 Senator, if you were to think back to the time when you were writing your senior thesis about the role of Congress in U.S. foreign policy, what would you, as your later self, tell your earlier self about how it actually works? That it's more messy and more human than I'd even imagined, although that was one of the conclusions I reached in. The central point of my thesis was that if you read the transcripts of what Congress said they were doing by shifting to a foreign policy that was, excuse me, foreign aid policy that was directed at meeting basic human needs. So it was laying the groundwork of what later became known as, for example, PEPFAR, where we are the world's greatest provider of public health assistance. At the time in the 80s and 90s it was supporting the Green Revolution and relief of hunger. What was really going on behind the scenes was less that members of Congress grasped the development theory that was being proposed by their witnesses and their hearings. It was more that they hated Nixon and they wanted to take money away from the president and prevent a president, frankly, whether Nixon or LBJ, from using aid dollars as a chit to reward or punish senators or countries that voted with us at the UN with regards to Vietnam or that were on board with his domestic agenda. We frankly, the Congress at the time, took what was a very large foreign aid budget and removed the ability of the executive branch to just move it around at will. The legacy of that decision, of those decisions, lives with us today in that the USAID budget, as Samantha Power will tell you, is pretty sharply constrained. He does not have the freedom to move a couple billion dollars from one place to another. And so what I would tell my younger self is, you're onto something. And I would also say, work hard to restore the thoughtful deliberations of an earlier age, which are more rare today in a more partisan and a more media conscious Senate.