and if you are a member of one of the committees with foreign policy jurisdiction, it does not mean that you will necessarily be a good member. you'll be much more likely to be focused on those issues. this is the armed services committee. they will bring members into closer contact with issues involving foreign policy. the homeland security committees are going to bring members in closer contact with these issues in question because of the amount of work that is being done around the world to deal with the threats from terrorism. and other threats to us. this is all of the committees.

and finally, in matters, who is running those committees. john mccain and senator levin are going to have a different perspective on foreign-policy and national-security issues than dick lugar and john kerry, their counterparts on foreign affairs. they're not necessarily better or worse, and other issues are more partisan or less partisan, they are all deeply involved in foreign policy but have their own biases and interests and areas of emphasis. there is a greater likelihood that you would follow the leadership and the development of those leaders. the final thing affecting their perspective is the events

themselves. i did not expect i would be so involved in issues relating to iraq, as i ended up being, why was first elected in 1996. if you ask me what issues of foreign policy you will be involved with, you could ask many of those questions in 1998 or 2000, the issues -- the answers i gave you would have no rhyme or reason to what i was working on in 2002 and 2004 in the united states senate. having said all of that, not all members of congress pay a great deal of attention to foreign policy.

one issue we had to consider in preparing their remarks for today is how many members of congress pay attention to foreign policy. you have to pay attention, but what does that mean? this is 5 for 10%. how would define this would be, how many members work on foreign policy issues that are not in the headlines, or work on foreign policy issues with others in the senate are not working on them were paying attention to them. you have to vote on currency manipulation, or you have to vote on troop deployments or withdrawals from iraq or afghanistan. we have all been through that and most members pay attention and consider and analyze, and have their own decisions when it comes to those. but who works on those when this is not in the headlines.

should this be more? yes. and the reason it should be more is because the more that the members pay attention to foreign policy issues during the time that these issues are not in the headlines, the better- prepared that they will be to react to the challenges when they do become a crisis situation. this would be the point i would close on. how do you make this situation better. this is a simple suggestion and probably one that has been made many times before but is worth emphasizing. i think that this makes a difference. to provide many -- as many

opportunities as possible, domestically. this is part of the crisis. the troop deployments and withdrawal in afghanistan, this is important but the country would have been better served if people were talking about the nature of the afghani state and the strengths and weaknesses, the failures and the opportunities to improve stability 10 or 15 years ago. the objective should be, if this is the wilson institute or any other council on foreign relations, or the institutions that care about international relations and foreign policy, you have to provide those opportunities.

you may not draw as big a crowd if you are talking about the roots of democratic reform in sub-saharan africa, this may not draw the crowd that a debate about the true policy in afghanistan or iraq. it is always difficult to tell if and when we will all be tune into those questions and issues. but if there is a crisis on the world stage, the u.s. states that causes us to turn to this issue, will be better off because people have spent a lot of time discussing this. there will be better informed, they'll be more capable and more confident and able to bring something to the table to make a difference for their colleagues in the united states congress. thank you.

[applause] >> interesting to mention sub- sahara africa. a letter was sent to the congress to say that he was sending special service of visors and to you gone that and would send them to the sudan and the central african republic and the congo. this is just coming out in the news but congress probably has not paid that much attention but this was part of the war powers act. we are involving the soldiers in potentially hostile situations. we will turn this over to david mckean.

>> thank you. i think that don mentioned i'd double little bit in history and spent a lot of my career working for john kerry. i will double in history and talk about john kerry, as an example of someone with a career in foreign-policy -- shows a lot of what goes on in the congress. is congress a positive influence on foreign policy? we have to know that any influence congress has the rise from the constitution. one political observer put this very well, the making of sound u.s. foreign policy relies on a combative process that involves the legislative and executive branches. and the founding fathers gave them overlapping powers in the

realm of foreign policy, inviting them to struggle for the privilege of directing american foreign policy. but for most of the nation's history and certainly in the modern era has not been that much of a struggle. the president has the vision and the agenda, appointing the people to implement his vision. some will argue there is a key division of power over the declaration of war. the power to wage war begins with the president. the president needs to get a declaration of war from the congress. the last time congress did this was 1942. since then the us states used the declaration to use military force.

congress may cut off the funding, which happened in vietnam. it is unlikely to ever happen again. but congress has always taken a back seat and it will not always take a back seat. already attempted constructive engagement with south africa, to have incentives for a potential regime change. they encourage the prime minister of south africa to implement reforms. they thought the pace of reform was too slow and passed over the veto of the bill to provide broad sanctions. the shared responsibility with the executive branch taking the lead generally works very well.

but what can congress do to make this a more responsible player in foreign policy on a daily basis? for more i sat in it -- as a staffer on the foreign relations committee, the issue is oversight. this is an article from foreign affairs a few years ago. the key role is overside, making certain that the loss are fairly executed and that the executive -- they're meant to keep mistakes from happening or spiraling out of control, in order to prevent them or others like them for occurring. the oversight keeps policy makers on their toes. and the task is not easy,

because this is time consuming, and investigating scandals can go into a partisan exercise that ignores broad policy issues for the sake of cheap publicity. this is exactly right. members need to have the information for the strategic viability of any particular policy. hearings are very important part of the process. but very few members attend them. too often, issues are decided based on political considerations rather than substantive information and is too easy to politicize foreign- policy as it is any issue. congress should explain to the public with the administration why we need to maintain a good relationship with pakistan. this does not mean the terms of the relationship need to remain static but we have to put them

into context of our historical relations with that country, and we have to do this in order to find common ground. and too often, we see a relationship like this captured in the knee-jerk political terms that ignore the national security implementations. let me take a granular looked about how one committee and its chairman operate. i was the chief of staff for john kerry from 2000 to 2008. he had been on the committee since 1984 and his father had been a diplomat on the foreign service. he served in vietnam but later became a critic of the war. in 1962 he asked how you ask a

man to ask a man to become the last person to die for re mistake. foreign policy has always been his great passion. it is different to be the chairman of a committee and not one of the members. as a member, he had a few staffers who were responsible for covering the issues for them. you cannot be an expert on every issue. invariably, the focus on this -- personal experience can help a member find their issue. in the early 1990's he focused on the recognition and the transition and modernization issues related to vietnam,

because he had previously chaired the pow investigation, and otherwise help the member find their issue. he was the senior democratic member on the asian subcommittee on the cambodian genocide tribunal. and the opportunity to lead on an important issue may help a leader emerge. in 1990 he did a tremendous amount of work on aids in africa. this was a moral issue for him, but not a major issue. in 2009, he became chairman and had to cover the world. annie had to be an expert on every issue that came up.

