Carnegie
Corporation
of New York
Summer 2007
The Future
The Carnegie Corporation-funded Aspen Institute Congressional Program is expected to play a role in several pieces of upcoming legislation, according to influential members of Congress. The No Child Left Behind law that was spurred by the Education Program may again benefit from its in-depth bipartisan discussions. The February 2007 Education Program theme deliberately concentrated on the upcoming debate on reauthorization of this legislation. Because of that focus, House Education Committee chairman Miller believes the Congressional Program’s discussions “will be a major force on the reauthorization of No Child Left Behind.”
Internationally, the U.S.-Russia Program may well stimulate action to change a law that’s been on the books for decades. Waxman predicts Congress will likely vote to repeal the Cold War “Jackson-Vanik” restrictions preventing Russia from having normal trade status — and the Aspen Institute Congressional Program has influenced the debate. Jackson-Vanik gave the U.S. effective leverage on human rights issues when, for example, Soviet Jews were not allowed to emigrate, Waxman says. But Congressional Program presentations have illustrated that now “we are beyond the need” for such tight trade law restrictions. These meetings helped “lay the groundwork” for what he predicts will be extending unconditional or permanent normal trade relations to Russia in the near future.
The scope of the Aspen Institute’s international policy discussion has been revamped, resulting in a broadened vision of the Russia Program that includes discussion of the vital European role. Appropriately, the current title is U.S.-Russia-Europe Cooperative Efforts — an improvement in Waxman’s view. As he points out, “The consequences of U.S.-Russia relations are not just restricted to our two countries.” For example, he cites one “very ominous concern” in the future: that Russia might use its natural resources as “political weapons.” According to Arsenian, “the aim of the expanded effort is to determine where U.S., Russian and European interests converge and where they diverge.” In fact, the final remarks at the latest conference in August 2006 were on “Closing the Gap in U.S.-Europe Relations.”
The Aspen Institute Congressional Program agenda has evolved to the discussion of such security issues as non-proliferation, terrorism, regional security, European Union and NATO expansion. One potential flashpoint in the future flagged by Russia expert Michael Mandelbaum is Iran’s nuclear activity. Along with NATO expansion, this volatile issue is “particularly neuralgic for Washington and Moscow,” Mandelbaum wrote in his summary. This document was widely circulated after the conference, as are various scholarly papers that are made available in congressional and academic communities to assure that the impact of every Congressional Program conference reaches beyond the small group of attendees.
Despite the generally laudatory comments about the program, there is still room for improvement. One weakness in simply publishing the papers is that they do not accurately reflect the debate that takes place at the conference—an intentional omission aimed at encouraging attendees, especially politicians, to speak freely. Some thought has been given to solving this problem in a way that could allow for free conference debate while giving interested outsiders a better understanding of the tenor of the discussion. One possibility might be to include remarks without attribution, as has been tried with some past Congressional Program publications.
Another concern is that the U.S.-Russia Program has not invited new participants—perhaps because some key senators have resisted attempts to bring newcomers into the conference. At the same time, a Russia caucus has not emerged in Congress as result of the Aspen Institute Congressional Program conference, which disappoints Arsenian. It has also been suggested that the Education Program could use added voices, as well as a greater variety among participants. After a recent Education Reform Program, one member of Congress noted afterward “it might have helped to have a superintendent or two plus a principal and union leader to provide perspective.”