admirstion for the professionalism and nonpartisanship of the Foreign Service

Both Republicans and Democra:s say they generally prcsurne that lSOs areDemocrats at hean - because FSos are by definition intemationalisrs, and the RepublicanParty is often seen as something else. Some have changed that impressron o'er time. butmost cling ro it. Yet staffers of all stnpes are virrually unanimous in assening rhat theydo not see any parrisanship reflecred in the ways that FSos interact professionally withtlre Congress.

I think nine titnes our of rcn - that's probably an exaggera.tion, but I think dmajoity - ho\)e Democratic leanings. I think tlnt is wlry you see a ceflainexcitement level when a Dentocratic Adminisrration laLes oyer. It's just rhenature of the institution. (Senior Republican Senate commitee staJf)

I use.d tct nnke this assunrption that thtl were all liberal demoa.ats and tlrct isjust rtot true. (lr{id-l.evel Democratic House aide)

71rc FSO as invatiably a liberal is a nnth. (Senior Republican Setnte aide)

n seens to me tlwt it's an overwhelmingly Democratic organization, the ForeignSenice. I'm looking at it from n1t consenative R;publican perspeaive. Don'tknow that it is true. Don', knott: that any polling has eyer been done aboLt panyaSliation. And 1 think rhey do their best to be non-parlisan. ... Even though Idisagree with almost al.I of them on poliq' presc,iprians, I have never fek like I

ttas treated poorly or anything because I was a Republican. (Senior RepublicanSen te aide)

I'hey're assiduousfu non-pas.tisan, and to their credit. {senior House Republicancommittee stffi

I do think the philosophy of non-panisanship is ingrctined in the cuhure of theSen'ice. (Serior Democratic Senate committe€ stafl

As people for whom polirical party consjderalions are as all-encompassing as theair they breath, many Congressional staffen are very favorably impressed that smart,caring people can shift gears on major policres, and even sublimate their personal vier.vs,as a change in Adminisrarion often rcquires. They see this nonpadisanship asemblesratic of the professionalism of the Foreign Service and ir contdbures to lheir highregard for the FSOs with whom they personally interact.

1 th * it would be ve ry dfficuh to flip JIop depending on the Adnlinistration andtvlrut their prioities mav be in a tlffirent country. I wauld Jintl it excruciating totoe llrc line, whatever line it ntigkt be, contingent on vshere Washington wasconing from. (Mid-Leve! Republican Senate aide)

A person will not last long in the State Deparnnent if tluy can'r defend a policy _and tlrcn a different pol,icy - over lime, Ot'erall it refiects pretry v,all on rhetn.(Senior Republicart committee stffi

It alway's son of anazd m., beeause this place is so entrenched in partisanslip-I just couldn't imagine working for an Adtninistration I couldn't believe in. l,tr.ranwzed these people can do it - tlut they are so dedicated to their job and theirtnissiott. Thnt's their ad"aptability, ttot one that I lnt,e. (Junlor DemocraticHouse aide)

Those staff who believe that access ro information and responsiveness from srat"varies dependilg on whether fieir party controls the Administrarion (including borhRepublicans and Democrats) are generally persuaded drat all such decisions aboutselectivity in the distribution of information are made by political appoinrees in theDepanment rather than by FSOs.

Ever staunch Republican conservarives, unhappy wlth what they see as lheincomplete narure of some policy shifts in rhe present Adminisrration, do nol atlribule tlediificulties they see in irnplementing new policies to partisan resistance in the careerservice. In fact, they are sympathetlc to:he difficulties thar any person would have wouldhave,:ifler articulating a defending a policy for some years, to have ir abandoned oraltered substanlially. lt is seen as inherenl in managing large organizalions, rather rhannecessarily as Democrats in the bureaucracy opposing policy made at the top.

A new Administration cornes in and makes changes, when you've been working ona srstem or policy for eight years, and all af a sudd.en tomeone comes in and pultsthe rug ol.t and says "we'rc *oI gaing to do that anymofe." Human nature is topush back a little bit. But obviously we all operate in a democratic goyenlment,so changes have to be made. Btu I don'r think the Deparlment can tun an a dimeand to ask them to do so is unrealistic. (Mid-level Republican Senate aide)

The United States does not spend enolgh to support and eq:rip Ameriea's diplomats

With very minor exceplions, Congressional ardes beljeve that the money investedin diplomacy by the U.S. taxpayer is money well spent. h fact, the predominant viewamong these congressional staff is thar the uni ted states should invest substantiailygreater resources than it does in America's diplomatic effort. "Diplomacy is the first lineof defense," says a senior Republican staffer on a regional subcommrttee. A Democrarwr:rrking in the personal office of a Member of the House Appropriations committeeechoes th:is when hs says, "diplomacy is our first lrne of defense and it is extremelyimportanr that we maintain a strong Foreign Service."

I don't think we spend enough money ot1 the State Depdrfinent infrasttucture,those rypes of tlzings. We spend a lot of money on foreign aid, but we don't spendettouglt on making sure that the people we have abroad hare adequate security,have adequare living conditions, such as appropt-iate schools for their kitl: to goto. I think we can rJo more to make being overseas more bearable than we cJo.(Scnior Democratic House conmittee staff)

I would probably sat we should spend more, but the money th.at,s there now iswell spent. (Mid-level Republican House aide)

Many aides, including both Republicans and Democrats. say rhat the UniredStates generally - and the Congress. in particular - simply does not provide adequateresources to the country's diplomas working atrroad, often il difficult circumsrances.

It cenainly isn't that arnount of suppon the1, get front tlrc I).5. got,entnrcnt ( rhatrnakes a career as an FSO t ortltwlile), and quite franVy the Congress, as v:ell.That's not me oiticiiing the State depa,lment; that,s me criticizing drc oteralllack of support. (Mid-level Republican Senate aide)

Vre can't do this stuff on the cheap. . .. Sotnetimes you get rehat \ou par- for, and Ithink we have really under-inyested it1 State since the Reapan years. (setiorDemocratic Senate uide)

I think the folks at lhe Sbte Depaflment are just as dedicated as any otheragency. They are probably just more dovtntrodd.en -.. they are just ander-resourced nost of the time, they have been really badly treated as an egency.(MidJevel Democratic Hluse aide)

(Lfu as an FSO) is dfficult because o.f the paor financial support that Cot gressgi,-es ta tlrc Depat'tment in tenns of facilitics and the toctls a,-ailable fordiplomats. (Senior Detnocrat[c Senate aide)

None of them, however, expect substantiaily greater resources to flow to rheState Department any time soon. Tlus is due mainly to the higher priority Members ofCongress generally a$ach to domesric needs, reflectlng in tum the sentiments of theirconstituents. As one aide who works in the personal office ol a key member of a Houseappropnations subcommittee puls it, "We'!e gol a lot of domestic needs. (State) is not assexy to Members of Congress and their constituents as spending money on olher things.

