stadium was put up. a soccer stadium that now attracts large number of people to come and to watch games and to use it for open space. the leveraging of funds for that stadium alone was 200,000 -- $200 million toward development of that private money. so the leveraging of funds against the brownfield's money is ten-fold. for every dollar spent we end up receiving more money for the development of the area. in the area right now we have housing going up. jobs have been created at the hotel. 45 full time positions. that site laid fallow over 30 years so once where you had a fenced site on a water front, you now have a hotel that is thriving and welcoming and has

contributed tax revenue and major jobs in an area so lacking in jobs at the moment. we also had the opportunity to work with the town of carney to put up a senior affordable senior housing. in the town unfortunately there was no opportunity for affordable senior housing. now seniors do not have to leave the town that they love in order to live the rest of their lives, they now have a place where they can go and call their own that is a beautiful situation. it has a view of new york city. when you was there at night it's not uncommon to see many of the residents sitting down on what we term in hudson county, a stoop. and having the camaraderie of friendship and knowing that they are safe in a good entirnment. we were lucky enough to win the first environmental excellence award, senator, and we want it for open and effective government, we won it because we

are inclusive of the communities around us, we are very sensitive to the fact that the people in the towns want to know what's going on. we host many open public meetings and that had been one of the suggestions, working with the epa, they have lock step with us. been there every moment. encouraging, educating and helping. it's been a wonderful collaboration. the epa has done more to help us find economic ground to stand on and i say that in the best possible light because without those funds, all of the mayors would be glad to say there but for the funding from the epa, many tfr projects would never have been done. i thank you for your time. >> thanks very much. i hayes tune point out the fact in our densely populated state one of the most densely

populated counties is hudson county. but it had a wonderful history and it's the beginning of economic development of new jersey and that share the east coast, the harbors, the transportation, et cetera, is just created a place where lots of people want to live and work and so forth. the problems became one of lots of abandoned sites as a result of companies having been there so long and finding better or newer places to go. it's good to hear your report, miss spinelli. we welcome you, mr. scleff, from the beautiful state of idaho. it's hard to imagine idaho with its expansive mountains and forests, the natural beauty, that there are brownfield sites that need attention.

give us your testimony. >> ranking member inhofe and senator, thank you for your invitati invitation. i manage the hide who response program and i appreciate the opportunity to present a rural state's perspective on implementing the program in small communities. since late 2003 our program conducted assessments and cleanups over 100 properties and dozens of rural communities making thousands of acre ready for redevelopment leading to community revitalization and job creation. we helped rule communities turn land fills and abandoned mines into parks and trails, a wood mill into a water park, historic grain silo in an arts theater, a laundry into an events center and a methamphetamine lab in a former church into a children's arts academy among many others. these led to job creation, community development and

protection of human health and the environment. there are two main sources of epa brownfield funding available. those are the epa competitive grants and the epa funded state assistance grant which funds our program. there are also two worlds in brownfield's program. there's the rural communities and the metropolitan areas. in our experience, state assistance grants are greater benefit and accessibility to rural communities seeking to assess and clean up brownfield sites. there are 39 metropolitan areas in the united states with populations greater than the state of idaho. these areas with their staff grant writers, grant managers and experts are competing for grants against rural communities without the same level of staffing or experience. absent the state's help in applying for and implementing these grants small communities either don't apply or become overburdened trying to manage them. for rural states expertise needed to implement the

brownfield program does reside at the state level. state programs are effectively losing federal funding as more participants apply for the same source of funding. statistics show that rural states and communities are left out of the competitive grant award process when you consider of all competitive grants awarded each year, approximately 50% of those awards are made in epa regions 1 and 5 alone. predominantly in metropolitan areas. epa region 10 on average receives 4% of the competitive epa grant awards despite comprising over 25% of the land mass. rural communities need brownfield funds. they just can't compete for them under the current system. instead they turn to our state program for assistance. our program is able to assess properties in basically one third the time and one third the cost when compared to an epa

competitive grant. we can remove environmental barriers to redevelopment with a total expenditure of generally under $50,000 depending on the site. these costs would largely be unattainable to most rural communities due to limited resources and most of the sights would not be able to successfully compete in the grant competition. it generally takes two to four years to complete an epa competitive grant project from application until final report. and at least 300 hours of staff time to manage. our state brownfield program completes assessment projects in under six months from the time we receive an application and deliver a final report with no burden on our local communities. if you can imagine shepherding the exact same project through the epa competitive grant process, and idaho's brownfield program simultaneously, the result would be that our state-led project would reach

completion before the competitive grant proposal was even selected for funding. if it were an epa grant. while the current allocation of federal funding for state programs remains static, the addition of new states and tribes receiving epa assistance is increasing. the result is that our annual state assistance funding is being effectively reduced. this reduction is native limb pacting the amount of direct assessments and cleanups we perform for rural communities not able to compete for funds on the national level. there is a solution to this dilemma without the need to appropriate additional funding at the federal level. funds can be moved from the epa competitive grant program into the epa funded state assistance grants without a change in the brownsfield law or increase in total appropriation. utilize some funds from the competitive grants to stabilize state assistance programs will ensure we can effectively target and directly assist rural communities with assessment and

cleanups. based on the current performance of idaho's brownsfield programs such a shift would be a bargain for taxpayers given our performance to date and would represent more brownfield funds dedicated to redevelopment projects on the ground rain shower than administrative costs. this has been a great program. it has been a great program for idaho and has been a great program for alaska, washington, oregon, states that i represent on the brownfields task force. it has been an excellent collaboration with epa and local communities and i do think that there are some ways that we can tweak the law to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the program and i really look forward to seeing what the committy comes up during the re-authorization process. thank you and, of course, i welcome any questions. >> mr. paul? we ask you now to give your testimony. >> good morning, mr. chairman and members of the committee.

my name is evans paul. i have the privilege of speaking to you today on behalf of the national brownfields coalition. national brownfields coalition represents national, state, local, and public, private and nonprofit organizations that share the common goal of promoting brownfields redevelopment as a means of achieving community economic revitalization, sustainable growth and development, and the environmental restoration of land. some of our diverse national members include the u.s. conference of mayors, smart growth america, and the commercial real estate development association, and the trust for public land. i wanted to call your attention to several brownfields community turnaround projects that have been carried out in some of the states represented on the committee today. there are two recurring themes that i want to stress. first, epa brownfields funds, although modest in the larger

picture of multimillion dollar redevelopment projects, are often the first funds in to help communities lay the groundwork for turning blighted contaminated properties into new community assets. it would be hard to overstate the importance of these critical resources. the payoffs from these modest investments in leveling the playing field are enormous because it is not just about cleaning up and redeveloping x, y, z sites. it is also about enabling communities to reposition their economies, failed industries of the past and destroying those sites to enable future growth and improved quality of life. second, i want to emphasize it really -- that actually admits -- makes perfect sense for brownfields investments in the middle of the -- of a real estate recession. public expenditures and set assessments and cleanups are far sighted investments in future

responsible growth. more brownfields sites will be development ready in the future growth can be steered to land where infrastructure is in place, existing communities can be revitalized and negative ex-the earnalities involved with sprawl can be avoided. to illustrate, in omaha, nebraska, epa site assessments work -- three key waterfront properties and have paved the way for 750 jobs and 140 million in new investment and including the gallup corporations, word operational headquarters, and a riverfront trail that will enable local populations to enjoy 64 miles of newly accessible riverfront property. in -- little rock, arkansas, and epa site assessment of the unit pacific rail yard near downtown paid dividends in 2006 and when heifer international, nonprofit international anti-poverty organization, chose to locate their world headquarters on a

4.2 acre site bringing 225 jobs and 225,000 visitors to little rock. in new orleans, louisiana, an epa site assessment helped unlock the hidden potential of the false staff brewery which had been vacant for 30 years. the dilapidated property would be transform flood 147 mixed income apartments in 2008. this pioneering investment helped lead to the revival of the two-lane corridor as more redevelopment projects lane 700 units took form between 2008 and 2010. these are samples where epa investments have been instrumental in transformative redevelopment projects helping communities achieve a new division and new vision for outmoded industrial corridors. but as important as that point is, the takeaway i want to stress is that in each case, the epa funds were injected several

years before the actual redevelopment. this reinforces the previous point that we have to keep making these investments even in an economic slowdown. then when the economy picks up, we will have development ready sites and reward will be community altering projects like heifer international, gallup headquarters, and the brewery. these projects are just a few of the brownfields investments that are replacing lost jobs and revenue with vibrant new uses on sites where closed industrial plants left a legacy in play and contamination. we strongly recommend that congress reauthorize the program however re-authorization represents an opportunity for improvement. many of the other panelists and senator lautenberg as well mentioned some of those improvements and i won't repeat them here since i'm out of time. we look forward to working with the committee as we move forward

with re-authorization. >> thank you very much. i mistook your first name for being mary. marjorie, sounds good with buchholz. >> thank you. good morning. senator lautenberg and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the epa's brownfields program. as one of its founders it remains a subject close to my heart. during a 25-year epa career i was lucky. i was often sent to communities where epa had the opportunity to effect the most significant change. i saw that super funds prioritization of war sites

first meant that lesser contaminated sites fell outside of federal purview. some of that properties fell below the cut line for souper fund or state programs and yet they were too polluted toation tract investments. epa needed a new approach and so we began thinking that -- about tailoring a program that had assessment cleanup and redevelopment elements to serve across the range of rural, aush an and tribe am communities. that was the start of the brownfields program. at its core was the emphasis that local solutions work best under local stewardship. the new model that was born was different from super fund and several important ways. first, many of the sites were perceived to be contaminated rather than actually contaminated. seed money for local site assessments solves that mystery. eventually one-third of the sites to the super-fund inventory were proven not to be contaminated at all and were ready for reuse.

there's still a need for a strong souper fund program, for sites with major technical issues and high levels of contamination. brownfields program complements those efforts. epa's job training program in the brownfields program from the very earliest beginning emphasized local employment. with the program -- when the program began i was shocked the communities needed to ship in workers because they lacked people with the from training. in response, the brownfields job training program was created in concert with local community colleges and work force development groups. as you heard from david lloyd, the successful program continues and thrives. this year it has been expanded to cover many of epa's cleanup programs. i respectfully urge the committee to protect the viability of this program. brownfields project flourished in ways unimaginable to me 20 years ago. there's still work to be done.

