Hello again.
Welcome back to 21st Century American Foreign Policy.
I'm Bruce Jenelsen.
and today we'll kind of get situated in today's class in the rest of unit one.
We've had three sessions already.
we've done a little welcome and a course overview in the first.
We gave you a flavor from the foreign policy debate the second.
The last one, we created this four-piece analytic framework for thinking about
what American foreign policy is, and today, we're going to have a
first of three sessions of how US foreign policy is made.
We're going to talk about the relationship between
the President and the Congress before going
on in the next sessions to the media and then interest groups and public opinion.
there were some reading that we assigned on the
course page that came from my American Foreign Policy book.
one of the chapters that we have put up as
part of the course and a few pages from that.
And we'll be drawing on that.
I hope you've done it before watching this tape.
for today we'll also have an interview with a special guest.
A leading figure in the U.S. Congress and foreign policy for over 30 years.
former senator, Richard Lugar.
An I'll tell you more about him a little later in, in the session.
The outline for today is as follows.
I want to talk first about what's called the Water's Edge myth.
Then, I want to about the U.S. Constitution.
and after that, I'll talk about, politics and how that affects foreign policy.
Then, we'll have the interview with Senator Lugar.
And then we'll come back and we'll talk about the President, Congress,
and some war powers issues, the use of force in recent examples.
And a little bit about Presidents as foreign policies.
And like with all our sessions we can't
possibly cover all aspects of this, each one
of these you could teach practically a full course on, but my goal is really to
give you a framework and a flavor for the issues.
So, there's an expression that said politics stops at the water's edge.
And what it is supposed to mean is that on domestic
policies, Americans can have lots of political fights, but on foreign policy
we're supposed to be united as one people at the water's edge,
as it were, where, where the oceans meet the United States borders.
So political differences are okay in domestic, but not on foreign policy.
In the early Cold War period from the late 1940s to the
mid 1960s there was a fair amount of consensus, what some people have
called the golden age of bipartisanship in which the political parties and the
president and the congress pretty much worked together on a lots of issues.
This consensus broke up over the Vietnam War in the 1960s and
the 1970s.
And, there's been much yearning for it to come back
as if somehow that's the way it actually has been historically.
but there are three ways in which this water's edge, politics stops at the
water's edge, is a myth, and in some ways not a very good one.
the first one is, is historically this consensus we saw during the Cold War.
It's been much more the exception than the rule.
When you look at American history, in fact,
there's been lots of political conflict over foreign policy.
Going back to the 1800s, and, and the late 1700s.
Not just when the Vietnam War happened.
one example was President Woodrow Wilson.
at the end of World War I, and went to Europe, and was one of the,
was the leader in creating the Versailles Treaty,
creating bodies like the League of Nations in 1919.
He brought the treaty home and
the U.S. Senate refused to ratify it, defeated
President Wilson with really what was his own treaty.
not exactly a consensus.
but a great example is to go way back to the founding of the country.
With President George Washington, the father of the country,
who in 1794 signed a treaty called the Jay Treaty.
Which was basically a treaty with Britain.
which kind of tilted
towards Britain in its rivalry of the day with France.
Well, the quote you see was from an editorial in a newspaper of the day.
About this treaty that this newspaper did not particularly like.
They called it ruinous, detestable, contemptible.
This treaty is signed with our inveterate enemy and foe to human happiness.
not exactly the way you'd think that people
would think about the father of the country.
So the point being, we've long
had foreign policy differences. political differences over foreign policy.
Consensus has been more the exception than the rule.
Secondly is consensus has not always been a good thing.
in the 1950s, we had McCarthyism which was frankly a
witch hunt against people not only who, who were communist spies.
And there were some in the United States and in the American government.
But about a whole range of people who were painted as communists.
University professors, Hollywood script writers, teachers, many leaders.
This is a picture of Senator Joe McCarthy.
It was a very repressive era allegedly on this consensus against communism.
But it wasn't exactly good thing when you had lots of innocent people
losing their livelihoods, going to jail, and in other ways paying a price.
Third is political conflict over foreign policy is not necessarily a bad thing.
Sometimes we've make hasty decisions to go to war.
This was true way back in 1898 of the Spanish American War, it was true
in the Vietnam war in 1965, and it was true in the Iraq war in 2003.
if we had a little bit more political conflict,
maybe we would have made a better foreign policy decision.