that means egypt and libya. suggest to put this in real terms, as a member of the committee, he promised that 20% of this time on foreign policy and now spends 50% of his time on committee-related work. the important thing is that when the senate is in recess, he spends much of his time on the road, with his vacation spots as africa and afghanistan, the middle east and are for. he believes in order to understand a country, you have to know this and make contact with the people, and see this yourself. he would say to me that good diplomacy lets you see another country through their eyes and their history.

i think the foreign travel component is especially important to any chairman of the committee that handles foreign policy. after 2004, he was declared it a serious student of foreign policy. he did meetings with any foreign leader that he wanted. what changed in 2009 is many of the leaders, there was a chairman who was close to the president and wanted him to translate the administration and their foreign policy. but he understands that he is a translator and not a spokesman for the administration. he understands that congress is a separate branch of the government, and he has differed with the administration on many issues, declaring that the president and his decision on afghanistan went too far, too fast.

he has also found he has a convening tower that is extremely important, like bringing in former republicans of defense -- to set a bipartisan tone, but the as it can be in power with his own members, inviting committee members to his house to build relationships and bridge the partisan divide. that is a big part of why the committee has had important bipartisan success. let me add, john kerry has had a great partner in all of this, senator richard lugar. there were times when he had to run off an appointment and he was comfortable heading -- giving the gavel to richard lugar. more commonly, you find the chairman and the ranking member actually wanting to throw the

gavel at each other. the last thing that i will note about foreign relations committee and his approach is that he wanted to make it clear, it is not center to the chairman, to the extent this is possible. his personal experience has been very instructive. he has worked with contemporaries, but spend most of his career in the third or fourth position, and this can be frustrating. when he got the gavel, he thought about getting the members of the subcommittee engaged, to help barbara boxer work on women's issues. and he reached out to new members, and he empowered them

to really lead on issues through the subcommittee. he knows the committee only succeeds if members on both sides get a real value for being on it, because it is not a committee that wins you a lot of votes back home. in the executive branch or the congress, the fact that foreign policy is the byproduct of effective leadership. thank you. [applause] >> i will turn things over to james linsey, but it is teaching in the university of iowa after i left there as a graduate student. i have fond memories of the high was the campus. >> this is when i am is supposed to say, go hawks. and i want to echo what don said earlier, this is an

excellent book and i would recommend that people not only read this but purchase this, which is what every author is wanting to readers to do. i may oakdale and apology. -- owe gale an apology. i am a professor by training, and this is the job of one person talking as other people sleep. i hope to turn it -- the panel over tea with the audience have to wait. i was asked about the influence of congress on foreign policy, for better or worse? and my answer is, yes. the question is if this is good and bad is in the eye of the beholder. people like congress when they're standing up to the

president is doing things they don't like and want them to be quiet when the president's is doing what they want for him to do. you want to go back and forth through history to find examples of a good congressional influence on foreign policy or whether the active as congress is good, or a differential congress -- you can find multiple examples on both sides. you could talk about the imperial presidency and congress surrendering its voice, giving up the gulf of tonkin resolution. what a threat -- the congress getting in the way of the president doing the right thing, such as the rejection of the treaty of versailles. i would like to make three different points. one of them is that congress

works at a disadvantage in form policy and will continue to do so as long as united states as an activist foreign policy. politics will shape what congress does in foreign affairs. and congress influences foreign policy, directly and indirectly. my first point is that congress operates at a disadvantage in foreign policy and will as long as we have this policy. if you look at the constitution, it is important foreign-policy powers to congress and the president. they say the constitution is an invitation to struggle over foreign policy. but since world war two, this has gone decisively in favor of

the white house. the most important is the changed u.s. role around the world. and the set -- to change perceptions of presidential power. james madison became president during modern times and the house representatives passed a bill to pass to him the decision of whether to go to war with france. madison said that they could not delegate to power because it belonged solely to congress. after the invasion of south korea, president truman sent forces to stop -- to south korea, and he did so without

going to congress or the russian leaders. or barack obama in operation odyssey dawn. the extensive overseas involvement and the national security establishment means that congress must delegates authority to the white house and they will have difficulty with oversight. on both points, delegation and oversight keep this in mind. if you are congress, you want to give authority to the presidency. one of my favorites was an appropriations rider in 1970 wanting to prevent the central african empire, but this was when it collapsed.

and they were barred by law into helping the success of government. you delegates -- open the door for people to do what they want. the national security -- the department of state, and the treasury, the intelligence community is huge and it is very difficult to oversee people like david. -- people like david tried to follow with these policies do, but this is a very daunting task and this is difficult for the white house to oversee the same agencies. and the third thing is that the courts say and the sidelines for most issues. what has happened is that they thought they would step in and referee.

this is the president and the white house. especially if this damages the white house. the president can take the initiative and then require congress to try to stop them. you really do have to presidencies. the president increasingly cannot act unless congress agrees. this would be a debt ceiling -- for the summer. the president can act until congress can stop them. loll only becomes of law -- a law only becomes a law before the senators.