to improve this program, i would respectfully recommend several things in addition to the job training. david lloyd talked about areawide planning and i would like to emphasize its importance. nonprofit eligibility for all types of brownfields grants is very important. because in many communities, especially small towns, and rural areas,inging nonprofit development corporations and community development corporations drive the economy and carry out redevelopment. ea launched the repowering america's land program as in september 2008 to encourage the citing of renewable energy facilities on currently and former contaminated lands across the country. i know that i am preaching to the choir, mr. lautdenberg. when i say that language for repowering on ground field sites is critical for re-authorization. your forward thinking proposal last year on the energy bill is

exactly what is needed to jump start productive use of brownfields as renewable energy facilities in the u.s. my recent consulting work with brownfields llc, massachusetts solar firm, has focused on the conversion of community liabilities like closed land fills into assets. from this experience, i have seen that repowering works and needs to be emphasized and continued. i would like to close with just a couple of let ons learned. the cooperation evidenced on this committee is a heartening reminder of brownfields popularity. this spirit will be the key to successful re-authorization and an effective program. second, leveraging and partnerships are at the heart of the program. there have been attempts to make it a block grant program which would have destroyed our efforts. it works because it provides technical support and leverages local resources. third, please remember that real

people thrive or suffer as a result of our actions. brownfields began to extend hope and prosperity to those unlucky enough to live and work near contaminated sites. countless citizens of once forgotten communities have benefitted from these efforts. we must resolve not to forget them again. thank you. >> thank you very much. do we hear a resounding round of applause and congratulations for the brownfields program. i thank you for your encouragement because i believe it is -- so essential that we get on with doing what we can to make these sites available, for community use, and for the well-being and health ofsy sense

in the area. so -- as miss buchholz said, senator imhoff, this shows bipartisan at its best. i guess we ought to say there are other brownfields we saw before those, clean up and get going on with, too. i asked the witnesses -- here today, across the political spectrum and from states and local governments, nonprofits, private sector, and it is amazing what -- when the -- one hears the universality of interests in states that are highly populated, less populated, to -- from the urban setting to the more rural kind of thing. when we of some of the most beautiful parts of our country, we think that always of the

mountains and the lakes and parks and all of those things. but there lies brownfields sites that are a problem and could be used effectively in all states if we can make the program generally more available and with more funding. and you -- going down the line, start with the mayor, do you believe that the question is oh, almost answered. the -- that epa's brownfields program have provided the kind of benefits that really matter and vote to continue and expand it if possible? >> yes. it made a remarkable difference in oklahoma city. if you can see the -- the hotel which was built 100 years ago this week, and shared for 20

years with no hope of ever being able to be reopened without some level of government assistance, we used brownfields money to get in there and help close that gap. we have an environmental site along our river with 60 years ago had been a city dump and we were able to address the -- the environmental needs there and currently dell computerers built a campus with 1,500 employees. we have future needs down the line. we have success stories to tell you about but we also have a number of sites that we believe with some more additional help could really continue to improve our nation's economy. >> anybody disagree with that? no? epa estimates that brownfields project raised the value of surrounding properties by -- 3%. i think that's marginal by twice

its value or three times the value as it sits there. abandoned. do you agree with that, the value improvement? >> push your button. >> thank you. we saw sites that laid -- for 30, 40 years. with the epa money being able to go in and do the assessments, we were able to attract developers, two sites that they would have never considered in the past. so the moneys that have come in, amount of money that has been leveraged between the brownfields assessment moneys and moneys that have come in from developers and putting these sites back to good productive use is totally immeasurable. i want to reiterate what marjorie said. least we ever forget there are people, citizens, living around in all parts of the country, whether it be hudson county or in the midwest.

people need to be thought of in this process because it is very important that our citizens be entitled to a healthy safe environment to grow and to have their children grow up in and it is a -- on our cities and our areas to have these ground fill sites be there just fenced in behind bars and not be put back to good productive use. it is very important that the epa continue to put these programs forward and we all realize in these hard economic times, it is almost -- very difficult to sit here and say don't give it more money. give it all the money you can. because this doesn't go to any one particular group. it goes help strengthen america and bring our country and all of our communities back to good productive use. bringing in jobs. making beautiful sites that were once -- wonder supply and

wonderfully used back into good productive use within the communities. >> thank you. in short form, how might current law be changed to better promote renewable energy development? >> i have a lot of thoughts on that. only 30 seconds. so -- i will tell you the first thing that i would recommend is working closely with the energy committee to create a renewable portfolio standard that is consistent across the country and that's the single most important thing that would drive redevelopment of solar on to brownfields sites. ing the second thing, you mentioned in your bill last year, triple credits. that would be a triple win. that would be more than enough to get people really investing in these sites. the second thing to present for extension of sections 1603 of the energy bill. i adjusted to the extended solely for those properties to

incentivize the utilities to work on contaminated lands. 30% cash grant incentives for new repowering projects have a huge potential to drive reuse. the last thing i would just say is that epa the in this economy is not expecting a broad infusion of funds. the brownfields program was built on doing more with less. a steady state budget that would emphasize leveraging and new initiatives would build repowering to a new level without a major budget increase. >> thank you very much. senator imhoff and i owe you a couple of minutes in which you can easily recapture. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it is my hope that we don't turn this successful program around to -- into a program to enhance

green technology and all of this stuff. it is working well now. let's don't mess around with it. let me ask you, first of all, you would be the one, i think, would be -- responding to one of the concerns that i mentioned in my opening statement. that's oklahoma has a lot of this small rural communities. and have you -- i had to leave during part of yours but i did read your written statement. do you have any comments how we can enhance this program in terms of usinging greater amount of it for the smaller, rural communities? i do have thoughts on that. for one thing, i need to point out that -- for every epa competitive grant awarded to a small community, it -- it does seem to skew more towards metropolitan areas. these rural communities don't have staff grant writers. they don't have grant re-enactors and don't have experts in groundfields law or guidance. they have to come up to speed

very rapidly on all the different federal requirements that are tagged on these grants. myriad of things that these folks have never heard about before and don't even know where to go to get assistance. they needily go to the state which is great. that's part of our roles to assist these folks. but -- for us, it makes a lot more sense when we have the content and field experts at the state level through our state assistance grant program, we can crank these things out and really get into the communities, do outreach, help figure out the scope and nature of the program, and projects and go in and quickly and efficiently remove the environmental barriers to their projects. >> can you not do that now? >> we can, senator, but -- the problem is that year to year, additional states, additional tribes, additional territories, are asking for funding from the at the same time pot we get our funding from now.

that funding source doesn't go up or down. it stays the same. so as more people come in, our funding is reduced. to further complicate that, the amount of site specific assessment work that we are -- able to do currently through our grant is limited to 50% of the grant itself. so as that expenditure shrinks the amount of money we can spend on the ground in the small communities shrinks as well. >> okay. and i appreciate that. mr. chairman, i -- i have nothing against the profession am grant writers but when you go into one of my small communities in oklahoma and talk about how do you do this and put this together, yes, they do have access to the state -- we are going to be working with them to get more help for them. but they will -- they will say we are paying and they will -- to them it is an astronomical amount of money. you pay to someone to do this and they don't have it. so i'm -- i -- what i would like to have you do, for the record, is to put -- write down recommendations that you can make in this program that would

allow easier access to the small communities. why don't you do that for the record for us. the rest of my time, i would like the mayor to -- i just wish, mr. chairman, that you could come to oklahoma and stay in the hotel and now -- new jersey's not like oklahoma. oklahoma that is 100 years old is ancient. and in new jersey it is new. so -- it is totally -- i remember when i was a state legislator, many years agree, it is a palace that deteriorated over this period of time and did a masterful job of putting together that together the way it was originally. we are doing the same thing in tulsa with the mayo hotel. it is -- just really -- it is when you see the things that they have done in oklahoma city, and that's what i only wish that

during your presentation we had some big pictures to hold up because that would better show before and after contrast of what we have. now, i guess i -- like to ask you that is there anything that we would be able to do when i -- pointed out the problem of the pre-2002 problem we have. is there anything in -- your city in oklahoma city that you would be able to do that you would not be able to do with that restriction that's there? >> we do have a number of sites that acquired prior to the tweet legislation. i can think of one site specifically at -- northeast fourth and laudy which would be in a -- an underperforming section of our city that would fall into the category of site that would need some assessing and at the environmental issues and it is probably right for development if we had this legislation that allowed us to go in and work on. >> it that's good. mr. chairman, we ought to really

look seriously at that and see what obstacles are there to keep us from doing that and maybe correct it. i think the director who is on the first panel would probably agree with that. lastly, in the time that i have, if you could kind of -- when you -- when you look at dell city, the hotel, all these projects that you talked about that were so successful, what -- have you -- have you put an employment figure down that would cover these as to how employment has been enhanced as a result of that? i have to say that we are fortunate in oklahoma, unemployment rate is 5.5%. we have -- we are very fortunate with that and understand that. but how has this enhanced our employment situation? >> well, i don't have a number for you. i have asked my staff to try to answer that question specifically. i can tell thaw we have the lowest unemployment in the united states among large metros with the 5% flat. >> why don't you do that instead of -- for the record in writing

so i can use that up here and try to help sell this very successful program. >> we will be glad to, senator. >> thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. >> despite the fact that you have the good fortune to have that kind of an unemployment rate, nevertheless, mayor, you can use help in the brownfields program. and extend job opportunity and economic opportunity for your city or your state. >> absolutely. >> that's a noteworthy thing in this environment. >> thank you, mr. chair map. we appreciate all of you being here. the -- federal and state brownfields program really has been very successful. i think we all agree with that. and we appreciate you being here to help us sort out some of the

problems we -- we need to fix perhaps in the future as we reauthorize the arkansas department of environmental quality administers in arkansas and you mentioned the great job that they have done with the heifer program in little rock and we have another -- most recent one that's going to come online is -- an area in downtown hope, arkansas, where they are going to very soon, i think, within the next year or so have a charitable clinic that will be at that size. so there's really a very -- just a lot of positive stuff that's going on as a result of the program. i would like to ask you, why do you feel that funds should be moved from the epa competitive grant program and into the state assistance grant programs? >> yes, senator. simply put. our smaller communities and -- we are talking about -- communities largely under 10,000 people simply they don't have the capacity to look at and

understand the scope of the 53-page competitive grant line guideline booklet. a lot of the concepts that are scored as part of the competitive grant systems and they don't necessarily understand how to answer a lot of the things that are asked for. for instance, support from community based organizations and -- information on disease registries and things like that, just do not exist in those small communities. additionally a lot of the projects that they are involved in are fairly small projects. they may only yield one, two, three, four jobs. but four jobs in a town of 3,000 people is incredibly significant. a lot of it, i think, a lot of times epa grant reviewers are looking at projects and larger cities of maybe a million and they say oh, this is going to get us 50 jobs. when crunch the numbers, the 50 jobs in 1 million person community is -- not nearly as

significant as five jobs in a 2,000 3shgs,000-person community. simply put, it really does come down to capacity. most of the folks have real jobs, walmart, and then they come back to the city at night and they are the treasurer and clerk and they are actually helping perform the city functions while they are not working. they don't have the many, many, many hours that you have to put into applying for and managing the grants. >> i think you make a very good point and -- you know, that point is being made over and over again. i just want to kind of reiterate it. can you tell us perhaps, you know, if we did that, if we -- you know, you are not asking for an increase in the -- you are asking for the shift of funds, can you tell us specifically what kind of, you know, you mentioned jobs. can you tell us some specific examples of what creates those

five jobs that would come about as a result of doing that? >> absolutely. i can give you a specific example and project just finished and relatively inexpensive project and cost us $30,000 to go in and aes and do a targeted cleanup apartment an old gas station site. the folks purchased the site and a site that had been abandoned for years and was no longer on the tax role. it was not paying any property taxes. nobody was working there. but some folks went in and purchased the site and they opened it up as if it is a funky place but it is a combination, you know, bakery, cafe, plus photography studio in -- you go there and, you know, people have their artwork out and every month it is sort of circulates out there, there are different people that can come in and have their artwork purchased. there's someone working the counter. there's a couple of cooks, bakeries. then there is somebody that's always in the photo shop part of

the establishment doing either digital or old school dark room photography. it is interesting -- >> sounds like there is a little something for everybody there. >> yes. yes, senator. it is also an n a community of 5,000 people where, you know, there is not a lot of opportunity for photography clubs and things of that nature. it really has become an interesting kind of place for people to con fwre gate. total employment, five full-time employees work there. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. thank you. >> thank you all very much for your -- testimony. and while we kind of joke for a couple of minutes about the fact that we are agreeing, it shows you the power of the value of the brownfields program.