!':ustratiol and anger that access 1. State 'epartment's infbrmaticn is so dillicult

ln the coltcxt of the widespread admration for FSOs and broad understanding ofthe seysre conskaints placed on U.S. diplomacy by the modest amounl. of resourcesallocated by Congress, it is interesting that the main reasons for Congressi,:naldispleasure are attribu*rble to aclions by FSOs themselves. Congressional staff aregenerally quite frusfated that the intellectual prorvess and policy experrise that soimpresses thent in encounters with individual FSOs is often so difficult to access rvhen itmatters to them. There are a few exceptions, on the part of some mid-level stalf zlroundkey cornmittees in the l:ouse who have found a comfon level in their dealings with theState Depanment, but the overwhelming sendmen! toward the Department is anger andfrustlation. Much of it has to do with the sfong selse lhat !h9 two environments operateat verv diffgrent sDeeds.

Everything on the Hill is done seat of the pants, Tlr.ey wsnt it yesterdey ctnd that'shov, the staffwor"ks around here. Sa if you are dealfug ui.th an agency that is inttny fomr obdurute, if you've got tet calt back twice, it's probably too much. (Mid-Ie|el Republican Senate uide)

l can alvoys gel an answer faster fronz the NSC than I couldfrom State. {SeniarD e ma c ratic S enat e aid,e )

While many staffers are quick to say thoy have encountered FSOs at variouslevels who are forthcoming and effective in their dealings with Congress, most say thatthe Foreign Service is more frequently characterized by an "arrogance" that alienatesmany in the Congress. This is described in both personal and institurional te:ms.

The arrogance is atlributed in part to the very educatio:r and expenise that makesmany FSOs individually so impressjve to behold and is thus seen as inherent it lhe nature

: 0

of the ki::d of people who become FSos - high academic achievers who zre booksh andinrovei.ted, and not "people persons." Some apparenrly project zr cenarn disdain for theless well trarned, and more broadly focused, Hill sraffer"

Foreigtz Sen'ice Officers in general are people that were vent successfulacademically. Tlrcy are people that rcad a lot, are very interested in foreigncultures. So I think you tend to fntl a lot r:f intovened pcople as opporrri- to inDAD or some other agencies. {Mid-Ievel Democrutic Senate aide )

I see a lot of people whose basic hutnan.skilrs in interactittg in a normar va, seento be severely lacklng antl you wonder hetw these people git into the sen'ice,*henthe oral exam is strpposed to be the supreme ftlter in trrc finar selection pntce ss. rdon't Lnow what is wrong N,ith a ststem th,at allov,s peopLe like tlnt ino thesen'ice. (Senior Democratic Senate camminee staff)

Manl' af the Executive branch.see the vast majoriry of Hill staffcrs, in ny opinion,as someulnt unclean, if you will. We are not polict e^pens... We didn't pa,ss aneram gening rhk job. We didn't go through basic training ta get here. Bat, youknox,, we did go through electiont. (MidJevet Repablican Senare aide)

In the 'iew of Congressional staff, this standoffishness is exacerbated by lonqperiods spent living abroad * a circumstance that fosters a rootlessness that le;ris ma"n rFSC)s ro become over)y focused on the intemal world of the Srate Department. As onesenior appropriations commitlee sraffer.a senate Republican, purs iL, 'Their fit is rheorganization itself. The Foreign Service is their world.',

Jn some cases, this rgsults in an unfofiunale ,'careerism', in which, some seniorstaff believe, the goal of advancement in the Foreigr Scn'ice crowds out a broaderappreciation for American interests in the world. while this is not seen as unique:o theState Deparlment, lamiliarily with turf battles throughou: the federal gou",n,n"nt.informs staffers' views when they see it happening at State.

What I have found most disillusioning in my experience in (a Senator,s) fficewere those career bureaucrats for wltr.tn their o,vvn turf teas more importitt thanthe objectives of their" particurar agency. .., r have obsened. ceftain activitie s ontlte pat't of persons vtithin rhe govenlment for whont the objective is ro increasetheir tnf-.. and usually to the detrinxenl of what that agenct, was supposed tr: bedoing... (MidJeve! Republicon Senare cide)

Regardless afwhy they went it1tc, a pafti€ular fetd, they seetn to have as theirpimar2 nzotivation getting themselves advanced in the h.ierarchl,. ,4nd I th * thislwppens frequently in the Foreign Set-vice. ... in some wa)s their q,stetn probabl;,encourages people to be more careeist than otlrcr agencies. I meet a lot aft-orei.gn Service Offi.cers going out to a post, and I can tell they are alreadythinking about what the posirion y,ill be arter that one. (Senior Republicaitontmitree snff)

I I

Rare|y hat'e t heard a Foreign Service Officer speak from an aspirations point ofvieht, about acc()ntplishing sorne thing. Improving a relationship with MaI' ornailing down a trade agreemenr wi t Bulgaia. h's alvays about the nqit position,or that Washington tour, or nailing down the track that is going to get )ou tocountry X or Y itz one ctr wo toufs. (Senior Republican Senate committee staf)

While staffe$ in both parlies note thar FSOs'experience abroad almostnecessarily renders them more underst*ndilg of ihe perspectives of foreigl goverrLmenrsthan most U.S. citizens would be, there is virtually no sltggestion that this affects thepairiotism or lhe commitment of American diplomats.

lt is a source of some concern ro both Democrats and Republiciuns, however, ftatclose proxinrity to foreiga govelnments and peoples malies diplomats rehctant tocmbrace assefiive or confrontational policies, and generally to prefer *te status quo\\'hether or rot thal is a desired or acceptable U.S. policy. This is seen more as a naturalhuman tendency, ralher than a matter of deliberate policy, but it does leave some with theimpression that FSOs do not think strategically about long-term American interests.