Some of these conflicts
go back to the United States Constitution, and the basic principles
in the constitution are separation of powers and checks and balances.
Now, the President and the Congress are supposed to check and balance each other.
Not always work together.
That they have separate powers. we see these on the war powers.
The powers, that have to do with the use of force.
the president is the commander in chief of the military.
He's the national leader. He can request a declaration
of war. He can use force short of full scale war.
But the Congress given by the Constitution
the power to provide for the common defense.
Which essentially means budeget authority over the defense budget
and other budgets and to approve a declaration of war.
The Constitution intentionally divides the powers between the two, which
has made at a number course in our history for political
conflict quite intentional and as some sort of aberration.
on treaties and other international commitments, we see the same thing.
The president has the power according to
the constitution to negotiate and sign treaties.
he can make some other international commitments through speeches
and executive agreements that he can do on his own.
But the Congress in more, has budget authority.
Over many commitments, through, for example, foreign aid.
and the Senate, not the full Congress, but the
Senate, has to ratify treaties, which means approve them.
And that requires a 2 3rds majority, not a simple 50, 51% majority.
so again, checks and balances, separation of powers.
Similarly, on appointments of foreign policy officials.
The President can nominate his cabinet, the Secretary of State.
Secretary of Defense.
Other high level officials and ambassadors.
he can appoint
the National Security Advisor, which does not require Senate confirmation.
But all those other positions I mentioned.
the Senate must confirm the nominees. Again, the Senate, not the House.
this only requires a majority vote. Not 2 3rds, like you know, like treaties.
On trade policy the Constitution gives the Congress quite a bit of power.
Gives both the House and the Senate the power to
quote, regulate foreign commerce.
It has to confirm top trade officials like
the US Trade Representative, that is the Senate.
And both houses, the House and the Senate have budget authority.
The President has delegated power from Congress.
In other words the Congress decides in many respects
how much power to give him to negotiate trade treaties.
He has some power
to negotiate and some power of
appointments, but Congress compared to war powers
controls more of the power and trade policy than, than in war powers issues.
You can summarize this in a table.
this is also from my book.
It's not in the chapter you read so we, we put it up here.
And you can see the different powers that
are granted and the different powers that they have.
on the war powers.
the president has
the power of Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and to provide for
the common, and Congress, to provide for the common defense and declare war.
I'm not going to go through all these, I want you to
kind of isolate this slide and take a look at it.
And you can see how it really summarizes what we've been talking about.
politics is obviously also a factor. Party politics and partisanship enters in.
but the reason I started with the Constitution
is it's not just politics.
Democrats in Congress have opposed Democratic presidents.
Republicans in Congress have opposed Republican presidents.
and we've often seen split party control over the White House
and the Congress, which has been more frequent in recent years.
And so here's another table that actually goes over three slides.
And I'll summarize it quickly, but really want you
to spend some time on it on your own.
this looks at the President, party control of
the Presidency in Congress first between 1945 and 1980.
And for 20 of those 36 years,
the same party controlled the presidency and Congress.
So for example, 1945-46, President Harry
Truman, a Democrat, and Democrats controlled Congress.
and you can see this how this breaks down for
different periods and presidents.
Different Presidents and different parties controlling Congress.
But there were political conflicts in those issue, those, those,
years, that go back to that Constitutional separation of powers.
for 16 of those years there's been divided government, by which
I mean one party controlled the presidency and the other the Congress.
So for the second two years, 1947-48 of Harry Truman's presidency,
Republicans controlled Congress.
President Eisenhower, Democrats controlled for a lot, Nixon and Ford as well.
But 20 of these 36 were same party control.
From 1981 to 2014 the last 34 years, we've actually only seen eight years
where there's been same party control, and
26 years where there's been divided governing.
and so yes,
there's been more conflict in recent years, partly
for political reasons because there's been more divided government.
And again you see it on this slide and on, on the next slide as well.
so in sum there is conflict between the President
and Congress for constitutional reasons, and for political reasons.
When the same party's been in control, the President and the Congress, it is reduced.
but not eliminated, part,
political conflict over these issues.
so now, I'd like to have you, take advantage of this wonderful opportunity.
I conducted an interview with Senator Richard Lugar
who was a United States senator from 1977 to 2013.