>> thanks very much. mayor, can i ask you a question? thinking of past mayors of larger cities in oklahoma, have any of them ever turned out well? anything -- amounted to much? >> i'm fortunate to have a long string of promising mayors that preceded me, absolute. >> i all right. all right. how about over in tulsa? >> i can't remember tulsa ever having specifically any good mayors. you will forgive me. that rivalry is extremely strong, senator. >> all right. >> will he me respond to that. >> during the time i was mayor of tulsa, i was mayor for three terms. three terms or four terms? a long time ago. but anyway during that time, we put together programs that others didn't -- it was back

during the reagan administration, second reagan administration, he used my low water dam which we did with no public funds whatsoever. through the private sector as this is -- greatest single public project totally privately funded in america. my case rests. >> my time has expired. thank you. all right. first question, if i could of all the witnesses. i would like to talk about funds like the brownfields. other federal programs. i would like to find out and ask what's working with well with respect to the program. i would also like to ask what could -- we do better, what could we change or take away in order to get a better result. i would like to say everything do i i know i could do better. that's true. let me ask if you can think of a thing, one or two things, that might need some tweaking. as we take up re-authorization of brownfields. >> $200,000 limit on sites would

be helpful in f that could be increased. there are a number of sites that just still don't quite work and a lot of the easier-to-do sites have already been done. also, the length of time that it takes for the funds to actually arrive at the city level can sometimes be a year or more and sometimes that development window can shut, you know, within that one-year time period. you apply for the grant and takes maybe six months to find out if you are going to receive the grant, it takes another six months perhaps to receive the money. and if that time frame can somehow be -- shortened i think that would be helpful. >> let me ask the other panelists. just by showing -- do you agree with what the mayor said? two do and two are silent. okay, good. do any disagree? all right. thank you. let the record show nobody disagrees. anything that you can bring to our attention and might need improvement. >> i have to concur with what he

said. more importantly, if it is possible to raise that 200,000, you can't get a gallon of gas for what you used to get a gallon gas for ten years ago. and we are looking at the $200,000 in an economy to have an ingeneral earring firm to come in and do the work it is not costing the same now it did for white house we first started this program. things do go up. it is just -- it is just the way the economy works. i realize there's little money out there and -- it is very tough. but it has to be looked at objectively because we -- it is -- i wish we could take the loads and fishes and do more with them. but with everyone asking for more on the other side of this equation, and only that 200,000 to work with becomes very difficult. >> all right. thank you. >> i noticed your raised your hand. >> yes, senator.

so far i agreed with everything that's been said so far on the panel. a couple of other areas -- >> that doesn't happen every day. would you say that again for us? it warms up the room when you say that. >> aside from the things that have been mentioned and aside from my testimony i would highly recommend lining the current eligibility for petroleum sites with hazmat substance sites. the two sites are treating completely differently and in order to be eligible to spend brownfields funds on petroleum sites and an applicant has to be two owners removed from the last owner who dispensed petroleum at the site and therefore may be considered a responsible party. that's a really tough metric to hit. really tough especially in small communities where people tend to own land in their familiar less essentially forever. that's -- that's one that i would definitely focus hard on. the other one -- >> before you move on, anybody else on the panel concur with what he has said?

is that -- yes. you do. all right. >> feedback on that. >> excuse me. we get feedback on the specific issue all the time and -- given that congress designated 25% of the funding to go to petroleum sites, obviously congress views that as an important element of the program. we are also handicapping our communities and addressing petroleum sites because of the extra eligibility hurdles. >> thanks. anybody else want to comment on this particular point? yes, ma'am. >> not speaking dwrektly to poe tr -- speakinging directly to petroleum sites i would like to be the devil's advocate and say when we started this program we intention will did not fully fund the site assessment process or the cleanup process. what we were trying to do was put feed money in to leverage

local communities to invest in themselves. i understand that the prices for everything are much higher than they were when we started the program. but -- >> not for everything. cell phones. >> that's a good point. >> there are some exception. >> and televisions. but the point is i think that it is really important to -- federal government can't go into every community and fix everything. that's not an appropriate role. what they have to do is provide technical assistance at my view and the tools to get it done. i'm not sure that raising the ceiling on the grants would get us where we are -- where we want to be and it is not in keeping with the original intent of the program. >> okay. thank you. let me come back. let me come back to you. another point up wanted to make. >> thank you, senator. the other item i would look at is raising the limit that state

funded programs are under right now -- we are limited to only 50% of our grant which can go to on the ground site specific projects. it would be nice to see that limit raised or potentially go away altogether. what that effectively does is say that 50% of your grant now has to go to administrative and paramedic functions versus taking the funds and putting them directly on the ground, especially in rural communities where it is important and i also would like to mention that in our program those site specific activities generally take place through private contractors and so those funds that we do devote to on-the-ground projects are going straight into private sector and are being administered by the private sector on the ground. >> thank you. do you have another point? >> yes. a couple of -- panelists mentioned multipurpose grants. i would like to put a little bit more of the meat on the bones with that. multipurpose grants would be a great tool to kind of expedite

how things work in the brownfields program. there are -- there are two problems with the -- sort of boxing up of the three grant programs. we have site assessments involving funds and cleanup grants and further bifurcate flood hazardous substance and petroleum. so oftentimes communities as things change, they put in a grant application one year but a year or year and half later number one site that they are trying to move is in -- not in the category they originally applied for it. it might need cleanup funds where the -- city has funding for site assessments. this -- a great deal of lag time in fault thing if you have to do everything in order, if you are putting in a site assessment application, that -- involves a lag before you actually get the funding in, then you are probably missing another round

of -- because the funds come in late in the year and you have to get your application in shortly after you were funding comes in, you are probably missing another year. it is actually a three-year process to get from site assessment through cleanup. if you had multipurpose grants where you can move the pointy back and forth between the three categori categories, it would be a huge advantage and would help expedite the process. >> thank you. mayor, didn't your mention about something like this in your testimony? >> yes. we just have a number of success stories in that regard. >> okay. anybody else? comment for or against what mr. paul said? i will wrap up with that point. >> i would agree with what mr. paul said. additionally add it would also help in states like ours and areas likes ours where our field season can be extremely limited. if we are in sun valley or north idaho, we are under, you know, two to three feet of snow, it is really hard to do site work. during those periods of time.

and dash literally we can end up with only four, five months out of the year where we have a window to do appropriate field work. that would -- multipurpose grant would help to assist in moving those projects along without having a separate possible necessary between. >> good. thanks. mr. chairman, thanks forgiving me a few extra minutes. our thanks to the panelists. good points. we love it when there's gash a convergence of views. this is very, very helpful. >> i add my thanks. and make mention of the fact the record will be kept open for some time. you my get a letter request questions that -- that are raised. we would ask you to answer promptly, please. and once again, thank you. it was so nice to have a panel that has bipartisan character and where people agree. i thought that wasn't allowed here.

>> thank you.

however, she was fighting private battles, and in a sense that's what brings her here today. her 2000 autobiography, angel on my shoulder, describes a life spiraling out of control at the time plagued by a series of health challenges, a highly publicized struggle with addiction. she would later tell the "washington post" as my success escalated, so did the drug problem. fortunately, for all of us and for herself she rebounded. overcoming her addiction she began charting new hits like jumpstart, miss you like crazy, i live for your love, and the cover of bruce springsteen's pink cadillac. in 1991 our speaker recorded the tribute album to her father that was to become her most memorable for many of us, titled unforgettable with love, the album of her father's greatest hits has been called her crowning glory. for many, the highlight single was the virtual duet featuring

the soundtrack of her father's original vocal. the album spent five weeks at number one and earned six grammy awards, her 2008 album, still unforgettable, garnered two more. throughout the highly successful decades our guest has been performing under the spotlight she was unaware she had been living with a severe liver condition known as the silent epidemic to many. 2008 during a routine blood test she was diagnosed with chronic hepatitis c, a possible result of her past abuse of drugs. as it turns out, hep c strikes more than 3 million americans, and many like our guest don't realize they have it or they are afraid to get treated. in fact, i'll tell you here today this is a personal story for me because my own favorite cousin has been battling in an indianapolis hospital even as we speak, afflicted with the same condition. he recently underwent a liver transplant and has been making strong recovery. it just goes to show how many people are touched by this disease.

today, our guest comes to our historic venue to raise her voice about the virus, to talk about what can be done to combat it. she is the spokesperson for the "tune in to hep c" campaign, a nationwide public health initiative sponsored by the american liver foundation, and merck. so here to tell us about the campaign, and if we're lucky, perhaps grace us with just a few bars of some of her musical history, please give a warm national press club welcome to the one and only natalie cole. [applause] >> well, thank you so much. market. and thank you to the national press club for having me. i did not realize you were such a prestigious group.

[laughter] i am very honored. it's really very unusual when i think of the journey that i have taken to end up here today. it's not always the good stuff that you end up in places like this. sometimes it's the challenges. and if you're lucky, to have victory over those challenges, that can into in a prestigious environment like this. so again, thank you for having me. as you know, you know what i do. icing. i sing my heart out. i love every minute of it. and i've had a really, really fortunate career for the last 30 plus years. and i would say that i didn't

imagine that my world would come to such a crumbling halt back in 2008. although, in the late '70s and early '80s i was already writing as if you would say maybe an epitaph. when i got into drugs i was a young woman. i was probably in my early '20s. and i was in the hippie culture. and we were doing things we thought were just fun. never imagining that, first of all, many of us would no longer be here, and that there would be consequences from our actions. i was a drug user. i was here when user. and isn't it extraordinary what god can do when you look at me now? you would never imagine it. but the truth is i was a heroin

user, and when i was diagnosed with hepatitis c, i had a flashback to that life, and i was, in fact, using dirty needles because of the environment at the time, that heroin spawned. it was generally a rock-and-roll environment. it was mostly folks in the music business. it was a tv environment, and -- hit the environment. and hepatitis c was like the kiss of death. so when my doctor told me i had it, 25 years later i just couldn't believe. i was in absolute shock, that this disease could live inside my body for 20 plus years, with absolutely extraordinary. i had no symptoms. i was pretty much a health nut. worked out at least 20 years of

my life. and so when my doctor told me i had hep c i was just floored. and so, i asked him, since this virus is able to live inside my body for solo, what if i just kept on going and didn't do anything about it, you know? and he said, eventually you will get very, very sick. so i had to really face myself, my consequences. for many, hep c is, you can get it through tattoos, you can get it through unsterilized needles. you can get it from blood transfusions. we didn't know that back in the day. and this is why i would say that it was my choice to do what i

did, and then i ended up with hep c. but the consequences are still the same. deliver is still damaged. some people can live with a for many years but eventually you could get very sick. so i had not many options, because i'm the kind of person that wants to deal with it and get it over with. so i went on a treatment that was very, very challenging. i continued to work, but it was very, very difficult. i lost about 25 pounds. i was in a wheelchair. and i was sick every single day. i would have to say that the attitude of someone who is ill is probably 80% of your ability

to get past it. i never asked why mean. -- why me. and i want to encourage all the people that we're going to hopefully be able to touch an approach, starting here, that your attitude about your treatment is what's going to help you get through this. we have a great, great campaign that i'm so glad that mark pharmaceuticals and the american liver foundation has approached me as well as greg allman from the allman brothers. with a great campaign called "tune in to hep c." and what my roll is, is to try to erase the stigma of what it means to have hepatitis c. there so many people out there

that you have it that are ashamed. there are people out there who know that folks have it and they have made them feel ashamed. this is no longer a disease to be ashamed of. i don't know if you remember back in the day when depression, nobody wanted to talk about depression. until some people started coming forward, celebrities. we know the power of celebrity. magic johnson came forward with hiv, shocked us all, but somehow it gave us a little bit of a leverage like well, if it can happen to him it can happen to anybody. and the idea that he faced it so gracefully was something that we all took notice of. and more people started coming forward. and the stigma of hiv has actually, it's better than what we are talking about today, and hep c. hep c still has a very serious