Tltey have to be fairly consenative in their dea!.ings u,ith tltose countries, |m notsaying all of them luve clientitis, but thittgs tend to be a little rosier as reponedtlun I think sometimes on the ground they in fact might be. So I think tllere is atendenq], in. reponing, to minimize problems and. minimi.z,e conllicts. ! th.ink if youare living in a cauntry and -tou're dealing conslan y v)itll the goltenlmenlaJJicials, and'you're concented obaut tlw securiry qfyour entployees, there isa|v'ays goirtg to be a tendencl, to see the otlrcr side. ( Sen.ior Repu.blican Uouseconunittee staff1

They do have a different agenda, and a differertr mission - which is cordialrelations with a lot of other courr.ties * and sometimes tltztt contra.tlicts wlzatCongress wants doitlg. (Junior Democratic Hottse aide)

I dan't think they think strategically. I think they rhink in terms of naintaininggood relatitnships with a panicular government come hell or high water, h)hetherit he an ally or even an adversary. There's a big problent right there, therel.uctance to admit thdt there is an adversaial relationship. Becaurc itcomplicaes the diplomatic niceties of the situation cnd it compllcates some of therttutrdante tasks thu they've got to do. Other agencies, gcnerally speaking, areslightly more inclined to rulfle feathers abroad, if they thirtk our national interestrequires thal. (Senior Republican Senate aide)

Tlrcy are not aggressive enough in advocating Ameican interests. One could be. more aggressive without being uncivil (Senior Republican Senate committee

staffl

T2

There is a very strong sense, particularly among more senior Republicans, rhatdiplomats tend to become disconnected from American society, and so may not alwayspursue the coun!4"s interests vigorously enough because they are out of touch with tlie"middle class Amencan values" rhat the congress embodres. This atdtude is descnbed as"elitist," rather fhan "liberal" or Democratic. The Department,s overall approach {ocongress - patronizing and uuesponsive, in the minds of rhese staff * rs broadlv seen roreflect state's failure to appreciare the American interest as aniculaled throueh 'thepeople' : legis lature."

'Ihe state Departnent is often not very good at wtderstatding rhat the {lnitedstates is a democracy and that foreign polic-v- shourd be made in a democraticcontex.r. . I say that as sorneone who works lere on the HiII. h sornetintes make.rtlrcm somewhat elitist, I would soy. {senior Republican cttnuninee stafl)

Some I've found son of ha "-e a shocking lack of respecr "lbr Congress. . .. tlrcre issonletimes a lack of political GPS. (Mid-level Democratic I,louse aide)

They seem to have very littl.e grasp oJ America, ,,lllat Arnrric{1 stands for, whatMiddle America is, wlut the at,erage Anrcican thinks, how he perceit,es theworld. And wlzat they do understand of it, they tnld in general canretnpt. 7hepublic we sene so directly is really a source of mockery at their rever. (seni.orRepultli can S enat e c omnitt ee st alf)

Yet the perceived lorv regard for congress is also seen ro reflect somethins morecalcularing - a detennination by the State Depanmert, bome of orerconficlcnce iriitsown exper-t judgmenrs, that Congless ought not play a cenral role in foreign policyformation that i( does in orher areas, llhis is seen ro lead ro the state Dep;menr iendinsoff cnngressional requests for information and access to deliberarions underwav. and

-puryosefully treating Congress poorly.

, Reflecting r.vhat they believe is their bosses, views, staff are riggmvated that thestate Depanment prefers to notify congress about policies afrer they are decided, ratherthan to incorporate Congressional intsrests and insight into the formation of policv. Adesire for more genuine and fluid consultation is very strongll'expressed across rhe F l.

The tendenc,* is "[,et's decide the poticl', and then u,e'll telt Congress trhat we,rerloing." That qualilies in their mind as consurtarion. Trrcy prefer to vork n ,secrttand tolerate Congress gntdgingly" (Senior Democratic Senate comnittee staff)

\fhy do rltey olwa.ts act like an idea is necessarity a ba.d idea, just because itetnerged ft'otn the Congress? (Junior Democratic House a.ide )

Tt+'o or three tifixes a year, sotneone calls and salts ,'lley l.isten, I.tere,s a head.snp." )lever do they come over and say, "Het, we're consitleing this; u,hat da youthink?" (Senior Republican House conrninee sraJf)

l 3

There is always a general tendency * and I tlzink this is reflected in 'H' - that theylotow vhat the best poliq, is, and. at masr tltey will let us Lnoh, ahout it, ratherthan take Congressional iniriatives into account. (Senior Republican committeestaff)

Jusl because you have the authoity doesn't mean you should necessarily exerci.seit willy-nillr-. Sometimes consuhing shouldn't be something they tlo c,nIy becausethey hat,e to. Seeking out congressional input into foreign p,slicy wouk) behelpful. And you d.or.'t alwa),s have to reach a consensus. Somerines Metnbersjusl want to know that tluir yietes are taken hto account and have someane say"vell, this is v,hy we're doing it, atrd its nat becduse we thitk you're stupid, its justbecause for x, 1,, and z reasons it just cannot be done riglt nov,." I think thatv,oukl go a long *ay. (Senior Democratic House committee staff)

Particular concern about deliberate attempls by State lo obfuscate

About a thrrd of rhose interviewed make a point of saying, unprompted, that theStare Deparrment deliberalely seeks to withhold information, even in response to directquesdons. Whiie tlis rs not seen as unique lo the State Deparmerr, it is all the mo.eFrusbaling 10 ercounter this fuzziness from America's forcmost communicators to theworld. More senior stafi are bothered try this more thai those with shorter tenures on theHIl .

There is just no Jlow of informction belv,een rhe building and us that is tuolefiracted under threat. And even then it is presented in the son of lattryer fashionwhere, if you ask me the precisely right question, I will give you the minimwnprecisely riglt answer- Or it suffers from sfus of omission and commission, orboth, and is fragntentatT or misleading. (Senior Republican Senate cotnntirteestalf)

I think *ith all the Executive branch, it's clear that they're not telling you€Nerything. It's always clear. Doesn't tnatter if it's State, DOD, CIA- they newrtell yau evrything. And, depending on the issue, sometimes they tell youabsolutely nothing. It's just a wrzste of time. (Senior Republican senate aide )

A lot of Foreign Service officers are trained not to be fuIIy responsive. Part of thean of diplontacy is ttot providing clarity ax.d being somewhat obtuse, so they harethat same behavior wirh us as they do with.foreign govenlments... I th tk it is atendency ofthe Executive branch to not always be clear on responses toCangressmen. (Senior Democratic Senate connnittee stffi

h drives me craxy when the Adrninistration witrzesses read their testimony fortwenty minutes. Are tlvy just trying to run out the clock, or is it ru.deness, oroying to kill time ud bore people to sleep and drive them awa1t, or are you reallyhere to discLtss the issue? (Seniar Republican House cantntittee staJf)