a bill is veto-proof. the last foreign policy bill to be overwritten is the south african sanctions bill. and this is coming more recently with president obama and libya. to stop the president's decision. everybody knew no bill could stop the bombing was going to pass. politics shapes congressional interest in foreign policy. they believe politics stop at the water's edge. the fact is that politics does

not stop at the water's edge. we talked about earlier. the most bitter disputes during the george washington presidency, i am not arguing that all foreign policy is about politics. the staff works very hard to try to oversee what the government does as part of this -- there is the policy platform. the united states senate gave more free rein to members, this drives what is that congress does in foreign policy. this is the basic law of democratic politics. this is one of the issues that

voters care about. this is focused on jobs and the economy. when they are solidly behind the president such as in the fall of 2002, the public comes to rally behind the president. there is consensus about what the policy should be and the politics become very partisan when there is a significant difference, in what we should be doing abroad and what the solution to those problems are. this influence foreign policy directly and perhaps indirectly. this is in terms of what law

will be passed, that compels the president to do this. some congressional legislation specifies the substantive foreign-policy. how the money may be spent, and you talk about the south african sanctions bill. the substantive legislation, what is well beyond that. they aren't changing this in important ways, in directly. congress has extensive foreign- policy powers, and historically, congress has treated offices in the executive branch that have not been attended to in the more recent ones, with the concern that the administration is not paying

enough attention to this. and likewise on trade policy, this is mandated with the executive branch, as it develops the policy. and the procedural legislation. and to has a say in the making of this decision. and the foreign policy, and directly, trying to change the climate of the country. the speeches and the television appearances, and even dramatic stunts like going out on the ground of capitol hill with a sledgehammer to break the imported goods. there is a cost overruns and things like that.

if you want to be less charitable, they are trying for political grandstanding but at the end of the day, they're trying to shape the terms of the public debate to make some policies more likely and other policies less likely. at the end of the day, actually passing the law is so difficult. this is aimed at trying to shape what the white house is going to do, and what is likely to be able to accomplish on capitol hill and what will cost it too much, politically. and i will stop right there. >> thank you. [applause] >> i am happy to be here because don has sent me on more times than i can talk about. institutional memory is

something we are very short on right now. or you can get the context or the time line, or ask the question, is this something that is new or has this been going on for years? switching to our topic today, foreign policy, to me, it is critical to remember that congress is not as strapped as sen. sununu said. only 5% of people are interested in foreign policy. oversight is a critical function of congress, but if you want to look at the hearing rooms, there are only a few people up there asking questions. they are largely empty. too few members are attending. and the last comment was the most important. there is great interest in

foreign policy that some members of congress have in spades. they do not get credit for this at home. this is a very important point. mr. murphy was talking about congress affecting what the public is interested in. the christmas trees, the smashing of imports is a way to attract the public but what struck me the most in the panel discussions is that no one has trashed the media. so let me do that. [laughter] my favorite place in paris was a bookstore owned by an iranian dissident. he thought khamenei would leave power. so many of his colleagues and himself ended up back in paris.

he had a special interest in the united states, which he visited frequently. the last time i saw him, i asked him what he was encouraged with in the world. and the thing now made him the most depressed in the world was seeing cbs news. he noticed only a minute and a half or two minutes were devoted to foreign affairs. he said, you are the world's superpower and you don't know anything about the world. you are not been given anything about the world, how can you exercise that authority responsibly. and now we go back to congress. when i was an academic i thought about congress as an institution.

it is hard not to think about this as people. 535 people who have to make decisions about how that will use their time and resources. lately, those decisions have less to do with foreign policy. you can get hurt by being too interested in foreign policy. it is a template for a two- second ad that someone cares more about another country than the problems at home. this occurred to me recently as i was calling senator lugar's staff, something i do frequently to see where he stands on a position. it had something to do with weapons. maybe it was libya. this excellent staff meeting said the senator is at an ag fair in indiana.

i thought he had not heard me. by repeated the question. he told me the senator was out and at an ag fair in indiana. this is a very important race. we do not want to look as if we're more concerned with something there than here. that is a small version of what is a broader trend in congress. i was jotting down some questions that i would love answers to. i would love to know the amount of time that a member of congress spends in washington as opposed to home. my sense is that congress starts about 6:00 on tuesday and ends about noon on thursday. if you get in the way of someone exiting the building to make an airplane, you are taking

your live in your hands. what happens in that small section of time when people are together and can talk and build relationships on issues like this? members of congress carry laminated cards that are broken down into 15-minute intervals. there is time for committees, but not a lot. their fund-raisers in the evening. they do not have a lot of control over the time they spend doing things. that has an impact on what we're talking about. if you look at the percentage of staff resources, how much is spent hiring and retaining staff that knows something about policy as opposed to staff that can man a warroom? i remember a conversation with a man who was regarded until he

was let go as one of the most effective. people in congress. -- p.r. people in congress. i said he semi-is mills -- i said he constantly sending e- mails. etc is sending me your own thoughts about these things? >> said yes, i know him well and how he would think about this. i used to work for a member of congress and had to see everything i sent out under his name. it was ridiculous. we kept missing the google waves. [laughter] the google wave is serious. it is the first thing i look out in the morning. what is cresting and how quickly can write something to catch the google wave? everyone is trying to survive in the current media environment.

when you talk to members of staff, what is motivating them? i was interested in the oversight function. there are members of staff that are superb at oversight. they have done it for years. they are like treasures. when one member leaves the congress, this treasure is passed on to someone else who continues the excellent work. these people are feeling kind of like dinosaurs these days. the young staffers kind of want to get out. they are carrying college loans that would stagger anyone. they cannot afford to stay on the hill as you might have 30 years ago, carefully working out an area of expertise.

i did prepare some remarks which i would like to run through briefly. the main point i want to leave you with is that when you ask about congress and foreign policy, you need to think about those 535 people. you need to think about the 5000 ants on the log. think about what is motivating the staff. what would give them incentive to develop the kind of expertise you need to be effective in foreign-policy as opposed to just coming up with a sound bite that will be good in a campaign environment? there were individuals who made a difference in foreign policy. i was talking to the senate historical office the other day. that is another place that has a wonderful institutional memory. for some reason, the house did

not do as good a job as the senate. the senate prizes. we're talking about the great a poser, a member of the irreconcilable. he said america is respected and mired by the world. she did it by mining her own business. he opposed the league of nations, as many academics did when they came to congress and found out that things were not quite as they could be. one of the many superb historians said that he never went home to idaho. she said congress only paid for a trip once a year. it was hard to get to idaho. he never went home. i thought this was an

interesting point. members today go home all the time. what difference does it make that they are constantly in their districts as opposed to developing relationships and pursuing arcane interests with fellow colleagues here? i think it is significant. arthur vandenberg was kind of the opposite. he came up with one of the most often repeated phrases in the senate that politics stops at the water's edge. people do not say that quite as much anymore because there is not much that is bipartisan anymore. he was the one that said it. he cooperated with the truman administration in forging bipartisan support for the truman document, the marshall plan, and nato. senator fulbright was a very interesting figure. i was talking to one of his aides about what it was that prompted him as a democrat to go against the president of his