stigma hovering over it, and we've got to embrace it and get rid of it. because there's too many people dying from it. liver transplants are not that easy to get, and we have to really deal with this particular disease with all, this is probably the one that is the most difficult one to erase the stigma. but we're going to need your help in order to do that. the "tune in to hep c" campaign has also inserted something really cool. they have now on the website "tune in to hep c.com," they have now put together an interactive guide so that people it who have the disease, who think they might have it, who knows somebody who has it, who used to have it, they can go on

this website and they can ask questions. and it's an interactive site so they can have someone answer them. they can have someone talk to them. they can talk to doctors, physicians about this disease and it's just amazing. i didn't have that. when i had my situation, i was on chemo which was the form of treatment that i was on, for about seven months. and i was such a wreck the whole time, and there was a little, a little number on, my little medicine dispenser. there was this little number, this little 1-800 number i could call if i needed somebody to talk to. and so i called that number a lot. and i would always get someone wonderful, someone who really understood. it was just really amazing. i did know how to, i had to give

myself injections once a week and i was not very good at it and it was kind of nerve-racking and i would call this number and his lady we talked me through it every time. it was just really, really amazing. i went to japan against my family's wishes while in the midst of doing this, these injections. and i could tell you, it was quite, quite an experience to try to get through 14 shows from my wheelchair. i managed to do 10. so it's okay. and then something wonderful happened this past july. because music is what i do and music is kind of who i am, and i love it so come and i always

like to do different kinds of things, i had the opportunity to do a concert with the allman brothers. gregg allman and i had never met, but we fell in love right away. he had just had a liver transplant. he is a very quiet, shy kind of guy, so that's what i'm standing up here instead of him because he would never do this. [laughter] but nevertheless, we had so much fun. it was at the beacon theater, and i can tell you that inside of that theater were advocates for hep c, where patients that were still dealing with it. some of the gentlemen on stage, some of the rockers, you know, david crosby, and i don't want to out just everybody because some people don't want to talk about it, that you know, myself,

gregg, we were all out there in favor of this dreaded disease but we are out there our best. and it was really an amazing concert. not only because the night was amazing that because of response afterwards. and the next 24-48 hours it was just amazing. it's really something, what the power of celebrity can do, not just because you're a celebrity, but because you've been there. that's the difference and that's why i'm able to stand up in front of you today because i don't think i would have the passion, i don't think i would have taken the time to have the knowledge and if i hadn't experienced it myself but he really would have, you don't have to go through this but there's just something about having been there that makes it that much more important.

and i'm just really very concerned about, someone asked me in an interview this morning about the lawmakers, are you going to talk to the lawmakers? and i'm like, you know what they can do? they can change this friction health insurance situation. okay? i have friends that are not in the business. they are nine to are nine to fiver's. they're just regular people. they are still struggling with their children and their own lives to get quality health insurance. if they had a hep c experience, there's a good chance they might not even be able to afford a treatment. i don't know. i don't know what kind of treatments are out there. i'm not a doctor. the doctor will be able to address that. as to what new treatments are out there. but my treatment was not cheap, and i'm just wondering as well

as getting the word out about hep c, you know, what else we can do as far as trying to change the face of the health world. because these people are not going to be able to have access to the treatment because they don't have the money. why is it that 40-45 million people don't have health insurance? because they can't afford it. so it's a bit of a dilemma, you know? but it doesn't stop us from certainly going forward. and we need, we need to be able to give access to patients of hep c. we need to start questioning our doctors more. people who go in for checkups don't generally get liver checkups. i'm sure most of you in this room just go for regular checkups, if you go at all to

your doctor. it's not something that he would even ask if you wanted. more people are saying could you give me hiv tests. but now we've got to start asking, check my liver. check my liver. because you don't know, because it's like a silent disease, like blood pressure. you don't know that it could be living inside your body. and so i encourage, you know, you to get the word out to the doctors, and to question our doctors. they are not god. they don't know everything. they are kind of flying by the wing of their but, two, you know. and you find this out when you're a patient, very interesting. how much your doctor doesn't know. i think i just want to say that

this country is still a great country, but of all the countries on the planet it's got the worst health care in the world. and part of that is part of what we are seeing today. with this hep c business. nobody's really paying that much attention, and people are dying and there's not a lot of livers to go around. and we just really want to raise the awareness and reduce the stigma at the same time. and my question to you is, can you help us? will you help us? is very dear to my heart -- it's very dear to my heart because i know the pain that they suffered, and i do know some

people that have been contracted with the disease, and it's a very, very painful journey. so we come to you, you guys have a lot of power and a lot of leverage. this is a room full of some very valuable asset to your, and i'm really, really hoping that you will do whatever it takes so that we can get excited. and we can really do something about this. we have apsa announcement that is coming out. i'm very happy about that, finally. when will it be out now? in about two weeks. i hope so. and i just record our radio psa as well. i think that when people hear,

because a lot of people can't know what i've been too. but when they hear the details of what it's like coming in the, what you go through, and if you can come out on the other side, it's possible. this is a treatable disease, but it means more research, and it needs more, it needs to take that blanket off and really confront it, with, you know, a better attitude. because a lot of people are getting, you know, just and afraid to go see their doctors and afraid to tell the families, you know, like they are embarrassed, like this is something that is their fault. and lets you were a drug user, this is not your fault. if you were a drug user, well you know, i accept the responsibility of what, you

know, consequence i've had to pay, but for the most part this is a disease that comes from just bad, bad stuff. a blood transfusion, you know, now we will all get freaked out about getting a blood transfusion. but that's just the way it is, and you know, intel they find a cure that should until they find a cure, we have a lot of treatments we hope will be you know the answer to dealing with this. again, the interactive tools on the website is something that you all should take a look at. this is great for family members as well, so that they can feel, you know, not as uncomfortable dealing with their loved ones who may have it, or vice versa. people in general are turning

more to the internet for information on health, but a lot of times they don't know where to look, or they don't know if it's credible. and we are here to say that it is. and i have no problem representing this company or the american liver foundation who has done some wonderful, wonderful things through the years. but you know, it takes someone like me to get the word out. i don't know why that is, but that's just the society that we live in. and again, i wish that even three years ago i had known about the things that are available now, but that's okay. the best part is that my 80% was -- my liver was 80% cured with

the treatment i went to. we do have copies of this thing to and there's additional information about the "tune in to hep c" campaign. i encourage you to please take a look at it, and i think i need to probably do some thank you is. have i talked long enough? [laughter] okay. i would like to do some thank you i yous. first of all, again to my partners, the american liver foundation and merck. they are the ones that are bringing his campaign to life. i'm just kind of like the little pup that goes where ever they tell me to. i want to thank him of course, the national press club for inviting me to speak here today it and i'd also like to

acknowledge the work that the department of health and human services are doing as well. they have developed a viral hepatitis action plan, which includes steps for improving the prevention, treatment and care for people with viral hepatitis. and trying to move the nation towards achieving, you know, healthy people. the goal is by 2020 we would have eradicated many of these diseases. wouldn't that be something? and finally i would like to take a moment to thank -- were easy? doctor khan. because he's the one who can answer all the medical stuff. i don't know what was in the treatment that i took. my particular favorite was interferon. i'm sure many of you have heard of it.

i would not recommend it, but if it works, i would recommend it. very difficult treatment. very, very difficult, but very, very full of results. and i'm standing here today because of it. there are other treatments. there are organic treatments. they take longer. that is one of, you know, the setbacks, but that's okay. and dr. mcclellan would be able to answer all the medical questions. and i don't have any bright quote to end this with, other than to say let's just get it done. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you, natalie. that was wonderful. the way this works is -- that would be fine but then they would fire me as president i would rather not have that happen. so thank you for those taking remarks. there are a lot of questions about the subject that you talked about but we will touch on the media will talk a little but about your career as a path along those lines. so let's talk about the campaign that you affirmed at his speech today. and, of course, the whole idea there is to focus on raising awareness and to encourage patients to see a doctor for screening and treatment. this is a relatively new campaign. and i'm wondering now that you've had a chance to reflect on this illness and to think about how things are changing, how have you seen awareness and attitudes change just in a short amount of time that she been witnessing it yourself so personally? >> i would probably say from my own perspective as someone who

was experiencing this on a daily basis, that people looked at me differently, not because there was like some thing over my head, you know? like some stain, stay away from her. but more like that's natalie cole and she's got hep c. and she's in a wheelchair, and she is still singing. as a person, as a regular person sitting out in the audience, if i saw that i would be like, hey, that's pretty cool. that's an amazing. could i do that? could i encourage someone to do that? you know, a game, i about your attitude. and i hope to see some changes, you know, with the advocates that what they take from when i speak with them, what they take

from whatever i'm saying, that they will be able to infuse not just go see your doctor, give screening, ask them, but check your attitude. don't do the wind me. that will make you crazy. don't do that. spent countries because as you talked about the concert that you participated in with some of the people, who have been touched by this, i'm just thinking about the fact that in my lifetime i don't remember a lot of other people, people of such immediate awareness mms you do, or at least your peers, whatever step forward in such an aggressive way. what was it that made you decide to, let's say in future musical legacy with this cause, that you feel so deeply about? in other words, what energized you to say i'm here today not to talk about my next album, which is usually the thing for someone in your position, or my next book in sort of laugh it up with

jay on the tonight show, but something about fisheries and to press this to the very top of your agenda, what was it that made you do that? >> by the time and the merck pharmaceutical people came to me, i had been through the chemo. i had been through a kidney transplant, and my sister died on the same day of my kidney transplant. i just felt like i had been through enough tough stuff that i can do this. i can talk about this. and really inspire someone, and that's why i did it. >> when you talk about the stigma, those of us that have been through what you've been through, can you flesh that out a little more for us about, you know, what happens with that?