1 a

I sit i, meetings and I thitxk,you lotow we're going to askfor this tfunnation, sowlty didn't you just bing the chan? Wzy don't yo; understand tha{ this is apioiry and you just sort of need to do it ?' Whether it's just resistance tocongressional directio,, .or whether it realry is sort of a lack of utzderstanding ofhow the interacrion is going to work and how to get ;rE best oi the htteractioi... Ican't say. (MidJevel Democratic House aide)

I don't htow if they are trained on the parameters of what they can tell us orwhat. so whether or not it seerns like th.ey are stonewallbtg oi ttot giving you afull picture or aII the infomwion, it is fia*rating at times. I guesi 'sl-curtureof they tD' not to revear ntore trzen they hatte to. (Junior Repltbrican House aide)

the Congressional point of view, this tendency to keep Congress at arm,slength is seen as not only a hindrance in their own work, but miseuided andcounterproductive for the state Department. Republican and Deiocratic staffersworking on appropriations subcornmittees in each chamber say that this adversely affectsappropriations for the Deparfinent.

I think they pay a pice, but they don,t pay a price inmtecliately. (Senior HouseDemocratic appt"opriations comntittee staff)

St-ate's basic contempt for us ... legacy is many years of bone yard bud.gets.(Senior Senate Republican appropiations comntittee staff)

Tlte -eas,iest way to get your futlding cut is to tick off otLe of tl.te key staffers. And itstinks, but that's just tlrc way it is. (Junior Dentoiiaric House aide) --

The Pentagon is the gold standard in congressionar rerations, wh e ,H' is widelyseen as State's weakest tink

. The State Department is much less user friendly, from a Congressionalstandpoint, than other Federal agencies. usrR, the Nsc ard the Justice Deparrment areall mentioned as agencies with which it is easy and productive to interact. TheDepartment of Defense, in particurar, is clearly viewed by con-eressionar staffers -including liberal Democrats and others who are concemed about what they see as thePentagon's curent "domination" of American foreign policy making - as iraving a muchmore effective approach to congressiona.l relations. DbD is seen to be more reiponsive,to do more outreach and to be easier to interact with informally.

while some staff note that the pentagon and the military services have a greatdeal more resources (ald personnel) to assign to their outreach to congless thanioes thestate -Depa'trnent, they also feel rhat DoD praces a much higher prioriiy on its rerationswith congress thal does state. Many staffers berieve this eiprains why trre pentagonfares so well in the appropriations process.

USTR has the best quality and confi.dent people, at least in responding to thequeies that I h^ave posed to them. I always seem to get answers, straight answersand quick answers fiom USTR, I don't latow why that is. Maybe stnall is better.(Senior Democratic Senate comminee stffi

When you tt)j to get help at Congressional affairs at DOD or the various serviceoffices lrcre on the Hill, you get all cottrtesy. T'lure is no evident resistance.(Senior Republican committee staff)

The military has realized a lixle bit better where their bread is buftered. Theywork with us; tlrc! talk to us. State Depanrnent is really an entity unto itself. It' s adffirent culture and they live in that world, (Mid-Ievel Denrocratic House aide)

The people I wor"k with over (at DOD) move tlrc ball faster, I believe, tlwn. theState Department people. (Mid-level Democratic House aide)

(DOD) makzs Mentbers of Corzgress very, very happl, arzd I thittk tley are able totuttt it vety easily into their budget requests. (Senior Republican conndttee stffi

State's legislative liaison bureau, "H", is sometimes seen as a good way to accessthe Department, especially by staffers who feel they have a personal rapport withsomeone there, but more frequently as an obstaclo to effective communication. Manypeople believe H's inclination to shackle those officers who do come to the Hill forbriefings, especially ofi-the-record informational discussions that could infom policydeliberations is counter-productive and demeaning ro FSOs and Hill staff alike. Malystalfers try to avoid 'H' whenever they can.

(State) doesn't explafu itselfvery well, and it doesn't spend a lot of tina talking totlte HiIl. In fact, in my experience, we Inve a devil of a time just gettitxg StateDepamnent folks to come up and talk of tlxe record. And then when we do getthenl, we lnve this legi,slative shop person in the middle, makitzg sure thcst don'tsay anything out of the box. (Mid-Ievel Senate aide)

TIrc legislative affairs ffice at State is its own worst enemy, Everybody I lozou,tries to deliberately do an end ran around them. "H" I guess its called. (Mid-Ievel Democratic House aide)

I've always thought that "H" was one of tlrc State Deparfinetlt's wed.kest points.I xuear if tlrcy could they would conte up to tlte H\II with their foreign servicefficers with ankle shock and a remote control to make tlrcrn shut up and saywhat theywant. They don't get it. b's offensive to Congressional staff. Imean,

. . wlty u'ouldn't you just let them talk to us? I have not seen this happen its muchwith DOD, ftanldy, isn't that interesting? If they let them out of the building witlttlrcir Power Poirtts, they let thent dn it. They let them talk (Mid-level Houseaide)

l o

One key difference that receives a lot of commentary is who makes the calls.While State appears !o wait for calls from Congressional offices, other agencies areengaged in pro-acdve outreach on a reguiar basis.

(State) does not think to nwke the phone calls when it is easy, but ratlrcr callscome when they htow there is a problem. (Senior Republican Sen(1te committeestafr)

Here's an example. Every other week, I think, the Air Force daes a brief.ng forstaff. On Thursdays, they have piua and cokes and they just teII about rtze iointStrike Fighter, or the transformatiotr of the Air Force, or whatever. Infomzationbriefings - "tltis is what we think tlrc threat environment looks like, btah, btah,blah." (Mid-Ievel Republican Senate aide)

Occasionally - weII not just occasiotrally; duing the appropriation season ithappens all tlte tinle - you see representatives fi.otn the Maine Cotps cotne upand talk to as about LEAD 22, or whateyer. We'lI have representatives fTomother agencies come up and talk to us about their programs. Not lobbyittg, causethey can't do that. Butwe never hear frorn State. They never caIIfor.appoinntxents. Its just not something State does. I would never, et er hear fi.onttlrcnt if I didn't call tlrcm. Llnless of course sontebohl is coning ro rcs fy in frotztof Congress, and then they call to see wlnt your bass is goirtg to ask tlr;m. Eutthat is about it. (Mid-level Democratic House aide)

There also is a general sense, particularly among the more senior staff that,whereas DOD assigns its best and brightest to Congressional liaison, the StateDepartrnent does not. ?his is thought to reflect state'Is low regard for congress (and rhusby extension, the American public).