It's only recently that he left the Senate.
He was a Republican senator from Indiana, the state of Indiana, and
he was Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
for a number of years.
1985 to 87, and 2003 to 2007. In other
years, where there was a Democrat that was chair, he
was what was called, the ranking member of the committee.
Which means the highest ranking member of the minority party and
I think it's fair to say, that of the members of
the Senate of the last few decades there is really no
senator who had more respect from a wide range of people.
Republicans and Democrats and Independents, on
foreign policy issues, than Senator Lugar.
So it's a great opportunity
for our students to share his experience and wisdom.
and we conducted an interview.
The whole interview is available on our course site.
It runs, for a long time, but I've edited in some of the key points that he makes.
So let's go to the interview now.
and I'll come back to you at different
points and point out different thing he says.
and then we'll also continue on with our own discussion of these issues.
So now, let us welcome
Senator Richard Luger to our Coursera 21st Century American Foreign Policy class.
Senator Luger thank you so much for joining our Coursera course
with us today on our course on 21st century American foreign policy.
On behalf of our many thousands of
students around the world, we are really pleased
that you take the time to share your
experience and knowledge with us about these issues.
Thanks very much. >> Thank you professor.
>> Good, so as we talked about our discussion today, is part
of our discussion on how the United States makes it's foreign policy.
And particularly, today's session focuses on
the relationship between the President and Congress.
So I was wondering if you could just give us
a sense of what your view is both from your experience,
and general knowledge of what you think the relationship should be
between the president and Congress in the making of foreign policy?
>> Well,
basically, the Constitution and further practice
that states that the Presidents hold government.
The appointees that he makes with regard to foreign policy, Secretary of the State,
the under secretaries, the citizen secretaries, the
ambassadors must all be confirmed by the Senate.
And then in addition to that by all the appropriations, that is the money to carry
through his foreign policy, whatever it may be.
Has to be authorized and then appropriate authorization from
say, the Foreign Relations Committee,
appropriations from the Appropriations Committee.
then, of course, any treaties that the President tries
to formulate require 2 3rds majority of the Senate.
Of legislation may come, of course, from the Congress,
with regard to foreign policy, and it goes through a long trace.
But, at the end of the trail, the President either signs it or vetoes
it, and accepts the suggestions of people who are involved in all of this.
So, there are very considerable ties, constitutionally,
but the point that I want to make
is that the President really needs to have a rapport with at least the Senate and
with both houses with regard to the money that's going to be
required either for foreign policy or an aid, whatever, or for defense.
>> One of the issues that often gets more contentious, or more
publicity, is when it comes to the questions about use of force.
And the Constitution, you know, says that Congress has the
power to declare war and the President's Commander in Chief.
We constantly try to figure
out where the balance point is on this.
And in today's world, President Obama is faced
with some very complicated use of force issues.
From drones, to you know? Possibilities all over the world.
where do you think the balance point
should be looking forward to this 21st century?
Between, what should Congress be able to have a big voice in?
And what should be left to the President when it comes to the use of force?
>> Well, I think,
A classic, point of view, so to speak, on this.
Namely.
That constitutionally, before the United States goes to war with
another country, there ought to be a formal declaration of war.
this ought to come through the
congressional process after a request by the
President, who believes that this is in our best interests as a country.
having said that,
we have been moving away from that pretty stoutly in
the last quarter century, maybe last half century or so.
The whole process has been skipped over to a point that
we probably will need to get back to the more formal
circumstances, because what eventually happens is the the public
as a whole, the American public becomes disenchanted with whatever the war is.
Polls are taken indicating that people really want to leave.
Political parties begin to take that position.
Here our troops are out there in a situation where there never was a
declaration of war to begin with, there was a presidential directive of some sort.
So it's a valid question for the
moment, given the number of circumstances involved.
>> Yeah, I think that's a very good point.
I think sometimes Presidents
don't understand that they're actually better off going to
Congress for support, because then we're all in it together.
Rather than saying, oh somehow Congress may be a nuisance.
And I think many presidents have, have not
come to Congress thinking that they'd be opposed, but
often times they would have gotten the support they
needed if Congress thought it was a wise policy.
>> And furthermore, at some point the President really will need some money.
To fight these wars.
>> Right. You know, I know.