how it affects people who aren't celebrities who are, by their very nature, given opportunities to do thing in our society that people are not able to do. what about the person that isn't a celebrity, what kind of stigma are they facing? >> i can only imagine that the normal joe or the normal salad that has to do with something like this, it's a very lonely disease. i think that unless you have the support of family and friends, and that she had a medical health care for to go to, that you're a lone. year alone and you are scared. and you don't know what your future holds. and that's what i think is the burden that many people carry that you have this disease, and

are reluctant to talk about it, afraid to talk about it. unable to talk about it because they don't have any resources. >> you talk a little bit about access to care in your speech, and essentially saying that the treatment options and access to care are not worthy need to be. for members of the general public who may or may not have health care coverage, what are they up against with hepatitis c these days of? >> well i mean, i can answer that question only so much. i think dr. mccowan would probably answer that better. i don't know, you know, again without certain resources. if you have, let's say, just discovered that you have hep c, and the way he had discovered it is the way i discovered it. you just have to go in for a routine exam or something, some

blood work and boom, there it is. it's like you're asking yourself, what do i do next. now i think that, you know, anyone with access to a computer can go online, look up hep c, and it will take you to the tuneintohepc.com. and there will be answers there. that were not even there three years ago. so at least they have that access now. again, you know, a lot of people are afraid to go to the doctor. they just don't want to do that. they're in denial. they don't have the money, or whatever the reasons are, and there may be something going on with them. they know that something's not right but they are afraid to go. so now you go on the internet. >> speaking with one of her guests here at the head table before we got started today, i understand there's really a

movement underfoot now do not own a screen people who might be at high risk but ultimately to screen people much the same as they are routinely screened for something like hiv. >> absolutely. >> what's the importance of that? >> absolutely, because again, this thing that we call this a stigma is so, hiv still has a bit of a stigma. it's not totally wrong wrong here but it's done so much better over the past probably just five years. let's just say five years. if we can get the concept of hepatitis c to that level, we will be so much further ahead. it's valuable. it's important that we approach hep c with the same kind of aggressiveness that we have with hiv, and i think that there's a reason why we can't have some

similar positive results and continue to find more treatmen treatments. >> i guess the way our culture and our behaviors have changed over the years, i understand it could be someone who does something as innocent relatively speaking as getting ear piercing, could be a mother who had a blood transfusion. that's not something a stuck and your in their armor, that some who thought they're going to their everyday life. >> that's right. it's a little on the scary side, and you know, and our hospitals, our doctors offices, i mean, you just get a little paranoid. i understand why some people don't want to go to the doctor. but, you know, like our county hospitals, maybe dan are not as kept up his will as, i don't know what the hospitals here in d.c., but like at home in los angeles, cedars is a great hospital. ucla, usc. but then there's county

hospital, maybe they are not as, you know? so you would want to go, if you're going to go get a test, go to a place that you know has the best testing, you know? and it doesn't necessarily have to be costly. but again, that kind of information would be on the website, where you can go to be tested, where you can go to be screened. >> we talked about in your speech your engagements in substance abuse during a time years ago. what was your own sense of the potential health risk to yourself, and was there and awareness really that you could be putting yourself at risk in particular for hepatitis c, or was it just living that lifestyle that many thought would be okay in the in? >> living my life. living my life, having fun, taking up my heels, not a care in the world. you know, for us x. drug people, extra addicts, we have our own little code of sandwiches and

stuff. we also have seen a side of life that maybe many of you in this room have not seen. we have seen death. we've seen it, right in front of her face. and for some reason it passed us by. and so when i was getting high and doing all that stuff, i probably owe deed of these two or three different times. never thought twice about it. oh, i think i remember once i was concerned about the headlines the headlines might say that king cole's daughter found underneath the sink in neighbors apartment, and odd. but guess what. i still put a needle in my arm. when you're addicted to drugs you have, you don't think. you're not thinking of tomorrow. in thinking beyond the road. next week. you are thinking just that moment. and i can't tell you how many people i lost during that time.

>> is it your sense it was worse back in the day than it is now in the sense of prevalence of the abuse in, let's say, the entertainment punitive? >> you know, it's hard to say because this is going to sound really crazy, but at least back in the day we had good drugs. [laughter] i'm serious. the quality of the cocaine, the quality of heroin, the quality of the marijuana was not laced with sodium pentothal. it didn't have poison in it. it didn't have rat poison in it. these days, the kids are taking the ecstasy, the ghb, i don't even know what half the stuff is they are taking. and this stuff is laced with stuff. they don't know what's in it and that's why they're dying like the way they are. i mean, you know, it's a different kind of culture that we are seeing now.

maybe not as many heroin users, i don't really know, but the ecstasy, the math. these are very, very powerful drugs that could affect some kind of organ in their lifetime in their body. depends on how long they do it. sometimes it only takes one time. and they are gone. >> in the since it was almost glorified back in the '70s and maybe the early '80s, and now maybe not so much of those? >> no, because back in the '70s, you know, some of the most well-known record producers, they had chores of cocaine, you know? they were giving it to the artist. and managers would go out and get it from the artists. if you, for me, if you didn't get high i wouldn't hire you. you know, you couldn't even be in my circle. i mean, it was a whole nother

thought process. >> big party? >> it was a big party, yeah. then it went from being fined for not being so much fun. folks started dying and we started freaking out. you know, and some of us were able to get to rehab in time, thank god. >> what was the first intervention like that, that you can remember were the key turned from its a party to something has to be done in? >> probably when i had my son, and there's something about, something that goes on in your brain, even though you don't necessarily do anything about it but there's something that goes on in your brain as you are going to get a bag of heroin or a bag of cocaine and you've got your son with you. and he's like 2, in his pajamas and you're taking him with you on your drug run. i think that was -- >> so that's when you have and

awareness? >> i had an awareness but i didn't do anything about it, you know. they were just way too many events that happened that should've turned out really ugly and bad. i could have lost my son, and i wrote about this in my first book. my son fell in the pool. i was in, back in the bedroom getting high. i had people working for me that did not know how to swim, they jumped into any way to save him. but did i stop? no. and there were a lot of those. did i stop? no. so it's really by the grace of god that i am your. >> i mean, what was it that got you into rehab in terms of, a particular event? was there something that cause you to go to rehab one particular day or anything like that you can remember or care to share the? >> i went to rehab twice. the first time i have to say, it was interesting because the facility that it went to was in

california. they knew nothing about drug disease or drug addiction. they thought that it was a psychological or psychiatric problem that you were crazy, and that you needed psychiatric help. so needless to say i was there for 30 days, and 30 minutes after i left i was back at it. the second time i went, interestingly enough the people that approach to mean were not my family members, but my attorney, my business manager, my accountant. and i can't remember the fourth person. i think it was a fourth person who came to my own. >> it was the gravy train. >> they are like in the suits. the suits came to my house, you know? [laughter] it was so unusual for them to say, you know, we really care about you. we have a lot of respect for

you, but we're not going to be able to represent you anymore because you are going to be dead. and i was just like what? who are you? you know, my mother couldn't get me to do. my sister couldn't talk me into it. for some reason why they did was something, something, something clicked in here. >> so that's a series. a lesson to you. >> and i was on my way spent i guess it is a blessing? >> indeed it was. >> what can you do to encourage more african-americans to get into the research study so the drug can help more people? >> well, these two ladies, particularly you who has the newspaper that ensure goes to the black community, okay? talked it up. if i need to do an interview, we will do an interview. and make it, and addresses specifically to the black

community because we don't go to the doctor very often. we are not good at the. i could get on the case a lot so i would be happy to talk to you afterwards. >> very good. someone asks from the audience, won't have the patience now be covered by the afford health care act, the one that is so contentious in the political realm these days which forbids the denial of health care insurance based upon a preexisting condition? in other words, is that helping? >> beats me. >> fair enough. [laughter] >> very good. you're not having to qualify people for health care. fair enough. someone as, this is a personal statement from someone in our audience. guessing thank you for putting your warm, beautiful face to the cause of hep c. this persisting for those of us who rebounded or relapsed while on treatment or experienced lymphoma or associate with hep c, was on the horizon for test for markers and tests or

response to treatment? in other words, is progress being made? >> that's a medical question. i wish i could answer it but i do not know. but again, go on the website. tuneintohepc.com. you will find, if you can't find 99% of the answers that you're looking for, then tell the murder people and they will have to read it because that's why they did it so that people can go and ask the hard question. >> someone is asking how did you keep your voice strong while you were undergoing treatment? >> you know, i think that the reason that my voice kind of stayed more or less in decent shape, because it's a gift. it didn't have anything to do. it's still stay there and it was therefore, it was there for me when i needed it.

it really was. >> you are extremely grateful. >> i am so grateful, so grateful. >> you've worked as a recording artist, an author, an actor. probably some things i'm not thinking of as well. that's a rich creative portfolio. i think people would like to know, when you're not working on this important project, what are you doing these days to serve the creative side of your personality? whether it's another new repot at a recording? >> i just believe that god sends me where i needed. and that's kind of the way it's been. especially since i've been ill which is only been over the last three years. but when i look back on my career, i really believe that god has sent me what i've been needed, and the fact that i even continue to work is amazing to me, that what i do is still

considered viable. you know, they're still so much i haven't done, and yet i'm very, very happy with what i have done. i try to say, i'm in the committee a lot. people see me through the community, and i think it's important when people just like you as a person, you know. forget about what you do. if they can just take it -- if they can just get to know you a little bit that goes along way. so when i have to, and speaker things i don't come off like an idiot. because i've either been there or i'm talking to people, and i'm hearing what they are saying and i'm caring that message forward. i just believe in being real and just letting this, letting what i do, do what it's supposed to

do. >> a lot of people will think about the legacy of your father, who still seems very much a relevant part of pop-culture. if you go christmas shopping and the more you can't help but hear him, right? >> i know. it's so embarrassing. i'm telling you. >> tell me why. >> especially if you're going into a mall, not just one store but going into struggle stores, and every store is playing one of my dad's songs. and i can't even as she walked into a store and i heard chestnuts roasting, i turned around and walked out. [laughter] i will come back later. spent it should qualify you as a discount at the very least? >> how about that? [laughter] how much do you think, or do you keep in your mind about that musical legacy? you've obviously embraced your father's talent inocencio performed within, even though he passed away tragically at an early age, how often is his

musical talent, and also that of your mother, present with you on a day-to-day basis? >> i would say almost all the time. i rely on that to help me make, you know, just even decisions about the music that i want to sing. the future music i want to do. or what is the best road for me to take, depending on what the goal is. like, if i want to reach a certain audience, then there's certain songs i want to sing. and, you know, my dad, when i realized after all these years that my dad still makes people smile when you talk about him, when they come up to me and say, i was a big fan of your fathers. but there is a healing that actually took place when my father was singing. it's still there.

and that is some, some of that has been passed onto me. that's what people say. and i think that that's an amazing quality, that, that's why i know it's a gift. >> and yet he was such a groundbreaker in many ways. there was the race part of that. he had a television show. i've seen it described the maven the first black or african-american to host a television variety show. >> he was. and he was not politically involved. he was not trying to make a statement. he was just happy to have his tv show. i remember we used to sit home and watch it, you know, for those 15 minutes. and all he had to say about it after the sponsors hold the show because they were just too scared to have a black person with that kind of power. because he is getting ready to have a lot of power. and is sponsored pulled the show and the only thing my dad had to say about it was, i guess

madison avenue is afraid of the dark. and i thought that was a very cruel statement to make. [laughter] but my dad was not a political person, and he was thrown into it a number of times when he would be asked to perform in front of audiences that were segregated. and that was just not his thing, even though he was from alabama, montgomerymontgomery, alabama, w what segregation was but he was not going to let that dictate his career. and he, you know, he got a little, a little scuffled from the. there were people that would throw things at him, and they would boo him, and stuff like that. but he stuck to his guns. he said i'm not standing in front of a segregated audience. he said i sing to everybody. >> so to keep that bipartisan tradition going, we now see in washington, d.c. with barack obama, the president.

and as of today, an african-american leading in some polls for the republican nomination for president, so from either your perspective and from what you think about what your father might have thought, what would he thinks because i think he would be fascinated. i think he would be just absolutely, you know, glued to the television watching this in his lifetime. he would have been. and i think that's we, as the black people that i certainly know, are pretty glued, you know, that regardless of the results, just the idea that we've gotten this far is really an amazing thing. and i think that any ethnicity can say that when they see one of their own get out there like that. it's the coolest thing. it's a beautiful thing, and it gives us hope that, you know, we can all do something great, you know, no matter who we are.