(DOD) put some of its best and brightest in there because they htew howimportant it was, and the State Depaftment hasn't done that, They have really toppeople, I guess they are aII like captains and majors that are just there to serne

-

HiIl staffers and Members and do arzything they utant and, they have these greatrelations and tltey are very effective. The state Depantnent should do the samething it's clear. Instead they have H dowt there in the Depatlrnent justmonitoing things and kind of being an obstacle. (Mid-tevel Democratic setxateaide)

Vhen I was in the Foreign Service, 'H' was like the idiot itx the basentent. A deadend. It was not a career enhancing move to go there, In fact, it is wlrcresubstandard people go to die bureaucratically. It is part of the receit ed. wisdonzof the Foreign sdiiice that you hold H in contempt, (senior Republican serzatecotntninee staff)

T7

The recent openilg of the State Deparmtent's ]iaison office in the RaybumBuilding is seen as a belated, necessary, welcomed and inadequate step in the rightdirection. A handful of junior and mid-level House staff are delighted by the service theyhave received from the Rayburn liaison office, although more senior (and Senate) staffsay the office seems to be keeping a low profile.

It's gotten. much, much better because the State Department f.nally established anoffice here in Raybunt. Heaven Jorbid" if yotr had a question at 2:30 in theafiernoon, on a Fiday, Ihere was no chance that you were going to get that caIIretunrcd. None. I mean lhere just wasn't. But the people downstairs wiII find thatIast person over at State and will get you the answer. And it's really helpedhnmensely. (Mid-Ievel House aide)

It could be a very good thing if the ffices were actively daing somethitrg. Ihaven't seen, anything emanate fronz those ffices that is any different than what Ihad to caII State for previously. (Mid-Ievel Republican Senate aide)

A small but usefuI thing for tlrcnt to do (Senior Democratic Senate committeestaffi

Opinion is divided regarding the quality of the State Department's formalpresentations to Congress

While most staffers believe that DOD has the snazziest briefing materials andeffective presenters, many also find that miLitary style briefings are overly rehearsed andlack the back-and-forth that is for many staff the most impodant portion of anyinformation exchange. The distinctly mixed reviews about State's presentations maywell be due to vadations in the quality of briefings from different offices or bureaus.

I don't think anybody beats the Depat'tment of Defense irz tlrcir presentation.They love those Power Poirfi presentations andl think tlzey do avery goodjob.But tlrcy are just the exception. I think State does vety good, compared to theother agencies. (Junior Democratic House aide)

When I first started working for (a Senate Leader) ... I asked for biefings on someof the key issues that vlere going on at the time. The biefirtgt at State were yeryurLeven; sonLe were excellent, but some ofthenzwere atrocious. At DOD, theywere all excellent. (Senior Senate aide)

I'mnot particularly happy abottt this, but I think State does bener mn DOD.(S

.enior Republican Senate aide)

State people tend to keep their bief'ng presentatiotts short, and. do questiorts andanswers, and they are there to find out what you want dnd to ansu,er if they can,Whereas the DOD people are conzing to give you their presentation andyou are

1 8

the audience, and I don,t think that is t,ery effective, so I give DOD pretry loy,marks. (Mid-Ievel Dernocratic Senate aide)

State's style is less fornnl. lYitlt. the nilitary, you alwoys get slides and a kind. ofcanned biefing, whiclt sometimes can be good. .,. State's briefing style is muchmore infotmal ln cer'tain circtmrstanceE, that styte is better and tlrcre is moregive-and-take. ( Senior Republican Senate aide )

The principal complaints about State Deparunent briefings are that are tooacademic and they tend to run on. consistent wi*r the observation noted earlier thatFSos are well educated and book smart, tle negative sides of these attributes are thatthey can come across as pedantic. They also do not always bring to the fast-pacedCongressional decision-making environment that bottom line aaalysis that busy staff areIooking for.

They forget that tlte word 'briefng, contains the word ,brief., They ei1fust. .rrrrr.we lorcw nothing and go into excruciating detail or.t basic things we do know, orthey're not very good at distilling something to its essence. They hat'e a this vastinfotmation and when th,ey are let out of the buildhry, ttrcy'rc just dying to tellyoueverytling they hxow. No one's taught them the an of refinin.g and highlightittgtheir high points. (Setior Dentocratic Senate conunittee staff)

Like if you have a NATO bief.ng, there will be a State person and a Defenseperson and usually the entire event is overslwdowed by the DOD person. Theunifomts do great things for DOD and aII. tlrcse people running ar.ourtd u,ith ntapsort tipods. And next to tltent tlze State Depar.tment people look almost likebumblittg professors - they use the big words, they are not populist; they don'ttalk "American". (Mid-Ievel Detnocratic House aide)

(State's biggest short-coming) is not being able to get ow a cotlase messagesomet nes. (Junior Dem,ocratic House aide)

A couple of very senior Congressional aides with long experience inappropriations matters, through several administrations, think the Slate Departmenrstands out from other agencies in the lack of clarity in its budget preseDtati;ns

DOD is far and awa! the bestfederal agency at presenting a budget, and thatgoes back to the McNamara days of the fve-year budgets ... extremel)t welldocutnented, efrrenely colxerent. (Senior Republican Senate conutittee staffi

hl the past sometimes (State) has not necessartly articulated thei.r budgetaryneeds itl tlv best way. Sometimes it,s not clear wh.ere foreigt policy and moneysepat'ates. (SmioV Democratic House aide)

1 9

Secretary Powell widely seen as a boon for Foreign Service morale, and to haveenhanced highJevel rapport vith Congress, Yet the Department as an iastitutionhas not yef changed its image with Congress.

The current management team at the State Department - and Secretary of SlatsColin Powell, in padicular - is widely understood to have raised morale within theForeign Service.