own party. why did he get so interested in vietnam and learn a lot about it? he sponsored a series of hearings that educated the nation about the war. have we had anything comparable with iraq? afghanistan? i think not. he devoted a tremendous effort to it. he said it was simple. i screwed up his plane reservations. he said he was going to australia and headed -- had to spend 28 hours on the airplane. he said on the way out the door to get him a big book to read. he was given a book on vietnam. he read it. pat holt said that fulbright walked off the airplane and said we cannot win this war. he learned something about the

country. we cannot win this war. he started his hearings. anytime i ask a member of congress who is interested in something besides the number one priority back in the district, it is something like that. congressman wolf, i was talking to him the other day. he said he took a trip wants to africa. the plane could not go back. i had to stay overnight. i was there for a week. i never forgot those faces. i talk to colleagues about it and convinced others to go. it is basis. it is personal. it is knowing something and having the time to do it. that brings me back to senator richard lugar and senator nunn of georgia. they got interested in one of the most arcane issues possible. is russia dismantling the soviet union chemical and

nuclear weapons? if not, how can we help them do it? how can we get congress to give money to them to do it? how can we track that is being done? in retrospect, one of the more productive things congress ever did on an issue like that and what senator lugar could be in a difficult fight for reelection is in part because of the good work he has done in foreign policy. he is rapidly rebuilding ties back home. the idea of people who have excelled in foreign policy somehow getting burned for it is one of the many factors that is the motivating -- demotivating. how do you build expertise in foreign policy without time or trouble?

how many members actually travel? i think the press can make credit -- take credit for making travel look like a bad thing. we were the ones to convince people travel was a junket, wasting time. tip o'neill had a famous outing to the philippines with lots of golf. this does look bad. but the time spent actually in a place, seeing it, and knowing it is important. if you come back home and are in a congressional environment where committee work no longer matters, where you take big issues and resolve them behind closed doors and send them to the floor weaken the with the party or not, it is a demoralized atmosphere. it is something that academics and journalists do not take into enough account. when speaker boehner came in,

he said he wanted to restore congress and functioning as an institution and restore the committee process. the house would be out every three weeks or so, but it would be back for the full week. the committees would be fully functioning. it is still dangerous to stand in front of the door at noon on thursday. i do not know if his plan is working yet. the question of how to develop expertise without time is an issue. foreign affairs used to be an a-listing assignment. senator kerrey had a choice between the appropriations committee meeting people would be coming to you for money. people would kill to be on the appropriations committee. or he could go to foreign affairs. he had been one of the most

remarked-on witnesses before the committee. he chose foreign affairs. that is not a choice many people are making lately. there is not a crush to get on it. it is because it plays so badly at home. i want to talk about currency manipulation another time. let me collapsed this and hope it is something we get into. currency manipulation looks like an arcane issue, but it has such an impact on the current job situation. the u.s.-china commission was formed by congress in october of 2000 to give congress regular updates on the china relationship. is it good for the economy? how are we doing militarily?

every year, they produce an astonishing report that is ignored as most reports are. if you look back to the reports before 9/11, they were very accurate and completely ignored. it is the same thing with the china commission. i just saw an advance copy of the new report. i had to pay $38 to get a copy. you can get it free soon. the u.s. trade deficit is now more than half of the u.s. trade deficit with the world. it is 12% worse now than last year. our trade deficit with china is at a record high, $25 billion in

one month alone. the u.s. supports roughly -- imports -- the u.s. imports roughly 640% more advanced technology products from china banned exports to china. -- than it exports to china. allot of that 640% is from american companies manufacturing in china and selling back here. if you blink, you would miss it in the debates that just went on. the debate over china and free trade was collapsed into database. for journalists, it is impossible to cover. google news does not care about it after the vote. it is banished. it does not care about it until just before the vote. there are two days to write anything that would matter or make a point that would matter. then the attention has moved somewhere else. foreign-invested enterprises were responsible of 55% of china's exports and 58% of the trade surplus in 2010.

2/3 of all the chinese boots are made by foreign companies operating in china in selling back to its market. employment in the united states would increase by up to 2.5 million jobs if china were to adopt an intellectual property system similar to the united states. china is huge. are members of congress going to spend time on it in an intelligent way? let me leave you with the problem i have last week covering this. on tuesday, the senate voted 63-35 to impose tariffs on countries for currency manipulation. china is not mentioned, but everyone knows who is meant for. it has been held at an artificially low level to give chinese goods a trade advantage.

there were numerous different numbers cited in the debate. in the run-up to the senate vote, they announced they would not bring the bill to the floor. it became a free vote in senate terms. you could vote on it knowing there would be no outcome or it would be a symbolic vote. the club for growth is a conservative group that weighed in on this. they sent out letters saying any conservative that voted for the currency bill could expect to be scored on it. in other words, watch what happens to your funding in the next election. last year, the house voted overwhelmingly to vote for an almost identical bill on china currency. 99 republicans supported the bill. there is a comparable bill right now in the house.

63 republicans have co- sponsored the bill. we have more accurate information about where members stand on the foreign policy issue than for most issues. and yet this bill will never come to a vote on the floor. iraq it will never come to the floor as a stand-alone vote. -- it will never come to the floor as a stand-alone vote. my editors say no one will read this. their eyes glaze over. i am beginning to see this looking out there. [laughter] i could be very bad at explaining it. the issue is explaining it and that is not happening. there was a motion to recommit on the floor last week. that means the democrats get to

bring up a stand alone thing. they tried to make as punishing as possible to the other side. republicans try to do the same thing. they picked the senate bill on china currency. it has 63 republicans already endorsing it. only four of them voted for it on the floor. that could be because if they voted for it, it would have killed a free-trade pact that was very important to republicans. but it is part of this gridlock/gamesmanship that is crushing the life out of this congress. if there is any motivation for any member to spend time on the issues we are talking about, i think that is the most discouraging aspect of all. can congress be a force for good? of course it can. foreign policy affects americans. they may not be aware of it, but it does. china trade in a radically

affects americans. -- china trade in fact -- emphatically affects americans. the numbers of jobs lost to the china trade in each district and state was compiled. that is the kind of boiling down of data that you need to make a dent in a congress that is so fixed on what it needs to do to maintain its own majority and play politics at a level of gridlock that historically is going to stand unrivaled. it cannot continue to be this bad. something that cannot continue to be this bad won't. that is how i inspire myself to give up every morning. members of congress are

discouraged. they're excellent people considering leaving the institution precisely because the work they do in committee goes nowhere. it is a demoralizing time. it was better to be there when woodrow wilson was meeting the united states into being a dominant and world power. members of congress are at a time when it is becoming less the case. it is not so much fun. >> thank you. [applause] >> even though some of that is depressing, the fact that you have a sense of humor keeps us all little bit lighter. you have the bluebird of happiness suit on. one thing i would like to do before we engage the audience is to give our 1st two presenters a chance to follow on what the last two said.