i think it's just unfortunate that president obama has had so much, if i could, you have to pardon me but i just had to say it like i see it. he has had so much a ship thrown at him, okay? and i'm not happy about it. and yes, i voted for him, but i don't believe that any one man, black, white, yellow or purple, can turn this country around in four years, three. so they need to get off his case, let him do what he is going to do, and you know, maybe he will make in the next four years. i would wish he would just for the consistency of having somebody there. now he knows what to do. now he knows. okay? it kind of like being in school. this man was very young when he came into office. he didn't know half the stuff that was going to happen to him, and you know, i like, i first are looking at cain and i'm

like, where the hell did he come from? [laughter] you know? but at the same time i'm saying same thing, give him a break, too. what could possibly happen? we are in such an interesting culture, time of our lives right now, anything can happen. so, why not? you know, wouldn't that be something? you know? i don't know but the republicans would think. [laughter] but it would be really an extraordinary thing if cain ended up being a front runner. but i think the right now, i am very pleased that obama came into this environment. i'm glad we have a black president, because it has showed us just how prejudiced we really are, because they basically blamed of this man, you know, for everything. and they have really taken such

potshots at him. it's really not fair to give him another four years and let him get it right. speak if you'll just end by you, thank you for that. would go to one last question here in a moment. we're almost out of time. i would like it might our guest today about upcoming speakers. very much at the intersection we can talk about here today, on october 24 we still have some tickets of able for tmc's harvey levin to talk about the changing landscape in entertainment news and on october 31st, herman cain will be our guest speaker here. speak and it's no coincidence that it is on halloween? [laughter] >> that's when he could make it. we opened the invitation. so first of all, before our last question i would like to present you with a token of our appreciation. that's the official npc coffee mug. >> thank you. >> the last question from acer is one, given your father's death from lung cancer and your own battles with addiction, what

advice would you give president obama about cigarette smoking? >> does he still -- >> we don't know. i think it is still out there a little bit. we certainly don't see it in public. we don't want him to smoke though, right, as president? >> no, we don't. can you blame him though? spanky needs to take a break. [laughter] your father did die from lung cancer? >> yes, he did. he was a very heavy smoker. he smoked like, what were those things called? he didn't do menthol. phillip morse, c.a.m.e.l.s. lucky strike. he had a cigarette holder, you know, that filtered. didn't do him any good. but yeah, he was a very heavy smoker. i wouldn't know what to tell obama, you know? i think that he's a smart enough man to know. mh is really tough for him, but i can tell them what i did. i was also smoking up until about six years ago, and i

stopped because i couldn't hit all my notes. and i would hate something like that to happen before he would, you know, but i can say that, and i wasn't that big of a smoker. but within 30 days of not smoking, it came back, my boys came back. >> how about a round of applause for our guest speaker? [applause] >> thank you for coming today. i'd like to thank our national press club staff, including our liber and broadcast center for organizing today's event. thank you, and we adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] in a few moments a forum on

congressional influence on foreign policy.

>> now, a former congressional influence on foreign policy. panelists include former new hampshire senator john sununu who says there's what he calls a central tension between congress and the white house on foreign policy. posted by the woodrow wilson center, this is two hours. >> thank you, john. i don't know what i needed. i'm just a recovering politici politician. but i think this is a very important topic. i was thinking back over the nine terms i served in congress, 17 years, 119th dog used for any of you who want to do the meth. and the different once we got into them and the different ways they were authorized.

from bosnia in 1995 to iraq, to afghanistan, in the reverse order, and more recently to libya when i was no longer the there. but each time congress' role seemed to me to be somewhat different, and the formal or informal justification seem to be somewhat different. and it is really important to probe this subject because so far as i know the constitution hasn't changed all these years and it is still congresses job to declare war. so, i've just come to, there are very small -- smart people on this panel. and also to say to everyone that john sununu and i served together on the house commerce committee a thousand years ago if those were the days when there was some bipartisanship. i know most of you can't remember that that was ever

true, but it was true. and he and i worked together then and we have worked together since. and the woodrow wilson center, which i am now enormously honored to lead, is absolutely committed, at least here in this one wing of the reagan building, to fostering thoughtful conversation, respectful interaction, and bipartisan solutions to tough problems. and one of them on this is what role congress should play as we confront very different challenges in foreign policy, some of them involving genetics in the 21st century. so i just want to thank you for doing this panel. give sununu an actual hug, and welcome to our audience. [applause] >> thank you, jane. today's program is the first in

a series of programs in the coming academic year on the overall theme with congress and global challenges. .. that congress should presume to interfere with those prerogatives. that is what will grow wilson fought as an academic when he wrote the initiative in foreign affairs which the president

possesses without any restriction whatever is virtually the power to control them absolutely. as we recall from his fight with the senate over the treaty of versailles in 1919-20 he largely had that attitude when he was president. yet the founders had congress in mind of a player in foreign affairs when it gave exclusive powers to declare war, regulate commerce with foreign nations, define and punish felony sunni i see, offensive against the laws of nations, regulate the value not only of u.s. currency but foreign currency. something very much in the news these days. the senate has shared power with the president on ambassadorships and treaties. most fundamentally congress's power of the purse goes not only to domestic matters but foreign and military affairs as well. i was just thumbing through the

286 pages of the house foreign affairs authorization for foreign relations and it covers a lot of territory and they consider it seven amendments during their markup during july. notwithstanding these separate and shared power is the intent of the framers that congress should act as a check and the executive branch at home and abroad congress tended to be for more to the president since the u.s. became an international power in the last century. what does get involved in making foreign policy is accused of micromanaging, excessive meddling incentive affairs. i recall vividly former secretary henry kissinger said after he left office that congress's role in foreign policy is like 535 ants floating down the river on a log each thinking it is steering the thing. i learned later that was a

paraphrase of something mark twain said about bureaucracies and 5,000 and floating downriver on a log. congress organized to play a role in defense policy through its committee system. the armed service foreign affairs committee to authorize programs in those areas, finance ways and means committee on trade matters, focus on foreign operations and defense subcommittee's to determine appropriate allocations in those areas. all of these committees and subcommittees consume a substantial amount of time and resources of committee members and their staff. their product received considerable debate on the floor of the house and the senate. clearly congress is involved on an ongoing basis. formulation funding and oversight of america's foreign policies. what we are asking is if that involvement is for better or for worse. does it enhance or detract from the quality and success of

foreign policies? we have an excellent panel today to help answer those questions. you have the biographies in your hand out so i won't go into detail on each of them but let me list briefly who we will hear from so i don't interrupt the flow of their presentations. we will hear from former senator john sununu who served in the house of representatives and six years in the senate. the house was active on budget matters and the senate on foreign relations and the armed service committee. we will hear from david mckean who is a public policy scholar at the wilson center. 4 in fall and -- policy adviser and chief of staff and staff director for senator john kerry of massachusetts. he is the author of a biography you will find interesting of former fdr confidante and lobbyist tommy corcoran. we agreed full view for your willingness to fill an at the

last minute after the withdrawal of congressman dick gephardt who had a last-minute scheduling conflict that came up. we agreed full. i gave him the option of saying a few words during the presentation and he was kind enough to say i worked on the hill with you. i can be yes with the best of them so i will fill in and do a few remarks too. then we will hear from james lindsay, senior vice president of the council on foreign relations, national staffer and political scientist and author and co-author of several books including the college text congress and the politics of u.s. foreign policy. we are grateful to you for being with us today. finally we will hear from someone who are imposed upon several times because she is one of my favorite journalists, gail chaddock with the congressional correspondent with the christian science monitor. prior to that being a hill

correspondent she was -- she has looked at the issue from both sides across the big body of water and we're grateful far for in sight. she taught political science and she is one of the people i am sure my former boss lynn martin would have been proud to work with because lynn martin is always a at which those journalists had been required to take one political science course during their college days because some of them don't know what is going on here. after a few years they do catch on. i am going to yield the podium to senator sununu for as much time as he may consume. >> thank you very much. let me be the first to recognize yielding for a senator as much time as he wants is the most dangerous thing you can possibly do in a format where you are trying to get to other speakers. but i will try to keep my remarks brief and focused on the

peculiarities of congress in general and the house and senate in particular. how they might contrast with one another and how members might arrive at their own decisions with regard to foreign policy and what perspective and background do they bring to their view of foreign policy and how might it affect the outcome is. a few thoughts about the comments made in the introduction. thank you to jane for her kind words. wonderful to work with her. she is a genuinely good friend and extremely thoughtful person and worked bipartisan on a host of issues but never more determined than on issues of national security and on the intelligence committee which she was privileged to meet and did so effectively. mentioned bipartisanship and i start with an observation that there is plenty of bipartisan consensus. presidents both democrats and

republicans agree that congress has no business meddling in foreign policy. members of congress, democrat and republican joined together and agreeing the oval office has no idea where they are going on foreign policy. there is opportunity for the parties to work together in that regard. with respect to the age of the debate, certainly the debate goes back further than the 1970s phone no question academic circles have been more thoughtful and more focused on the give and take between congress and the presidency since then. don mentioned in wilson's perspective on the role of congress versus the presidency at the turn of the century but the fact is some of the earliest and most heated debate in congress were over matters of foreign policy. approval of treaties with the

english. not just arguing substance and detail in the meeting and the impact of what was written by arguing at the time about the broader role of congress in foreign policy. it is an issue that had been in front of the country since its founding and there is no question congress has a role by design. that is the way the framers wanted it. they could have written into the constitution that on matters of foreign policy congress will back out but they didn't. there is no more important responsibilities and the power to declare war. there is an incredibly important role clearly enumerated for the senate to approve and ratify treaties and in terms of relevance we can look at the past few weeks, after a long delay of three relatively

important trade agreements, some who were responsible for the delay might argue that it was done in order to insure that the treaties were well crafted in their detail and that additional issues like trade adjustment authority were considered along with the treaties. and there's no question if you are korea, the delay and details in that trade agreement have shape your foreign policy choices and decisions with regard to the united states. it may be simply a trade agreement but there is no question it affect foreign policy. the senate approval of legislation dealing with chinese currency manipulation is another important agreement with you agree or disagree with the legislation. there is no question it is not just relevant but very important to the shade and the tone of our

relations both economic, social and political with china. there's no question congress remained extremely relevant. as a former member icy the central tension between the presidency and congress being that in the abstract like most americans would agree, we would like a consensus driven, unified foreign policy because that is easier to implement and represent national interests if that is the case. but in fact we have a congress that is partisan at times and populist at times and they are human beings in the congress, driven by different aspects of ethnic or demographic identity. none of those in and of

themselves are bad. parties are not a bad thing. parties help make our system of democracy work. parties represent differing views and ideas about economics, about governance and foreign policy. you don't solve the problem by getting rid of parties. you don't fall problem by telling people you shouldn't identify yourself as an irish-american or scottish america or polish american. that is what america is all about. you can't escape the fact that these things -- these american concepts affect the way a member of congress, house or senate view their role and responsibilities. what are the things that drive those members and their approach to foreign policy? first is their personal background. where did they grow up? where were they educated?