They love Colin Powell. He is a rock star - couldn't be ntore of a leader and amensclte that people will go to. (Mid-Iewl House aide)

I ger the feelhg that tltere is, with the Secretary of State, a much greaterurLderstanding of personnel issues and the need to try to kcep tlte personnel happythronghout tlte system. (Senior Republican committee stffi

I have talked to a nwtzber of Foreign Senice Officers overseas, and thel've givennze the impression that over the last 18 months, under Colin Powell, it isorganized much more fficiently than it was under Albright. And the morale ismuch higher than it was. They seem to feel like they have someone who backsthent 100 percent in their jobs. At least tlxe overseas staff is much ntore nlotivatedtlxan they were und,er the Clinton Administration. (Junior Democratic Houseaide)

I hear only great thitxps about PoweII. Evetlbo@ Ioyes Powell in tlrc StateDepartnlent. (Senior Democratic Senate aide)

Only about a thhd of those intewiewed have heard that Secretary Powell hadinstructed the department to be more fofihcoming and accessible in its dealings withCongress. Most of this minority, moreover, have seen concrete evidence that this hashappened. A larger number of staff, however, have not seen any noticeable difference inthe State Department's engagement with Congress,

Colin Powell is really commined tu settin g a new tone. He's kind of fized uppeople to come talk here, in a way that ls less controlled and basical$ Iet'sdiplomats be diplornats. I've seen it. (Senior Republican Senate committee staffi

The Clirtton Administrarton didn't like to come up here very much and the BushAdtninistration doesn't like to come up here that much. Interestingly enough, ithasn't changed all that much. (MidJevel House aide)

Relativ€ to legislatit e people in other departments - recently I dealt with peopleat the Treasr,ry Department -- I think the State Depat"fi1xent, relatively speaking,,is still more resisto.nt to dealing with.Congress than some of the otherdeparments are. (Senior Republican comnlittee stafr)

20

Frankly, I have been working here through Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush II,and State has not changed during any ofthosefour, (Senior Republican Senatecommittee staff)

Tlwre hasn't been that nuch of a dffiretzce betweetx the clinton Administrationand the Bush Administration. They still caII ne aII the time, when hearinps areapproaching. Nothing has really changed, at least from their end. (JuniorDemocratic House aide)

This includes several Democrats who work with authorizing comrnittees, who saythe department, and especially the legislative liaison offices, have been much moreresponsive and pro-active than their predecessors in the previous Ad:ninistration. whilethis was offered wirh a hint of regret, that it was said at ail by self-described "partisanDemocrats" is significant.

It's more responsive in temts of providing biefings and getting information roCongress; tlwt pan of their function has clearly been accentuated, lseniorDemocratic Senate comnxittee staffi

ln th,e last year, they ltave done congressional affairs panicularly weIL I thinktheir liaisorts, their relationt with Congress, have bein the highist levels theyhave had. They've been tery responsive. They've rnd trrc subcommittee over tonxeet with secretaty Powell They had staff over to have lunch with Mr. Arruitape,Tlrcy'll tell you they have changed their approach and they realty have. (Mid_lettel Dentocratic House aide)

I know that Secretary Powell has etzcouraged people to be nlore responsive to theHill and I think I have seen some inrprovement on it. ... They have-been moreresporzsive and that's avery good tretzdfor the State Departnent. (ntid-IettelD eno c ratic S enat e aide )

Tbese and other staffers distinguish between policy differences on issues of theday, open dialogue regardless of whether common ground is found, and responsivenessfrom tlre bureaucracy to what they see as routine requests for information and analvsis. Itappears that secretary Powell and the deputy secretary of state, in particular, ur" -br"personaily engaged wirh some key senators and Representatives than their immediatepredecessors. The rest of the Depafiment (and 'H', in particular) has made some positiveimpressions in Congress, but not yet in many quarters.

I think the lines of communication at the senior let el at e much befter than theywere in the last Administrution. Armitage and Grossman have been on the plioneto the senator quite freque4tly - once or twice aweek, Half the time, v,e ( siafr)don't even lotottithat it occurs. Responsive to requists forinfonnarton, yes.

-- '

Responsive to Congressional iews on policy, no, not any nlore responsit,e.(Senior Democratic Senate comminee staffi

2 I

I've heard getzetally positive things about the State Depatinent, and the folkstltey have particularly in the legislative afrairs branch. (Senior DemocraticSenate aide)

I am impressed by the higher level political appointees in this Adminictration atthe State Depamnent, I Jind the Deput! Secretary to be amazingly responsive.(Mid-level Democratic House aide)

You Imoy,t, I Inye not lrcard ary grurnbling from the De,nocrats aboutCongressional affairs with this Adntinistrarton. (Senior Republican Senate aide)

Others however, inciuding senior Republicans around the Senate ForeignRelations Committee, say they are less plugged in now than they were during theprevious Administration. While some are clearly unhappy, others are more sanguine -attributing this to their cunent staaus as the minority in the Senate.

Honestly, with the State Depannent, I had a bexer relationship with the people in.the leg affairs shop of the Clinton Ad.ministration. I've got really no relaionshipwith the Bush legislative affairs people. ... But I have to say tlxat Adnlinistration-wide, a lot of people lrcre on the H|II have contplained about the legislative affairsoperatians of the Bush Administration - not just in State. This Administratiottseems to be, and I think a lot of people agree, they're taking Republicans forgranted. (Senior Republican Senate aide)

Pat of me every nou, and again has to just remember that we are in tlze Minoitynow, cause tltere are calls that I would have gotten when we were in the Majoitlthat don't come to Le any nlore. So it'snot really a par$ questiotT, butit'swho'srzwing the place. (Senior Republican Senate comrnittee stat)

In other cases, Republicans who perceived that the State Department is moreaccessible than in the past attribute this mainly to the change in Administration.Similarly, a few Democrats who feel they get less information and access also attributethat to the partisan change in Administration last year.

Even for those who do see a change of tone and approach, however, there is al airof impermanence because the new posture is seen !o be the result mainly of ColinPowell's personal style (and his military background). So, even where they areperceived, improvements are not necessarily seen to reflect a new attitude on the part ofthe Foreign Service or the Department.

Tlzere is probably no place in the U.S. govemment whet'e people lecLrTl hov' todeal with Congress and get tlteir way in doing so, than in our military, And I'-.think thar is reJlected ht the wa! that. Powell as Secretary of State does it. I thinkhe leamed a lot while he was in his urtifomt (Senior Republican cotnrnittee staff)

22

I have heard that the Secretary of State made a tretnendous d,ffirence in sort ofthe nood he has set over there. It's different, but it,s more personality driven tianpolicies. (Senior Democratic House contxittee stafi)

.J

Suggestions for improving State's rapport with the Congress

Suggestions on how the Department of State can enhance its reputation amongCongressional staff revolve mainly around the manner in which substantive andanalytical information about world events is provided to Congress. The most frequenflyrecudng requests or suggestions are that the Department should be more pro-active, byproviding information before it is requested (rather than only "at the point of a gun") andaaaiysis about the likely implications of events for U.S. interesrs. At presenr theoverwhelming sense among Congessional staff is that the State Depaftment - in contrastto otlwr agencies - simply does not provide interesling news, analysis or informationabout policies in development unless specifically asked.