senator sununu has an engineering degree from mit and also has a business degree from harvard. notwithstanding those degrees, he is probably still trying to figure out how to fix congress. he knows how it was operating then and operates now. i wondered if you have anything to say on the dilemmas that congress faces and on foreign policy. >> the importance of oversight was brought up. there are a number of staff members that are good at oversight. that is important and valuable. the real question is whether there are members that are willing to put themselves into the process of oversight. reform and oversight are tough. they are far tougher than justtt writing a new piece of

legislation, even in the foreign-policy arena. one of the reasons you need oversight and reform is because over time, we have endured and accretive process. people have good ideas about being thoughtful in the way economic development funds are used. if we build a school, it should meet safety and environmental codes and maybe local labor laws. conceptually, these are all good ideas. they may make it just about impossible for the development assistance to make a difference on the ground. the only way to rectify that situation is for some member to set the priority of looking carefully at the different restrictions and limitations we place on development assistance and how we make the system work

better. it is not more liberal or conservative, just make it work better so we do not have to read stories about funding being wasted around the world and not being used for its intended purposes. oversight and reform is tough. it is important and valuable. the only way it's done is by members setting the priority from the top down. believe me, the staff will follow. >> when the republicans took over the first time around in 1995, they prided themselves on the fact that the cutback the committee staff by 1/3. the cutback from 1800 to 1200 people. a few years later, they regretted that they had taken away a lot of good oversight committee staffers. there were less able to do the oversight than their predecessors. that was something noted even by

the republican members. >> we have talked about what motivates people to be involved in foreign policy. you raised an important question about what motivates staff. i did a book on tommy corcoran, the first great super lobbyist. not that much has changed except that the staffs have gotten a lot bigger. staffers are therefore very different reasons. the foreign relations committee is not a place where you can easily segueway into a k street job. one thing i really enjoyed about it was the personal experiences of people that

brought them to the committee. that is what kept them there. there were some extraordinary staffers who had been there a long time and really believed in what they're doing. there is another group out there who see this as punching a ticket. you do two years on the hill and then you go downtown. it should not be a huge surprise that there is a lot more money in the defense industry. foreign assistance is $50 billion compared to $800 billion for defense. you find more people willing to cash in. that does not mean you will not find folks on the armed services committee who deeply believe in what they're doing and are willing to work for not much money when they could make more money.

i am not sure anything is changed much in that regard. people have different reasons for being there. >> i did a very unscientific study recently. i was reading "roll call." they have a fabulous 50 list of staff members on the hill. they asked to are the most powerful ones. i noticed most of the people on the list are either leadership staff with the republican or democratic leadership for our campaign staff for the republican or democratic campaign committees. a smaller percentage are actually committee staff. i asked for a comparison of the top 50 list. they came up with 1986 and 1987. it has turned around completely.

in 1986 or 1987, it was about 60% committee staff considered the most powerful. now it is the opposite. committee staff are considered less powerful. leadership staff are up there on the list because people are looking at those who can man the war rooms. that is where the real staff growth has come from. that is where you have the best and brightest now working with the leadership on these political issues and not so much on the policy issues. >> i think you are the only one would think to ask for those numbers. >> are used to be on there. i was once told i had the perfect face for radio. [laughter] >> let's go to the audience for

questions. please wait for the microphone. identify yourself and your affiliation. we will have questions and comments. let's start right here with a former wilson staff person and not a renowned legal scientist -- now a renowned legal scientist in his own right. >> i am a professor at american university. one of the historical trends with congress has been its assertiveness in foreign policy has been greater at times when we have not been in a major war or in a major crisis. now we seem to be entering a time of greater inwardness. i wonder if that might suggest

the president's dominance of foreign policy may recede compared to past decades. >> have you noticed any trends on this? one of your books is called "resurgence of congress in foreign policy" or something like that. >> it came out in the mid-1990s when congressional interest or activism in foreign affairs began to surge. the dynamic that jordan pointed to is this. the ebb and flow of power is tied to the country's perception that it is under threat and secondarily to the expectation that the president's policies are working.

after world war ii, you had more congressional involvement in foreign affairs. by the early 1950's, there is a growing sense of the soviet threat. you begin to see much less criticism of the white house from capitol hill. this is what arthur schlesinger referred to as giving birth to the imperial presidency. it would stub its toe so to speak over vietnam. people became convinced that the president's policies had made the country less safe than it had been. i have to put a footnote on gail's remark about senator fulbright. he was critical of the war in 1966. he was also the floor manager of the resolution that included

one of my favorite exchanges on the floor when a senator raised the question of whether it gives the president the authority to go to war. fulbright said yes, but i do not think that is what he is going to do. as a legal matter, it does not matter what you think the bill will do. it matters what the bill does. i think that was the significant thing there. as the country feels more secure, you will get more congressional activism. it is a matter of politics. if you can do it and not worry about getting in trouble and there is a sense you are not endangering the country as you might have been. president bush's approval ratings were sustained. in october 2002, the administration was pushing for

authorization of the iraq war. many democrats wanted to put the issue behind them and move onto other things. they realized this was not going to work to their advantage. the smart political money argued that democrats and those interested in running in 2004 with the best to get on board and move on. >> in the 1970's, i came on the day nixon was inaugurated in 1969. congress was getting more active in foreign and military affairs. as nixon was winding down the war, they became more activists. i was looking at these great

amendments. we had these great eminence. -- amendments. these all occurred after johnson left office. nixon was in and winding down the war when we started to have challenges on vietnam and cambodia and also on military weapons systems. congress was very activist during that time. people refer to the resurging congress after the country had grown more wary. it was no longer popular. therefore, members could assert themselves and not feel as at risk politically. that was my observation. >> by the fall of 1967, the public had begun to sour on vietnam. their expectation was this would not last long. we kept going in further and further. you have the tet offensive in

early 1968. from the vantage point of the johnson white house, congress set already begun to be too critical of its policies. that is one of the reasons why lbj chose not to run for reelection. >> gail mentioned the quote about politics stopping at the water's edge. there's also the quote about congress wanting to be in on the takeoff and landing. >> that was from johnson. johnson wanted to avoid a repeat of what happened to harry truman. he thought harry truman made a mistake by not going to congress and getting congressional authorization. there was a standing resolution already drawn up.