I want our students to know that when, Senator Barack Obama was
elected to the Senate, one of the people that he turned to.
You know to get involved and learn a great
deal about foreign policy was, you know, was you.
And you mentioned your
[UNKNOWN]
Lugar.
And I know you took him with you on one of the trips.
You know, to the former Soviet Union, dealing with this whole
question of, of, of the security of nuclear weapons and materials.
And I know that he consulted you greatly, as President.
And, in 2010, your role as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was
absolutely crucial to approval of this START
arms control treaty, with, with the Russians.
and I'm sure
you two are still in touch.
I think, now that you're retired from the Senate and,
and looking at our, you know, these issues in our
politics, you know one often hears from the White House
that we'd like Congress to support us more, but they won't.
And when he, one hears sometimes from Congress
that the President doesn't reach out enough to Congress.
What would be your advice to both sides
to try to work together better on foreign policy?
>> Well, the President,
really should reach out.
I, I've cited the example of Ronald
Reagan sending the delegation to Geneva, Switzerland.
because he knew he was going to need a 2 3rds vote.
And that was one of the problems we had
with the new START treaty that you have mentioned.
It requires a 2 3rds vote, a modest treaty.
And this is a minor correction.
By that point, I was only ranking member of the committee.
John
Kerry, who is now taken on responsibilities, was our chairman.
That's a, that illustrates a, a problem, because essentially, by the time we got to
the new START treaty, Republicans didn't like treaties
at all, when it came to arms control.
There had not been very much reaching out.
My problem as the ranking member was to try to obtain
enough Republican votes so we could get the 67
we finally got 71 but it was a struggle.
And it led to a lot of negotiations in which the Vice President, Joe Biden, was
involved and promising that our own nuclear weapons would be refurbished.
People from various states, Tennessee comes to mind
as one down at Oak RIdge were concerned, really,
that that facility hadn't been modernized for quite a while.
There even were Republican senators on the committee who got back into
the old idea that we ought to have a comprehensive missile defense.
Literally a sort of a cover of the entire country.
That these arms control treaties were worthless.
What you really needed to do was just shoot them down when they shoot at you.
Unfortunately Ronald Reagan got over that idea a log time ago.
[LAUGH]
But not everybody has. There, there, there's been a lack of
rapport between the White House and the Congress as a whole on these issues.
And especially among Congressional Republicans.
But it could be cured, and I think your idea of reaching out is very appropriate.
In the case of President Obama's first days
in the Senate, the Republicans were in control,
that is why I was chairman of the committee then.
He was the junior member on the Democratic side.
And he asked, in 2005, he said, I know you go
to Russian every year, can I go along with you this year?
And I said, well sure. So we met in Moscow.
We saw a laboratory in which, a biological or chemical weapon, one or
the other were being shoved into an ice box, and this is fascinating,
to Senator Obama. But we really got into trouble out in
[UNKNOWN]
where we had the misfortune of celebrating with
Russians and American contractors, because a lot good things
had occurred, namely weapons that had been on
trains were being unearthed and were being destroyed there.
But for some reason or other whatever the rumor was, some
people felt the rumor was that I was actually a spy
[INAUDIBLE]
nevertheless, and so the Russians wanted to get onto
our Air Force aircraft on the tarmac out there.
The Ravens, these are enlisted personnel who keep
Russians off of our planes, were resisting that.
And so in essence, we found that we were going to be held, in
the basement there of the Air Force, and we had no idea for how long.
And despite the fact that our staffs had
ability to try to call the State Department, the Defense Department.
It was a Sunday afternoon late.
Wasn't anybody around.
That was even true in our embassy. But now, mercifully somebody decided
finally to let us go, but it was really a tough initiation, for, for President Obama
[LAUGH]
in his first visit to Russia to say the least.
But we saw not only the possibilities there but likewise, in Baku,
in Azerbaijan, we saw the beginnings of the British Petroleum
Baku Ceyhan Pipeline that offered potential energy independence for
parts of Western Europe that weren't going to have that given the Russian situation.
Because we just been to Ukraine, heard from them that their
natural gas was going to be shut off at first of January,
and they wanted us to get some more gas there in
a hurry, which was going to be difficult for us to do.
So President Obama saw all of these things, and we got back, and he said,
let's propose the Lugar Obama arms control bill.