L One former FSO says that the State Department should be more confident thatit will fare well if it engages more actively with Congress in policy formulation. "If theywere willing to be more open, more forthcoming, engage in more give-and+ake, the factthat thoy have superior expertise, I think, wouid make it easy for them ro - well,manipulate is not a good word - but to reinforce their views in a positive way withstaffers."

Talk to us. Come see us. (Mid-Ievel Republican House comtnittee staffi

I would open tle tault. There is an enonnous streant of information coming fi.omabroad to Foggy Boftom. I don't want to htow what lnppened, so mttch as f wantto know ltow what happened is going to affect wlnt is going to Inppen. None ofthat infonnatiotl is ever made available to us. None! I would wite and share stuffwith. Congress about kel events as it happens. And have otlrcr sfirJf on caII andstaft making it available. Righ.t ttow, of sonteone v)as to tt! to circulate theirwork to us - their best paper on Zambia, or whatelter - it u'otrld probably hurtthent. They'd be a rogue elenrcnt. (Senior Republican Senate contntinee stafi)

You can never have enough contact u,ith Congressional ffices. I do think theycould be a linle more pro-active in getting their opinions out about legisl.ati.on. Imean, they are good if you call them. But rarely do I ever get sometlting withoutcalling. At least with staff of members on the HIRC, I think they could be a IiftIentore pro-active. (Junior Democratic House aide)

2. Upgrade the place of 'TI' in the State Department culture by detai)ing to liaisewith Congrcss (perhaps by directed assignment) the very best FSOs, with interesting -even glamorous - experience abroad, as DOD has done most famously by assigningCaptain John McCain to Congressional liaison duty.

Staff it with good mid-Ievel people, Iike Navy did years ago by puxing JohnMcCain in tlrcre and people like that. (Senior Dernocratic Sernre aide)

One thing I would do is make every senior diplomat, as part of the requirementsfor deciding iJ thest should go up to the next level of the Ser-vi.ce, pass through H.

And the titne spent hayint to deal with Congress, and. son of und.erstand. theimpoftance of that relationship to )rour career, I think that would. go a long way toseeing it as a positive. wich is kind of the way it works over on lne milinry side.(Settior Republican Senate committee staff)

3. Utilize the Pearson Fellowship program better to gain insight for thePeLarqent or the forkways of capitor Hirl, and to expand frendly contacts, such as byLinking the fellowships to stints in "H" or other key posts in washington. Th" wo for.".Foreign service officers who now work on the Hill-both believe thJDeparrment failed toutilize well enough their growing familiarity wirh the informal folrorays of congresswhen they were Pearson fellows. They believe the State deparnnent shourd obligePearson fellows to interact more frequently about developments on the Hill with H andother key offices in the Department.

. !. Bring "the Congressional perspective,' more visibly into policy_formation,perhaps by inviting congressional aides into working groups or roundtable discussions ofpending issues or crisss. A senior Republican staffer in the House finds it odd that statedoes not call upon its allies in congress to bolster its views on inter-agency policy banlesin the Administration - nor even to find alies on rhe H r when other Membirs oiCongress are taking State on.

InrnyyearsuphereI 'vetarely, i fever,seenthemsol ic i thelpfortheircauses.. . .If I'm an Assistant secretary and I'nt ht a dispute witrt the NSC or with DoD ottera pafticular issue, and I hrcw I've got a cah,e of supporters on the Hill, whondght be able to weigh in and help, I'd utilize that. ... But I don,t sense tllat tley,iew tlre Hill necessarily as a political ally. And agahz, that kind offits into ntymhtdset or my perceptiotl that tlrcy,djust assunte we go away. (SiniorRepublican House committee staff1

5. Use CODELS better, perhaps by underscoring forjunior FSOs the many waysin which congressional friends can be helpful to The ciuse. while many aides remark'onthe excellent work they have seen go into embassy preparations for congressionaldelegations abroad, several staff comment on the unevenness of this expkence. oneRepublican Senate aide noted, for instance, that embassy staff in Moscow on a recentCODEL were "barely conversational.',

Another very senior Repubiican staff director says: "It might seem like a painhaving a Congressional delegation visit, ald they only tind to visit when there,s aholiday - because that is when we have a recess. I just think they can look at this as anopportunity, because cefiainly good relationships and good experiences from those tripscan translate to real policies back here in congess. end this gotcha stuff in th"lewspapers about coDELs, I think it tends to undernine the state Department's largerasenoa. '

_ . 6: Welcome Congressional staff into the Deparhrent building and into theForeign service Instituter as part of a longer term cultivation of relati-onships with iunior

25

staff who may well become ssnior staff very soon. Orientation briefings forjuniorCongressional staff (and others) would help de-rnystify the State Departnoent and thefunctions of its many bureaus and offices, both on the Hili al}d at Main State.

At some poitlt tlose folks will be in positions of leadership, regardless of whichparty remains in power. So eventually some of the people they are ignoing ightnow are goir.g ta be in power ... and (if treared badly) they are most likely goingto take some soft of pttnitive action against the State Department. (SeniorDemocratic Hotrse committee staffi

There's a House of Represerztatives phone directory and in the back there are allthe main nurnbers for the legislative liaisott ffices at aII the agencies. The one fortlv State Deparrnent is an answering tnachine and the wotnan wha is answeringit will get back to you eventually. You lmow it doesn't build the grealestrelationships or impressiotts u,hen you get sontebody's voicentail and they'Ll callyou back in afew days. (Junior Democratic House aide)

7. Draw a larger pool of Congressional staff into the 'TVashington trade craft"couses at FSI, both to help de-mysrify Congress for FSOs - and also to giveCongressional staff more ownership of, and responsibility for, how State interacts withCapitol Hill.