he calculated that would protect him against people changing their mind later on. it turned out people can vote for a piece of legislation and still change their minds. [laughter] senator fulbright being first and foremost. lbj complained he had gotten him on the takeoff and would be there for the crash landing but forgot to factor in the parachute. >> i remember reading from 1960 to the transcripts of president kennedy consulting the minority leader about the nuclear treaty. he was providing political advice to his president about how to get this thing passed. can you imagine that happening today? i do not have the answer of why it has deteriorated significantly and how to bring

it back. >> i had a slightly different viewpoint. we would all like to think the times we live in a completely unique, different, or not as good as the good old days. in many respects, we are reliving the same challenges and debates and questions they were talking about in the 1970's, 1950's, or at the turn of the century, or in the 1960's. they probably thought it was so polarized with so much tension over civil rights or other things, why could this not be more like the turn-of-the- century when we had this wonderful academic woodrow wilson and things were much more genteel? there were two things that affect whether you are in a time of congressional activism or not.

one is politics. members think this is an issue that their constituencies care about and are acting on it and voting on it. the second our people. do you have members who are in a position of leadership or have the will and wherewithal to drive an issue to completion? with regards to the politics, those can be a factor whether the country is divided into are a democrat trying to make the president look bad. uc political opportunism to rally reduce the political opportunism to rally -- you see political opportunism to rally opposition. when the country's unified, we feel strong, committed,

concerned about the national security to it. -- threat. members are engaged and active in formulating the legislation that responded to 9/11. it was with everything from new national security powers, the patriot act that was passed in a very unanimous way back in 2001. i ended up filibustering four years later in 2005 and winning it. that activism is driven by politics, but it is not necessarily the politics of unity or division. second, there is the individual. they decided this was what they

wanted to do. this is what they would commit themselves to. in 20th 30 years, we talk about a senator lugar or a senator kerry, or a senator mccain, people misspent a lot of time working on foreign policy issues. you may have agreed with them or not, but there was no question they were the kind of policy makers who have an impact. >> now we have got questions. let's go with the gentleman on the aisle. >> i am an intern with a congressman in the house of reps. i have been in turn several -- an intern for several weeks.

i have had a chance to go to foreign affairs and oversight committees. at times i was shocked. sometimes the congressmen were not as interested in the topic being debated. other times, i thought the congressman new what he was talking about. i came here today because it is very interesting to talk about the topic. my question was regarding lobbies in effect they have over congressmen as far as pushing certain policies they think are morally important to push. sometimes i feel that lobbies hold them back. they have an influence over them. i wondered if you could talk about it. >> that is a very good question. we have talked about political bases and constituents, but we

have not talked about the interest groups in washington that represent constituents and members of parties. they have specific interests. how much of an influence do they have on the foreign-policy process? >> i guess i should start having been a lobbyist. i would say the things i mentioned in my remarks, the background, the district, the constituencies are all important. there are not many nationally organized lobbies on foreign policy issues that are effective one way or the other. to the extent that there are lobbies on different issues, their effectiveness varies from member to member.

oftentimes, their most valuable as a source of information. there will be someone on both sides of just about every issue. if someone is an effective lobbyist, they will tell you the pros and cons of an issue. lobbying groups tend to look toward or flock to members to share their perspective to start with. on domestic issues, if you are from an energy-producing state, you are going to be working on issues that energy lobbyists are concerned about. if you are on the foreign relations committee, you will probably end of visiting with lobbyists on foreign policy issues. part of it is a self-selecting process rather than walking

into a member's office and thinking you will persuade them to change their mind in a half hour of conversation. >> i met with a lot more lobbyists when i was on the personal staff than on the committee. the kinds of groups that tended to come in when i was on the committee had foreign-policy agendas, but it was a different approach than somebody who wanted a change in the tax law or wanted an appropriation. it was very different. it was much more policy-based. there are a lot of nonprofits. there were some corporate interests as well. it was one of the most gratifying things about being on the committee that i did not have to meet with lobbyists all the time. [laughter]

>> james lindsay? >> i would offer of the observation that lobbyists are more effective the fewer the people that care about the issue. the system is relatively open. it allows many veto points where things can be stopped. if you are lobbying for a big issue that gets people excited like trade relations with china, afghanistan, you are going to be hard pressed as a lobbying organization to get your agenda through. there are a lot of other organizations opposed to you talking to senators and members of congress making a different set of arguments. if you are going in and arguing for making a change in u.s. aid policy towards name the country

in africa and there is no one lobbying against it, you are more likely to be able to have an impact. in lobbying, if you are unopposed, if you are more likely to win than if you are opposed. >> on the house bill, there is a separate title on individual countries. there are about 17 sections east dealing with different countries with my new provisions. -- minute provisions. it is interesting to go through that list. anything you have observed on lobbyists and foreign affairs? >> the most influential lobbyists were those who came to the member. i was talking to a member about this once. he said the most powerful lobbyists are the ones that do not have to come to you because you already know what they need. that is how significant they are. there is so much we do not know about the lobby process. campaign finance is now so opaque. i wrote a lot of enthusiastic

pieces about campaign finance reform. it seems every step congress has made to make money more transparent in washington has had the opposite effect. we now know a great deal less about a great deal more money in politics. that is a critical element. the other thing that has surprised me is how often lobbies are not of one mind. the national association of manufacturers, if there ever was a group that should have views on china, it is them. but they are too divided. the board tends to be people who themselves manufacture in china. they think china currency is fine the way it is. all those little manufacturers who are not big or savvy enough to move to china are getting

clobbered by it. they want to see the organization go in another direction. they could not make a difference. i suspect that is a lot more likely than you think. one thing house republicans tried to do when they took back the house for the first time in 42 years in 1995 was something called the k street project. the idea was that they would literally go to lobby firms and say that democrats have been controlling this place for 42 years. it is not surprising that your main lobbyists are ex- democratic staffers. if you do not start getting republican staffers, you will not have access to us. it may not have been as blunt, but that was the sense. you have got to start hiring republicans if you will have access to us.