And I mention that because when the President
was questioned in the debates that occurred in the campaign of 2008, just
what have you done, really in the Senate? Oh, he said, easy, Luger-Obama.
And that maybe gave some difficulty maybe with
some Republican colleagues that it was being decided.
But still all, he, from the beginning I think understood the predicaments.
because I saw him in contact,
in person with all these people, that had these predicaments.
so he's fairly capable, I believe, of diplomatically reaching out
and getting a rapport which is going to be required.
2 3rds majority is hard to come by.
It's not going to happen through anybody, it's elections.
Two years from now, four years from now, so forth.
[INAUDIBLE]
It requires really a committee to come together to begin with for appropriate
hearings. and with some spirit of rapport.
>> huh.
That's a very good point and I think your point about,
President Obama quoting the Lugar Obama Bill in the debates, was really
testimony to the respect with which you were held by both Republicans
and Democrats for your work on foreign policy for what you believed
throughout your career was the American
interest and really the international interest.
You know, I've had the opportunity to welcome
you here to Duke a couple of times.
>> Yes.
>> And share your knowledge and experience with our students, and,
here at Duke, And this is a great opportunity, you know?
For our MOOC, as they say, with our global student body.
To have them have a chance to, to meet with you as well.
So, I really want to thank you very much for, for your time and your wisdom.
and on behalf of all of our students, I look forward to
an opportunity to see you again, hopefully in the future, in Washington.
>> Well I would just testify that Duke University is a great university,
and I've always been privileged to have opportunities to visit with the students.
And with great friends such as yourself.
So I thank you again for this opportunity.
>> Well thank you very much, we wish you all the best, and see you again.
>> Thank you, bye bye.
>> So that was great.
I hope you've had an opportunity and I encourage you to
go, to go look at the whole interview if you like.
he talks about a lot of issues and you get a
sense for the dignity and professionalism
with which he approached his responsibilities.
And I say that as someone who is a Democrat, not a Republican, and has not
always agreed on all issues with Senator Lugar,
but I've always respected his view, always believed that
he had what he thought were the best
interests of the country and the political process.
So let's come back to our own slides and talk
about a few recent examples of this war powers issue.
this, this goes back to some of the
assigned reading in the American Foreign Policy book
from chapter nine, pages 285 to 401 that were, that were put up for you to read.
As we do this, remember the Constitution,
the separation of powers, checks and balances that are part of the issues.
and, we've seen a lot of, there've been a
number of examples that I talk about in the chapter.
in the interest of time I'm only going to talk about one recent example.
And that was the Iraq war from 2003 to 2011.
And I'm not getting into the issues of the war itself today.
But I
really want to talk about this as how it shows how foreign policy is made.
Congress, when the was was started in 2003 largely supported.
the war there was not a declaration of war.
there was another piece of legislation called an authorization to
use force that sort of really side stepped the constitutional issue.
Many people felt that on something like this the President should ask
for a declaration of war, and Congress should decide one way or another.
It didn't do that but it did express its support by actually quite large margins.
In the Senate was 77 to 23 this was in, in late 2002.
and the war actually starts in March 2003, but it was
a message to the President that he had the Senate support.
And the House of Representatives, it was 296 to 133.
Congress did support the war.
Again, my point today is not whether that was a good idea
or a bad idea, but, but Congress was very supportive of the war.
it did not do it as a declaration of war, as I said.
but as the war went on and in one of our later sessions, we'll
look at some public opinion polls on the public's view of, of the Iraq war.
and over time it began to be evident
that, that the war was not working very well in a lot of respects.
costs being paid by American soldiers.
costs being paid by Iraqis. consequences for the rest of the world.
That many people agreed that Saddam Hussein was a dictator.
but there was a sense of declining support, among the public, and Congress.
Indeed, in the 2006 congressional election.
President Bush was still President.
dissatisfaction with the Iraq War was a major factor why
Democrats did much better in this Congressional election than Republicans.
It's very rare in Congressional elections for foreign policy
to be a factor, and in this case it was.
And it had an impact.
So we see the Iraq war playing out.
The 2008 presidential election was a huge factor.
When Hilary Clinton was a senator she actually had
voted for that resolution, part of that 77 number above.
Barack Obama was not in the senate then but
as a state official in Illinois had opposed the war.
