Carnegie
Corporation
of New York
Summer 2007
Although the Russia and Education programs deal
with disparate issues, they share an operating formula Clark instituted
at the very beginning and has honed over the years. At the heart of Clark’s
approach is a carefully controlled ideological balance. While he laments
the fact that one can never really achieve perfect parity, Clark aims
for as even a mix as possible of Republicans and Democrats, members of
the House and Senate, female and male legislators. He feels it is also
particularly important on educational issues to ensure participation by
African-American and Hispanic lawmakers representing inner-city communities
affected by the topics under discussion.
Occasionally, the balancing act can be undone by the unpredictability of the congressional schedule. In 1993, the Senate was kept in session during the summer, “so we had only House members,” Clark recalls. Legislators do try to clear their calendars for Aspen Institute Congressional Programs, however, and the program is now well known enough, he notes, that members of Congress approach him for invitations. Many times he’s had to “cut off” the attendees list when RSVPs exceeded the maximum number the budget or facility could support. One legislator, who found himself shut out after responding too late, instructed his staff that henceforth all Aspen Institute invitations are to be brought to him immediately, Clark reports.
Some lawmakers who request a repeat visit receive a polite rejection. It’s a good idea to take an active interest in the discussion if you want to return, Clark advises. He has vetoed members of Congress “who were just a little too weak…really couldn’t contribute much—and I didn’t think they came away with much.” Fortunately, it’s not a large group. “I could almost name them on my 10 fingers,” he says. One way to be sure of not getting invited back is to neglect to file a disclosure form with the House or Senate ethics body--especially since the Aspen Institute Congressional Program gives each participant a list of their paid expenses for this purpose. Clark is adamant about avoiding any impression of flouting congressional ethics rules.
A number of influential lawmakers are not only regulars, they participate in both the U.S.-Russian and the Education programs. These include Senator Richard Lugar and Representatives George Miller, David Obey and Henry Waxman. Lugar was Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman until the Republicans lost control of Congress. Obey is chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Miller heads Education and Labor and Waxman chairs the Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
The Aspen Institute Congressional Program’s immersion offers many advantages over the way issues are discussed in Congress, these leaders contend. It’s a “hell of lot better than a hearing,” declares Obey. On Capitol Hill, witnesses come with prepared statements and “you get all of five minutes to ask questions,” he says. In contrast, at the Aspen Institute Congressional Program, “you get to ask a question; you have plenty of opportunities to get together.” Miller describes daily life on Capitol Hill as a series of schedules “cut up in 25-minute segments for conferences and hearings.” But at an Aspen Institute Congressional Program conference “you get a chance to really think about the nuances, the ramifications of policy.”
Keeping Ideas Moving
One of the program’s great strengths is Dick Clark’s well-practiced
approach. He keeps the talk flowing as he guides the discussion from the
center of a horseshoe-shaped table. Wearing a microphone, he’s been
described by participants as playing roles from Ted Koppel to ringmaster.
But there’s no doubt the discussion is “very carefully choreographed,”
one observer notes. Speaking time, whether for a question, answer or comment,
is divided precisely into three-minute blocks, enforced by a timer. Participants
are placed in a queue for speaking by raising one finger, and can break
the queue for a timely observation by raising two fingers.
Scholars, both U.S. academics and foreign experts, are major players at Aspen Institute Congressional Programs, both in their presentations and their involvement in informal discussions. The information they provide can alter the perspective of some of the most influential policymakers in the country. For example, one Russian scholar gave a very “sobering” view of Russia’s perspective on the country’s relationship with the U.S., notes Deana Arsenian. Where American lawmakers “expected a sense of gratitude” from Russia for allocating huge sums to help Russia toward democracy, instead they got a lesson in Russian political reality. The speaker bluntly told them the U.S. “is not really instrumental” to Russia in determining domestic policy.
“They give a different flavor to the debate than you normally get in Congress, where hearings feature self-proclaimed experts,” notes Senator Bennett. Yet there is one limiting factor in providing the totality of the Russian view: foreign scholars need to speak English well enough to participate in the program.
Private conversations with scholars are strongly encouraged. Clark delivers the polite charge to experts to “please be available” for further conversation during free time. The results of these exchanges can be highly positive. In fact, Representative Ralph Regula used his contact with a University of Washington scholar to help him set up a specialized in-depth political science program at a small college in his home area in Ohio. “I wouldn’t have had a chance at all for that kind of experience” without the Aspen Institute Congressional Program, Regula says.
Members of Congress applaud the huge differences between Congressional Program conferences and Washington-based formal congressional travel delegations, known as “Codels,” where their activities are scheduled and escorted by embassy staff. “It’s so much better than a Codel” where “much of your time is spent on rather stiff conversation,” Obey says. At Aspen Institute “you get a chance to deal with issues,” he notes, “and then you talk more over dinner.” Fallon feels that dinner conversations are important “because the informality allows members of Congress to illustrate their concerns for policy with the personal anecdotes that affect their lives and political orientation and thus connect more directly with the research findings brought by the experts.”