the argument they made is that you have democrats representing you, but republicans are closer to your interests. you ought to have republicans representing you on capitol hill. that was another angle i had not thought about. with the lobbyist -- what if the lobbyist is out of sync with the constituents paying them. that happens a lot more than i thought it does. it is a good question, to which there is not a clear, a good answer. >> the fellow in a white shirt. >> my name is jason. i wanted to ask about the background of people who become congressmen and women. is it that their professional background affects how they deal with foreign policy?

i do not think too many people unless they came from the foreign policy related field would ever become a member of congress. the kind of people who become congressmen are maybe businessmen, lawyers. maybe the only deal with domestic issues in their normal lives before they became part of congress. how does that affect them when they get into their careers? >> senator? >> i do not know that there would necessarily be an extraordinary value of someone having a ph.d. in foreign relations in congress. it would be of no more or less value than having someone with

that degree in economics. it depends on how they can translate that knowledge into practical value, crafting legislation, understanding public policy, understanding the impact that house. as a matter of course, what we need in congress generally are people with more practical experience working in the real economy domestically and internationally. someone with business experience with a company that did importuned -- importing and exporting, that understood the real ramifications of the issues like intellectual property protection, the impact of stronger and weaker currencies, and whether or not those are manipulated by the governments labor laws.

it is really practical experience that is missing. in the case of the foreign policy question we're talking about, do they have practical experience working with and interacting with individuals, companies, and institutions around the world? generally, that is something missing in congress. >> david, you have a law degree and a degree in law and diplomacy from tufts. how relevant was that to your work on capitol hill? did you find it very useful? >> no. [laughter] it was a demonstrated interest i had for a long time. it is not that it was not useful. it was useful. senator moynihan went to

fletcher. he had that demonstrated interest. people become interested in these issues for a variety of reasons. chris dodd was in the peace corps in central america. that is why he embraced the foreign relations committee for a number of years. i think there are people from business backgrounds interested in it from that point of view. there are a lot of different reasons why people come to the table. >> one of the rare exceptions is howard wolpey from michigan. he came to congress and became a share of the africa subcommittee. he was defeated for reelection after several years. he ended up in the state department on the africa desk. he came here and randy africa program. now he is back to the state department on the africa desk. he was a very good member of congress. he represented his constituents well.

eventually, a republican beat him in an election. >> since i have a phd in political science, i feel i should stand up for members of my profession. however, i am reminded of what william buckley once said. he would rather be governed by the first 200 names in the boston phone book than the harvard faculty. i think what senator sununu and david just said are spot on. it matters more people's practical experience and ability to mobilize others rather than knowing what is that hanz morgenthau wrote or being able to do a calculation that would make the nobel prize committee in economic science is happy. what i do think is notable in

the membership of the house and senate is that there are many more lawyers. i do not know if that is to our advantage. there are fewer people who have served in the military. that has often been remarked upon. there are a number of social scientists who explore these issues trying to determine what difference it makes in what congress actually does. there is no clear evidence it does much of anything. what members do is driven and constrained by other factors that are more important like party, a constituency, the events of the day, and what have you. >> william buckley ran for mayor of new york city. he said the first thing he would do if he won was to demand a recount. [laughter] that has nothing to do with foreign policy. let's go to this gentleman.

>> brian jacobs. i am an intern. i do want to serve on the committee sunday into effective did one day and do effective work. hopefully that happens. my question and years into the lobbying subject -- veers into the logging's of it. -- veers into the lobbying subject. there is the argument that there is an influence on u.s. policy towards israel that is developing and maintaining a relationship. i would like to ask the members of the panel to expand on that. there are divergent interests within the lobbies. my second question is in regards to the house foreign affairs committee.

the house foreign affairs committee is not appropriate does not appropriate as much. the armed services committee has a defense industry and support base. if there is not one for the foreign affairs committee, how do you develop one? they do important work that needs to be recognized. >> i have visited with people recently that sked the second question about whether this is any constituency for foreign assistance, foreign policy, how you go about organizing one in the united states. you run up against a wall with the public at large. people put foreign-policy and assistance way down on the list.

there are natural hurdles and challenges. the american-israel political action committee lobbies on issues they feel are important to israel and the greater middle east. they've been around longer, are better organized, bigger membership. by definition, that means they're likely to be more effective and better known with members. that goes from organizing locally, at the state level. they reach out to them regularly all the way to the national efforts involve board meetings in washington and big public affairs conferences and the like. to the extent they are effective, it has to do with their size, history, and scope their success could be replicated by other groups. there are many different constituencies in the country.

there are many different groups within those better focused on foreign policy related to the middle east and israel that have divergent viewpoints. there is a lot of opportunity for new perspective. >> we have time for one more question. to's give the microphone jeff biggs. >> thank you for the wonderful topic and the superb panel. one thing that did not, but i was surprised about is the israeli-palestinian issue. it seems to reflect a lot of what has been said.

dramatic changes have been taking place. we could rely on egypt and turkey to play a supportive role in negotiations between the two parties. now congress is thinking about eliminating any assistance to the palestinians. in the process, it seems to be giving up the role as an honest broker. is this a result of politics or well thought out foreign-policy? >> that is above my pay grade. >> there was a very interesting piece and "cq weekly" on this exact issue. there was a spike in interest on aipac after a book by two harvard professors saying it is

the largest policy lobby in the united states and maybe on earth. for a while, they really disappeared. other groups popped up replacing them for a time. there were still obviously there, but took a less strong profile. in a funny way, they were replaced by eric cantor, the first jewish republican in the house who did some extraordinary things. after the election, he met with netanyahu. it was the first time an opposition member had met with a head of state like that. it is shaping up to be a very important issue in the 2012 election. it is a wedge issue.