how do their families view their immigrant roots shaped them and their value system as they grew up and the uneducated and began a pursuit of public life? that really does make a difference. if you are a first generation polish american family, you are probably going to be a little bit more focused on the issues associated with central europe, issues associated with our allies and adversaries in that part of the world. it is natural, not inevitable but a natural thing. there is no question the east coast and west coast tend to be the populations tend to be a little more focused on international issues. that is as much a reflection of

geography as anything. there are few people in america, as a percentage, americans are not nearly as focused on international issues as their counterparts in europe but that is a reflection of geography of the size of countries, the number of countries somebody may have visited as they were growing up and certainly in public life. that that ground shakes members perspective without question. second would-be constituencies. regardless of background or upbringing or ethnicity in the united states if you are a member of congress and representing a district you care about the makeup of people in your district. where are they from? what parts of the world are they most focused on? even if there is not unanimity on a particular issue, if you

are a member of congress that represents dearborn, michigan, you will naturally have spent time in the largest arab-american community in the united states. that is without question going to help shape and inform your view and might have affect on your priority. you could good district by district all over the country and found that constituencies might shape and affect the intensity with which a member of congress looks at foreign policy in a particular part of the world. the committee's you are on certainly have an impact. no question if you are a member of the foreign relations committee in the senate or the house, they called it international affairs in the house but keep changing the names of these committees you will be more focused on foreign policy. if you are the chairman of the africa subcommittee he will be

more focused on issues affecting the african continent. doesn't mean you are going to disregard other parts of the world and if you are a member of one of the committees with foreign policy jurisdiction doesn't mean you are going to be a good member. but it means you are much more likely to be focused on those issues. it is not just foreign relations committee. but the armed services committee is going to bring members in closer contact with issues having to do with foreign policy and foreign affairs and international relations. the homeland security committees are going to bring members in closer contact with these issues and questions because of the amount of work that was done around the world to deal with a threat from terrorism and other

threats. not just foreign relations committee but final point on committees, it matters who runs those committees. if you are on the armed services committee, john mccain and senator levin will have a different perspective on foreign policy and national security than dick lugar and john kerry, their counterparts on foreign affairs. not necessarily better or worse. whether issues are more partisan or less partisan those four individuals are deeply involved in foreign policy but all carry with them their own by s.es and interests and areas of emphasis. if you remember of one committee, there is greater likelihood that you would follow the leadership and fought

development of those leaders. the final thing that affects members perspective are things themselves. i didn't expect that i would be so involved in issues relating to iraq at the ended up being when first elected in 1996. if you asked what issues of foreign policy are important you spend time and involve yourself where you might travel as a member of congress, you ask any of those questioned in 1998 and 2000 the answers i gave you would have born no rhyme or reason to what i was thinking and doing and working on in 2002-2004-2006 in the united states senate. not many members of congress pay a lot of attention to foreign policy.

one of the questions we had to consider and prepare in brief remarks is how many members of congress pay attention to both policies? you have got to be fine or pay attention. what does that mean? 5% or 10%. how i would define it would be how many members pay attention or work on foreign policy issues that aren't in the headlines? work on foreign policy issues when others in the senate are not paying attention? we are all asked to deal with and vote on a currency manipulation bill, you have to vote on troop deployments or withdrawals from iraq or afghanistan or vote on foreign operations. we have been through that and most members pay attention and consider and analyze and come to

their own decisions when it comes time to vote but who worked on foreign policy issues when that is not happening or not in the headlines? probably 5% to 10% to be quite succinct. should it be more? it should be. the reason it should be more is because the more that members pay attention to foreign policy issues during the times these issues are not in the headlines the better prepared they will be to respond and react to challenges when they become a crisis situation. that is the point i would close on. how do you make the situation better? what can we do to make the situation better? it is a simple suggestion and probably one that is worth emphasizing because as a former member it makes a difference.

to provide as many opportunities as possible domestically for members of congress to debate and discuss these issues when they are not a crisis. so having a forum today about troop deployment or withdrawal in afghanistan is important, but the country would have been better served if people were talking about the nature of the afghan state, strengths and weaknesseses and failures and opportunities can 15 years ago. the objective should be whether the wilson institute or any other council on foreign relations, many outstanding institutions that care about international relations on foreign policy got to work as hard as possible to provide

those opportunities. you might not draw as big a crowd if you were talking about the roots of democratic reform in sub-saharan africa. that might not draw the crowd that a debate about troop policy in afghanistan or in iraq but it is going to be important. it is difficult to tell if and when we will all be tuned in to those questions and issues but if and when we are, if there's a crisis on the world stage or an activity on the world stage that causes us to turn to that issue we will be better off and people spend a lot of time thinking and talking about it and discussing it, they will be better informed and more capable and confident and able to bring something to

the table that will make a difference for their colleagues. thank you. [applause] >> interesting you should mention sub-saharan africa. over the weekend the word came out that president obama sent a letter to congress and the terms of the war powers act indicating he was sending special service advisers into gonna --ghana and planned to send them to sudan and central african republic and a condo. this is just coming out in the news but probably congress hasn't paid that much attention but under the terms of the war powers act we are involving u.s. military and other countries in potential hostile situations. with that i will turn things over to david mckean. you may use the podium if you wish.

>> thank you. i think don mentioned i have dabbled a little bit in history and spent a lot of my career working for john kerry. that is what i will talk about today. i will dabble in history and tell you about john kerry. as an example of somebody who's career in foreign policy is illustrative of a lot of what goes on in congress. what about it? is congress a positive influence on foreign policy? before answering that question we have to keep in mind that any influence congress has to rise to the constitution as the senator said, a political observer put it very well, quote, the making of a sound u.s. foreign policy depends on a vigorous legal deliberative and often combative process involving the executive and

legislative branches. the founding fathers gave each brand exclusive and overlapping powers in overlapping policy. each one's comparative advantage as constitutional scholars put it to struggle for the privilege of directing foreign policy. let's be clear. for most of the nation's history and certainly in the modern era it hasn't been much of a struggle. the president has been the driver of foreign policy and has the vision and sets the agenda and the tone and appoints people to implement his vision. some will argue there is key division of power over the question of war. the power to declare war was given to congress. the power to wage war remains with the president. theoretically the president needs to get a declaration of war from congress but the last time congress passed a bill with the title declaration of war was in 1942. since then the u.s. has used terms like authorization to use

military force as it did in iraq in 2003. once a war is under way congress has the power to stop it by cutting off funding. that happened in vietnam. it is unlikely ever to happen again where u.s. troops are involved. but congress hasn't always taken a back seat and will not always take a back seat. in the 1980s president reagan pursued constructive engagement with south africa. the policy of offering incentives to south african government for eventual regime change as provided economic and military aid to the south african government encouraged south africa to implement reforms. congress felt that the reform was too slow and in 1986 passed over president reagan's veto a bill opposing broad sanctions.

the shared responsibility with the executive branch usually taking the lead generally works pretty well. but what if anything can congress do to make a more responsible player in foreign policy on that day to day basis? from where i sat as a staffer in the foreign relations committee are believe the answer is oversight, oversight, oversight. let me read you a paragraph from an article by thomas mann in foreign affairs a few years ago, quote, one of congress's key roles is oversight. making sure the laws are faithfully executed and that military and diplomatic -- congressional oversight is meant to keep mistakes from happening or spiraling out of control. it helps draw out the lessons from catastrophes in order to prevent them or others like them from recurring. good oversight cuts waste, punishes broader scandal and keeps policymakers on their

toes. the test is not easy. examining the department or agency or personnel and implementation policies is time consuming. investigating scandals can lapse into a partisan exercise that ignores broad policy issues for the sake of cheap publicity. i think that is exactly right. i would add members need to have the information to assess strategic viability and implication of any particular policy. hearings are important part of this process until a few members attend them. too often issues are decided without proper information or based on political considerations rather than being driven by substantive information and critical assessment of the pros and cons. too easy to politicize foreign policy as it is any issue. take pakistan. congress should be explaining to the public in concert with the administration why we need to maintain a good relationship with pakistan. that doesn't mean the terms of

the relationship remain static but it does mean we not only need to understand the failings of pakistan but put them in context of our historical relations with that country. we need to do so in order to find common ground. too often we see the relationship capturing in knee-jerk political terms that eliminate national security implications. that is a brief view of congress and foreign policy from 50,000 feet. let me take a more granular look at how one committee and its chairman operates. i was chief of staff of senator kerrey from 2000-2008 and in 2009 he became chairman of the foreign relations committee. the senator had been on the committee since 1984 when first elected to congress. his father had been a diplomat in the foreign service and as you know john kerry served in vietnam but became a critic of the war.

in 1972 he testified before the foreign relations committee bear he asked how do you ask a man to be the last to die for a mistake? i have seen the senator dive into any number of issues but foreign policy was his great passion. at the risk of stating the obvious, very different to be the chairman of the committee and not just one of its members. even one of its senior and better known members. as a member of the committee john kerry had maybe 2-1/2 staffers responsible for covering the issues for him. he can't be an expert on every issue. there isn't enough time in the day. invariably you distinguish yourself by focusing intentionally on one thing or two. this goes to what senator sununu was talking about. experience can help a member find his or her issue. in the 1990s john kerry focused

on the recognition, transition, modernization issues related to vietnam because he had served there and because he previously chaired the pow investigation in the senate. and likewise help a member find their issue. john kerry served as senior democratic member on the asia subcommittee which partially explain why he worked on the cambodian genocide tribunal. finally the opportunity to lead on an important issue can help a member emerge. in the 1990s john kerry did so -- did a tremendous amount of work and it was a moral issue but not a mainstream issue. as noted in 2009 he became chairman of the committee and had to cover the world. he was responsible not only to members of his committee but the entire senate. he had to be something of an expert on every issue that came

up and that means afghanistan. the pakistan, egypt, libya. to put it in real terms as a member of the committee john kerry spent 20% of his time on foreign policy. as chairman he spends 60% of his time on committee related work. the one thing that is really important is when he is not in the senate and the senate is in recess he spends a huge amount of his time on the road travelling to vacation spots like afghanistan, pakistan, middle east and are for -- darfur. he believes to understand a country you have to know it. you have to make contact with the people and visit and listen to foreign leaders and see it for yourself. he used to say good diplomacy requires the ability to see another country through their

eyes and their history. and i think the foreign travel component is especially important to any chairman of the committee that handles foreign policy. after 2004 because john kerry was known as the serious student of foreign policy and was famous globally as a former presidential nominee he could get meetings with any foreign leader he wanted and developed some important relationships. what changed in 2009 was many leaders of these countries sought a chairman who was close to the president and looked to him to translate the administration's foreign policy. i should add the senator recognized that he is a translator and not a spokesman of the administration. he understands congress is a separate branch of the government. he differed with the administration on key issues declaring in october of 2009 in the president's strategy in

afghanistan when too far too fast and this past summer issue and report critical of our civilian assistance in afghanistan. he also found as chairman he has a power that is extremely important like bringing in former republican secretaries of state and defense months ahead of the s.t.a.r.t. treaty. probably had members to his house to build relationships and bridge the partisan divide. i think that is a big part of why the committee had some important bipartisan success. senator sununu alluded to this but john kerry added great partner in richard lugar. he had to run off to other appointments and wasn't comfortable and was comfortable handling the gavel to senator lugar.