And in the Democratic primary one of the big issues that helped Barack Obama
beat Hillary Clinton was that he opposed the Iraq war more than she did.
Then in the general election when Obama ran against
John McCain McCain was in support of the war, and the Iraq war opposition.
that Obama had, held was a factor in the presidential election.
There were a lot of others, like the economy, but it was a factor.
So that's just one example again, more in the
reading and I encourage you to, to look at them.
If you have particular questions send 'em to our forum and
our message board and we'll try to be responsive to them.
last thing I want to look at today is the role of Presidents
as foreign policy leaders.
And here, too, part of that reading that we assigned
looks at the role of Presidents as foreign policy leaders.
There are a lot of actors that influence American
foreign policy, but none is more important than the President.
Presidents bring to their office not only
their political identity, but prior experience, a set
a beliefs about what the role of the United States should be in the world.
how we should play that role. You know?
How they view the four P's, as it were.
How important power, peace, prosperity, and
principles are, in their belief system.
They also assemble foreign policy teams
which have their own bureaucratic politics.
There's a Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense may not agree.
this happened in the Bush administration between
Secretary of State Colin Powell and Secretary of
Defense, Donald Rumsfeld.
it's happened in other administrations, as well.
And, and even within the same party, the same administration, there's disagreement.
So, in the book, we apply this framework, to recent American Presidents.
we take a look at President George H W Bush, President from 1989
to 1993, who really had the most
foreign policy experience prior to being President.
take a look at his, how his experience
and belief systems shaped his leadership in foreign policy.
And then the same for Bill Clinton, president from 1993 to 2001.
and for George W Bush 2001 - 2009, and Barack
Obama 2009 - and currently still President of the United States.
And just to illustrate how you apply this framework, let's take
a look about what it really means for, for Barack Obama.
So when he became President, he had very limited prior foreign policy experience.
He'd served in the state legislature of the state of Illinois.
And was a senator, for four years.
But really, for much of that four years, he was running for President.
as Senator Lugar said, he did get involved.
Senator Obama got involved in foreign policy.
And Senator Lugar, was really one of his mentors, on some of those key
issues, like, the trip that was described to the former Soviet Union, to Russia.
when he was running for President, the Iraq War issue was a huge issue.
Indeed in the Democratic primary it was probably one of the key issues that
Senator Obama was able to beat then Senator Hilary Rodham Clinton on.
Senator Clinton had voted for the Iraq War
while in the Senate as a Senator Barack Obama
had not been a member of the U.S.
Senate, didn't vote, but nevertheless had made it, his
opposition, one of the defining features of it,
so that was clearly a big issue for him.
some key people on his team when he became President, indeed Secretary of State
was Hillary Rodham Clinton in his first
term, his opponent in the Presidential primary.
by most accounts, did a very good job as Secretary of State.
And here in the second term, it's John Kerry.
also a Senator after Senator Luger was chair of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee and Democrats took the majority, John Kerry became the chair.
Lots of experience in foreign policy.
His National Security Advisor was James Jones a former military officer.
And, then Tim Donilon a long time political and foreign policy aide.
And, most recently Susan Rice, currently Susan Rice who'd been Ambassador
of the United Nations for President Obama in his first term.
as Secretary of Defense, he actually first retained
Robert Gates, who had been Secretary of Defense
in the latter part of the George W
Bush administration, a Republican, and served 'til 2011.
Then Leon Panetta much experience director of
the CIA, congressman from California for many years,
[COUGH],
excuse me, Bill Clinton's White House Chief of Staff.
And now Chuck Hagel, also a Republican had been a
senator from Nebraska, when Barack Obama was, was, senator from Illinois.
And so what you see in Obama's foreign policy, and we
saw this I think in our second session, from some of the
speeches, was both how the key principles, his views on the
four Ps and their priority, affects his foreign policy to a certain
extent, his limited, his foreign policy experience, limited as it was.
and then the really, the role that many of, of the key players play on his team.
there's a lot more about this in the
American Foreign Policy book, and I encourage you to
read about it to deepen really what we've been
able to cover in this, in this short lecture.
So in our next class, we're going to go on
to talk about the role of media in foreign policy.
We'll have a lecture, a little bit of lecture and
we'll have two interviews.
i'll talk more about them when we get to that session.
And there's a little bit of reading on the course site as well.
So until then, take care and see you soon.