you could potentially drive a wedge through a strong constituency by saying i am more per-israel than you are. i think it has enormous implications. you have seen the president back off from what he said in his cairo speech. it is a striking difference. was in the process of learning or running up against very strong opposition from that group and also a house republican group led by eric cantor that is taking a road not taken before on that issue? it will be interesting to see. i predict this will emerge as an important factor in the 2012 election. it has given the president lot of difficulty. he has had to link what he said

in cairo with what he is now saying. it risks the problem of appearing to flip-flop or give up on commitments he ran on an initially made. >> i will let you have the last word in the region take this across the hall to the reception room. -- i will let you have the last word. then we will take this across the hall to the reception room. >> you want to cultivate members of congress to understand these issues related to foreign- policy because you never know when they will be needed. uprisings and transitions in power in tunisia, egypt, yemen, and other places in the arab world. it is good that members of congress are paying more attention to these areas and

thinking about the national security ramifications for the united states, our national interests, our perspective on encouraging the process. at the same time, i would want the members of congress who will be leading the debate to have been thinking about listening and understanding the culture and politics in northern africa and the middle east five or 10 years ago. you do not want them to suddenly come to the issue and need a crash course in education. fiber 10 years ago, probably not many people would have said there would be announced protests in egypt and a transition period. i have talked to a number of business people about how they felt about the economy,

politics, and process. even they did not see it coming. there is a lot to be said for it. you will not necessarily get involved in foreign policy, but you can create opportunities for members to discuss these issues domestically in a way that theirch's -- enriches thinking that can be put to good use during turbulent times. >> join me in thanking our panel. please join us for a reception across the hall in the board room. [applause] thank you for coming. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> this weekend, six republican candidates travel to des moines. watch our live coverage starting at 7:00 p.m. eastern today on "road to the white house." >> tomorrow, daniel serwer talks about the future of libya. alex lawson has details about the announcement of an increase in social security benefits. then, a political roundtable with jonathan martin and amy gardner on the latest developments in the 2012 campaign.

>> on sunday, senator tom harkin will talk about the recent work on the note child left behind act -- no child left legislation.d jobs >> former mexican president vicente fox talked about mexico's drug war and made the case for legalizing drugs. he said one benefit would be that the billions of dollars of revenue will not be flown into the hands of cartel but rather to the government. this is hosted by the cato institute. it is about 35 minutes.

>> the united states has been fighting drug trafficking for a least 40 years since president nixon declared a war on drugs to prevent them from being readily consumed in this country. washington has led an increasingly aggressive international war on drugs. that has been a policy that has been proven impotent to stop drug use. the supply-side campaign against drugs is at a high cost. it has come at a high cost for drug transit and drug producing companies -- countries. milton friedman observed that as a nation we have been destroying foreign countries because we

cannot enforce our own laws. nowhere is the harm of prohibition more apparent today than in mexico, a country that has seen a dramatic increase in violence, including more than 40,000 drug-related killings since it began to aggressively prosecute a war on drugs beginning at the end of the year 2006. journalists and politicians have been killed. newspapers have stopped reporting activities of drug cartels. cities have become militarized. corruption has spread through police departments and other agencies of local and federal government in mexico. it is ironic that mexico is prosecuting a war on drugs at a time when public opinion in the united states is increasingly critical of drug policies here and is more supportive than ever of finding more alternatives. a new poll just came out that

down a record 50% of americans support the legalization of marijuana. that is up from 12% in 1959. it was 25% in the mid-1990s. 70% of americans support the use of medical marijuana. 16 u.s. states plus washington, d.c., have already legalized such use. my colleague observed that public support for pa legalization is now greater than the approval rating for president obama, and the congress, the supreme court, and every gop presidential candidate. [laughter] one reason americans are rethinking the current approach is not just because of the failure and cost in terms of increased crimes and violations of civil liberties. i believe mexico is playing a large role in changing opinion. it is not a faraway country like

columbia or career. it is not an abstract concept. americans are familiar with mexico and have a great affinity with mexicans. for obvious reasons, the relationship with mexico is one of the most important ones the united states has. mexico is on display as exhibit a on the effectiveness of the drug war. americans are seeing violence spilling over the border. the drug war is working at cross purposes with important mexican and u.s. policy goals, including the promotion of liberal democracy and civil society. those are goals that mexicans have worked hard to achieve of the past several decades. the debate in mexico is also changing. that is why i am honored and delighted to introduce our speaker today, who is playing a leading and courageous role in that debate. he is challenging the status quo in mexico and on the global

stage. he is the former mexican president. vicente fox is joining a growing number of world figures calling for policies to treat drug abuse as a social problem rather than a criminal problem. a number of those leaders, including the former brazilian president and the former mexican foreign minister and others, will be speaking at a conference in washington on november 15 about ending the global war on drugs. you can find more about that on our website for the cato institute. it is my pleasure to introduce president fox. he was president from 2000 to 2006. he will be remembered in mexican history for having broken more

than 70 years of single-party rule in that country and contributing to the democratization of mexico. his presidency was characterized by economic stability that has led to the steady growth of mexico's middle class. it is tremendously important for the development of that country. the transition to the next administration in mexico after president fox was also marked by economic stability. that sets his presidency apart from many other previous presidents who left office of generating economic crisis. today he heads the centro fox in guanuato, mexico.

please join me in welcoming president fox. [applause] >> buenos dias. thank you very much to the cato institute for giving us this opportunity to meet together and explore some ideas and make a review of the state of things in mexico related to the drug case. thank you very much for this invitation. we're pleased to be here. martha is with me. we have the same dream when we

decided to move from the private sector to public life. we ran first for congress, governor, and in the presidency of mexico. she has been my speaker, the communications strategist. she is a reporter. she is reporting back to our web page in mexico. after finishing the responsibility and honor of being president, we decided to build the first presidential library outside of the united states. we decided to build up the ranch where my grandfather came. my great team came from cincinnati into mexico looking for the american dream. that is the way immigration was then from the united states to mexico.

we settled there on that ranch. that is where we built the library. we are very active in academic activities, making and working on public policies to promote education and housing. there you have a home. anytime you come to mexico, please give us a visit. i will start by throwing some ideas