more commonly on other committees you find the chairman and ranking member wanting to throw the gavel at one another. the last thing i will note about the foreign relations committee and the senator's approach to is he wanted to make it clear it is not a chairmancentric committee. what i mean by that, his personal experience has been instructive. he had been working on these issues but with contemporaries like joe biden and chris dodd ahead of him in seniority. he spent most of his career in the third or fourth position and that can be frustrating. when he got the gavel he thought about how to reinvigorate the subcommittee and power committee members so they felt engage and created a new subcommittee for senator parter to pursue her passion and women's issues. he reached out to new members

like christians -- chris coons his passion is africa. the only succeed if members on both sides get real value for being on it. it is not a committee that when you a lot of folks back home. let me stop there. whether it is in the executive branch or congress in the final analysis the fact that foreign policy is the byproduct of effective leadership. thank you. [applause] >> i will turn things over to james lindsay who did his teaching in the university of iowa a few years after i left as a graduate student. i have very fond memories of the iowa city campus. >> thank you very much. this is the point i am supposed to say go hawks. at the university of ottawa. thank you for having me here. i want to say thank you to

congressman harman and frances lee. she has written an excellent book and are recommend people not only read it but by it. just what every author wants readers to do. i also want to say it is an honor to be here with senator sununu and david and gail the ohio galen apology in advance. i am a professor by training and a professor's job is to find somebody who talks while other people sleep. i will endeavor to turns his paddle over to you with the audience at least half awake. the question are was asked to address is congress's influence on policy for better or for worse? my answer, yes. i say that because questions about whether congress's foreign policy is good or bad ultimately lies in the eyes of the be

holder and essentially people like congress when congress is standing up to a president who is doing things they don't like and they want congress to sit down and be quiet when the president is doing what they want him to do. if you're a historian or political scientist you go back and forth through history finding examples of a good congressional influence on foreign policy or a bad congressional influence on policy or ask if congress is good or deferential congress is good you find multiple examples on both sides. one argument against the differential congress to what arthur/injured did earlier on and talk about the imperial presidency and congress surrendering its voice in the gulf of tonkin resolution. if you one argument against an activist congress getting in the way of a president doing the right thing perhaps the classic example would be the senate rejection of the treaty of versailles. i want to talk about three

things and make three points. one is congress operates at a disadvantage in foreign policy and will continue to do so as long as the united states has an activist foreign policy. second, politics inherently shape what congress does in foreign affairs. congress influences foreign policy directly or perhaps more importantly in directly. let me begin with my first point. congress operates at a disadvantage in foreign policy and will so long as we have an activist foreign policy. as don pointed out the constitution clearly is important foreign policy powers to congress and the president. southern famous saying in constitutional circles the constitution is an indication to struggle over foreign policy. even so ever since world war ii

the playing field has tilted in favor of the white house. there are many reasons. i will lay out three in particular. one of the most important is u.s. role around the world. it produced change perceptions of presidential power and to compare james madison who among other things helped to write the constitution and became president with more modern presidents. during madison's presidency the house representatives passed a bill delegating to have a decision whether to go to work with france. madison argued congress could not constitutionally delegate that power since the war power belongs to congress. 1950, after the invasion of south korea president truman decided to send u.s. forces to korea without requesting any

authorization whether labeled declaration of war or not. he did so without going to congress or congressional leaders were to take president obama in operation odyssey gone. extensive overseas involvement in the national stablished and -- establishment means congress must delegate authority to the white house and it will have exceeding difficulties. we talk the little bit about oversight. on both points, keep the following in mind. if you are congress you want to give authority to the president, general you rise to give the president some leeway if the law is too rigid. it will be counterproductive. one of my favorites was in appropriations in the 1970s that forbid central african empire. the problem is when the bill

passed, the central african empire collapsed and suddenly the united states government wanted to give aid and was barred by law from doing so but obviously as many of you know when you delegate you open room for people to borrow the economy's favorite word, shirk or do what they want. in terms of oversight the national security establishment, department of defense and department of state and department of treasury is huge and difficult to oversee. they try to follow what the agencies do but it is an extraordinarily daunting task. it is difficult for the white house to oversee those same agencies. the third thing is on the sidelines on most foreign policy issues. what are taught at iowa or the university of texas at austin, what would happen is students always thought the courts will

step in and referee the separation of powers. as a practical matter the courts declined to do so. if you want me to talk about why that is the case, the fact that the court is not refereeing for contest between the president and the white house effectively banishedes the white house. if the president can take the initiative and require congress to stop him, in many respects in american politics you really do have two presidencies and domestic politics the president frequently cannot act unless congress agrees. the most notable example recently would be the debt ceiling debate this summer. in many areas of foreign policy. by no means all of them, presidents can act until congress stops them by passing a law but was only become law if the president signs it.

if the president vetoes it goes back to the hill and as long as the president maintains support of 34 senators which generally speaking is in that hard to do a bill is veto-proof. the last foreign policy bill to be vetoed and have a veto overridden was the south african sanctions bill a quarter of a century ago. more recently we think about president obama in libya. agreed the law sentiment in both chambers particularly the house to stop the president's decision on operation odyssey dawn but everybody knew that no bill compelling the president to stop the bombing was going to pass. point number two. politics shaped congressional interest in foreign policy. americans very much like to believe politics stopped at the water's edge. i have a blog called the water's

edge. that is a blatant plug. politics doesn't stop at the water's edge and never has. we can talk about the most bitter disputes during george washington's presidency tended to deal with foreign affairs. i am not arguing all foreign policy is about politics. jerry's committees, staff work hard to oversee what the government does as part of their business. likewise we heard moments ago individual members had their own policy platforms and things they're interested in. they do try to make a difference and generally in the united states senate, gives a more free rein to members than more regimented house does. politics to a great degree shapes and drives what congress does in foreign policy. when you think about the basic

law of democratic politics, lawmakers gravitate toward issues that voters care about. somewhat different squeaky wheels. when the public is focused on jobs and the economy lawmakers are more focused on jobs and the economy. when the public is behind the president as in 2002, the public tends to rally behind the president. going beyond that we tend to get bipartisan politics incentives in the public about what our policy should be and politics are very partisan with considerable difference in what the public wants. not only what we should be doing abroad but what the solution to those problems are. point three is congress influences foreign policy both directly or even more importantly in directly. we normally think of

congressional impact as what laws get past. keep the president -- compel the president to do what. in some congressional legislation, respects the substance of foreign policy, appropriations bills regularly contain provisions directing how many may be spent. talking south africa sanctions but while a lot of focus is on direct substantive legislation congress's impact goes beyond that and congress influences policy in two important ways in directly. the first is the passage of procedure regulation. congress's extensive foreign-policy powers to write the rules of how the federal government operates and historically congress traded offices in the congressional -- executive-branch which was not intended to one of the more recent ones to create ambassador

for international freedom because of the concern the administration was not paying enough attention to it. on trade policy congress mandated the executive branch develops policies -- all these efforts for procedural legislation are predicated on the notion that all these things that made or who has a say in the making of this issue that you will get a different outcome. congress for members of congress influence policy in directly by trying to change the climate of opinion in the country and thereby put pressure on the president to act or not act as the case may be. speeches, television appearances, op-eds and dramatic stunts like going out on the grounds of capitol hill with a sledgehammer to break imported goods or bring out christmas trees festooned with for presentations of defense and

cost overruns are all about trying to frame public debate or if you want to be less charitable, critics certainly do this beleaguered middle to argue it is political grandstanding. at an end of the day it is about trying to shape the terms of public debate to make some policies more likely and make other policies less likely. at an end of the day what congress realized is passing laws is difficult. part of the effort is aimed at trying to shape the calculation the white house makes about what it is going to do and what it is likely to accomplish on capitol hill and what will cause it too much politically. i will stop there. >> thank you very much. [applause] >> gail chaddock. >> thank you. very happy to be here today especially because bonn has helped me more times than i can

recall. this institution provide something congress is short on which is institutional memory. where you can get context or a time line or ask a question, is this a new thing or has it been going on for years? this is a place that remembers things. switching to our topic today, foreign policy, to me it is critical to remember that congress is not as strapped as senator sununu said. it is about people. 5 to 10% of people are interested in foreign policy. david mckean said we have hearings. oversight is a critical function of congress. it is but if you look at hearing rooms there are one or two people asking questions. they are largely empty. too few members attend them.

the last comment was the most poignant and important. this interest in foreign policy that some members of congress have had only succeed if they get credit for it back home. very important point. finally, mr. lindsay was talking about congress reflecting what the public is interested in and all of the gimmicks, christmas trees and smashing of imports is a way to attack the public. what struck me the most in the panel discussion is no one has trashed the media. let me do that. when i was in paris my favorite place to spend time was in a bookstore owned by an iranian dissident who has been part of the revolution that brought ayatollah khamenei to power assuming he would leave power very soon after that which he never did so he and a lot of his

colleagues ended up fleeing for their lives. i would love to talk to him about this. he would follow world affairs closely and have special interest in the united states which he admitted frequently. last point, i asked him what concerned him and he said the most -- the thing that made him most afraid was last time he saw a cbs news. he had coming to the country and turned on the news and noticed there was only a minute and a half or two minutes devoted to foreign affairs. he said you are the world's superpower. and you know nothing about the world. you are not being given anything about the world. how can you possibly exercise that authority responsibly? fare point. now we go back to congress. when i was an academic i thought

about congress as an institution. it is impossible not to think about it as people. 535 people who make decisions about how they're going to use their time and resources and lately those decisions have less to do with foreign policy. you can get hurt by being too interested in foreign policy. because it is a template for a two seconds or seven seconds at. caring more about people than he does about the problems we're facing back home. this occurred to me recently as i was calling senator lugar's staff which i do frequently for information on lots of things especially where the senator is standing on a position. i wish i could remember what i was calling about. it would make a better story. something to do with weapons. maybe it was libya. this excellent staff member said

the senator is at an agricultural fair in indiana. i thought he hadn't heard me and i repeated the question. he said the senator is at an ag meaning the desk before and policy questions until november of 2012. there is an important race going on here and we don't want to look if we are more concerned about something there that we are here. that is just a small version of a much broader trend in congress. there were some questions i would love answers to. don collects lots of data but not on these points. i would like to know the amount of time a member of congress can spend in washington d.c. as opposed to home. my anecdotal sense is congress starts at 6:00 today and ends noon thursday.

if you get in a way of someone exit in the building thursday at noon to make a plane you are taking your life in your hands. what happens in that small section of time when people are together and can actually talk and build relationships on issues like this? look at any member of congress. they carry laminated card that are broken out in 15 minute intervals. there is time for committees but not a whole lot. there are fund-raisers in the evening. they don't have a lot of control over the time they spend doing things and that has had an impact on what we are talking about. another question i would love an answer to. if you look at the percentage of staff resources how much is that hiring and retaining staff that knows something about policy as opposed to staff that can man a war room that are very good with their thumbs and text in or tweeting or establishing networks. i remember a conversation with a

man who was regarded until he was let go as one of the most effective pr people in congress. i have to ask, you send me e-mails constantly giving response to issues of the day. how can you get back to him that quickly to get his response? he said i don't do that. i said what do you mean? you are sending your own thoughts? he says yes. i know him very well and how he thinks about this and i used to work for a member of congress who had to see everything i sent out under his name. it was ridiculous. kept missing the google wave. the google wave is serious. i get up every morning and the first thing i look at, what is presseding on google and how quickly can i write something to british and with our not doing that but i am.

everyone is trying to survive in the current media environment. another question. when you talk to members of staff, what is motivating them? where do they see their career? i too was interested in the oversight function and there are members of staff who are superb at oversight. they know a whole lot and they're like treasures. when one member leaves the congress this treasures pass to someone else who continues their excellent work. these people are feeling kind of like dinosaurs these days. the young staffers when you talk about what they want to do they want to go to canes street and carry and college loans that would stagger anyone with hundred thousand dollar loans -- they can't afford to stay on the hill as you might have 30 years

ago carefully working out an area of expertise. i actually did prepare some remarks i would like to run through briefly. i think the main point i want to leave you with is congress and foreign policy, you need to think about the 535 people and pick up the mark twain story don mentioned. the 5,000 deaths on the law. think about what is motivating the staff. what the future looks like to them and what would give them an incentive to develop the kind of deep expertise you need to be effective in foreign policy as opposed to coming up with a sound bite that will be good in a campaign style and linemen. there are individuals who made a difference in foreign policy. i was talking to the senate historical office the other day, another place with a wonderful

institutional memory. the host did not do as good a job with their historical memory but the senate did. we were talking about william borah of idaho, a member of the irreconcilable. he said america has written to a position where she is respected by the entire world ended by minding her own business. he opposed the league of nations as woodrow wilson discovered as many academics did when they came to congress. things are not quite as he thought they might be. and casually, he co-lead one of the many historians up their said he never went home to idaho. i said what do you mean never went home to idaho? he said congress in those days only paid for a trip once a year and it was hard to get to idaho's so he never went home. and i thought that is a very interesting point because members today go home all the time. and wt