AII these Foreign Service Officers have to take classes, language classes,cornputer classes, and securiry, cowxter-irxtelligence and aII that. Tluy should betaking one on Congress, too, Sometimes, you are talking to an FSO and you soy'this isstte wiII probably be accepted by unanintous consent' or 'that will be takencare of in conference' and they look at you and say "Wat do you meanT Wat'sa conference? " Now that's a linle scary, (Mid-level Republican Senate aide)

Teacll people in the State Deparnrcnt how the HiII works. I know that some ofthis goes on in the Washington Trade Crafi courses. But it's itnportant for peopleto latow more than the institutions, To understand that the HiII is a nuch moreopen place than anybody realized and. you can have a lot of interaction andaccess, and make things move more nnoothly, without the same kind ofbureaucratic inzpediments you lnve in tlte State Depan tment. And people don'trealize or appreciate that. ( Senior Dentocratic Senate aide)

8. The last word, reflecting a serltiment that is expressed in various quartefsaround Capitol Hill about the State Deparrment:

To put it in a nutshell, it would not be to have such an instinctual reactiotz to anidea tlmt, because it comes front Congress, it must be bad. (Junior DemocraticHouse aide )

26

Appendix A: Profile of Responilents

As a goup, the 25 men and women interviewed for this research reflects thepolitical inclination, levels of exporience and the rar:ge of responsibilities of those whoadvise senators and Representatives on internationai affairs iisues. Respondents areevenJy divided betwesn the two chambers and two parties, as weli as beiween committeeand personai staff, and authorizing versus appropriitions focus. They have a wide rangeof foreign affairs interests and expertise - including treaties and armi control, tradematters, nominations, narcotics interdiction, military assistance and developmentprograms, consular affairs, personnel and embassy security concams. Geographicconcentations inciude Latin Arnerica, sub-saharan Africa, westem Europl the nalkans,tbe former Soviet Union, the Mddle East, Cenrral Asia and East Asia.

All are engaged on a regurar basis with the state Deparhrent (although three haverecently been promoted to be chief of staff or legislative dirlctor, so state is now one ofmany agencies to deal with). For a few, the state Depariment is their sole Executivebranch interaction. For most, however (particulariy those in personal offices), State isone of several agencies with which they interact regularly, wiich provides a reasonablebasis for comparalive statements.

virmally all have traveled abroad as parts of congressional or staff delegations,although only six have any other professional experience-abroad. For about twi thirds(sixteen of the twenty-five), capitor H 1 is their prhcipal - or only - professionalexperience, including several in very senior commifteJpositions. Seventeen of thetwenty-five have held professional positions with more than one member or conmittee,with one l7-year veteral having worked for five different elected officials.

Five of those interviewed have worked in the Executive branch. This includes twoformer FSos, whose executive braach experience is by far the most substantiar of any ofthose interviewed. (one was an FSo for fourteen yea$; the other for eight.) one oiherrespondent worked at a senior level at state for two years, while another held a seniormanagement position in the office of Management and Budget for six. At least anotherfour have interned at U.S. embassies or the State Deparrmeni in Washington.

Those intewiewed are evenly divided between Republicans (eleven) andDemocrats (eleven), with three who identify themserves ai independents. (Two of thesethree work for Republicans and one for a Democrat.) Thirteen work in House offices,eleven in the Senate and one for the bicameral Commi5sl6n on Security and Cooperationin Europe. seventesn work in personar offices (arthough more than half of these-arededicated principally to the work of a committee or subcommittee).

Ages range from 26 to 46 yeNs old and tenures on Capitol Hill from two tonineteen years. Nineteen have graduate degrees, including foui law degrees and onePhD' Nine are women and two are minorities, At least tfee have as part of their dutiesth_e organization of briefings or study group activities for a broad rangi of staff in otheroffices (such as an affinitv caucus).

27

Appendix B: Metho ilology

Twenty-five one-on-one interviews were conducted on Capitol Hill during fourweeks in JuIy and August 2002. Recruitment was done principally by telephone andabout two-thirds of those approached agreed to be interviewed.

The author conductod each interview personally, il the office in which theCongressional aide works. Inlerviews ranged from 30 to 90 minutes, with mostinterviews lasting about 45 minutes. All but one of the interviews were tape recorded,with the permission of the respondents, Transcripts were later prepared from the tapesand these served as the basis for the analysis that led to this report.

Virtually all respondents insisted on anonymity, and that has been respected rn thepreparalion of this rcport and discussions surrounding it. Two reasons were often cited intbe requests for confrdentiality. First, most were concemed tha! working relationshipswith the Executive bralch not be damaged by their frankness in these interviews.Second, consistent with the credo the best Congressional staffers abide by, they did notwant to be quoted on anything - period. It is their boss's views that matter and theygenerally did not know whether he or she would want them to be quoted on these issues.

Each interview followed the outline ofissues that are containsd it the Guidelines,attached as Appendix A. The order of the questions and the precise nature of the wordingvaried, depending on the flow of the conversation, the particulars of each respondent'ssituation, and responses to prior questions. As the Guidelines indicate, questions werealmost always posed in a very open-ended way, in an effort not to "lead" the respondentstoward particular answers.

At the conclusion of the interview, many of the participants were curious aboutwhether their views were consistent with other Congressional staff, and most said theywould Iike to be apprized of the final results of the study. Several also suggested asimilar survey be conducted exploring how Congress and Con$essional staff are viewedby Foreign Service Officers.

28

Appendix C: About the Author

Thomas O. Metia is Adjunct professor at the School of Foreign Service andAssociate at the Institute for the study of Diplomacy at Georgetown university. Inaddition to several research and writing projicts, hiteaches severar crasses about theproceeses of democratization around the world.

During the year 2001-2002, Mr. Melia was a Senior Assocrate at the intemadonalpolling firm Greenberg euinlan Rosner Research, Inc. where he managed opinionresearch projects for corporate, political and non_profit clients.

For more than a dozen years, Meria was a senior officiai at the NationalDemocratic Institute for Intemational Affairs (NDI), a leading non_govemmentalorganization engaged in the promotion of democracy rvorldwlde. Fr-orri r99g to 2001, hewas the Institute's Vice President for programs. Earrier, he managed the Institute,sprograms in centrar and Easrern-Europe (1ggg to 1gg3) and in t},i Midale East (1gg3 ro1998) and launched the Institute's efforts ro strengthen newry democratic regisratures.

Before going to work at NDI, Mr. Melia was Associate Director of the Free TradeUnion Institute of the AFLCIO (1996 ro 19gg). prior ro rhat, he spent six years asLegrslative_Assistant for foreign and defense poricy to u.S. denator Daniel patrickMoynihan (D-l'{Y).

Mr' Melia has been an adjunct professor at Georgetown university since 1999and has also lectured at other major coleges and univers-ities. He is a graduate of rheJ,ohns Hopkins University's school of Advanced Intemationar studies (sAIs) inWashington, DC, and of The Johns Hopkins University in Baitimore, Ir4D. H" huspublished several dozen articles on American history and international politics and hasbeen interviewed on cNN htenntional and other television and radio programs. He wasconsulting Editor of the worrd Encyclopedia of parliamenis and Legiiraires,purixrr"ain 1998 by Congressional euarterly, Inc.

29