As the recipient of the 1983-1984 AGU Congressional Science Fellowship [Eos, September 6, 1983, p. 543] I have been asked to report on my midterm experiences.  I have learned two major aspects of business on Capitol Hill.  First, I am impressed by the tremendously important relationship between science and the political world of Congress.  Congressmen need and actively seek technical advice on legislative issues.  As a scientist, one's point of view can have an impact on society as well as on one's discipline.

Second, I have been overwhelmed by the dedication of members of Congress and their staff.  As in corporations and academia, the politics and bureaucracy can suffocate many a good idea.  However, considering these things, plus overlapping committee jurisdictions and the inherently difficult legislative process, it is still a wonderment to me that Congress manages to produce anything.

The AGU Congressional Science Fellowship consists of four phases: selection, orientation, placement, and assignment.  I would like to discuss each of these phases; through each, I feel that I have learned and grown both personally and professionally.

Selection

Application required a letter of intent, vita, and letters of reference.  Once short-listed, one wrote and presented a congressional briefing to a peer review board.  I chose deep-seabed mining as my topic; it offered me the opportunity to show my ability to research a briefing on (to me) a totally foreign topic.

Orientation

In addition to AGU, 19 professional societies enroll their Fellows in the AAAS Congressional Orientation Program.  These societies include AGU, ACS, APhA, NSPE, IEEE, and others.  This year there were 42 Fellows, ranging in age from 28 to 50.  All but 10 of the Fellows have their doctorate.

Fellows have been placed in Congress, OTA, and the State Department.  Besides constantly tapping our Fellows network (the Fellowship) for legislation information, we have regular dinner and luncheon seminars and informal meetings.  We set up our own seminars, which so far included topics like Central America, ethics, the "gender gap," arms control, risk assessment, and lobbying.  I have had the great pleasure of being the chairman of this year's Fellowship.

The goal of orientation is to prepare one for placement in the personal office of a member, on a committee staff, or in some other congressional branch.  This program is a rather grueling sequence of congressional briefings from congressional agencies, members of Congress, committee staffs, historians, AAAS representatives, former Fellows, and others.  In addition, there are meals and receptions with speakers, member of Congress, and congressional staff.  The Fellows' friendship develops through this exhausting but thoroughly enjoyable "boot camp."  The AAAS orientation is similar to the orientation that freshman congressmen undergo.  By the end of the 2-week period, one has a better understanding of how Congress is structured, how it operates, and what forces both emanate from Congress and shape Congress.  The contact with congressmen and staff makes one aware of the important "players" in Congress.  Now was the time for placement.

Interviews

We were now let loose on Capitol Hill to find a position for a year.  All the interesting aspects of congressional work we had heard about during the orientation made it very difficult to chose the appropriate member, committee, subcommittee, or congressional branch.  Prior to the orientation, I had chosen to work on hydrologically related issues.  However, during the orientation I had added to my list the areas of innovation, productivity, industrial policy, high-tech development, and foreign affairs.

AAAS provided us with a room full of phones in the Senate Hart Office Building, a list of congressmen looking for Fellows, and interview comments from last year's Fellows.  The AAAS leadership and support are indispensable to the success of this program.

I left my condensed, one-page resume at more than 30 offices.  I eventually interviewed with 13 personal offices and 6 committees on both the Senate and House sides.  I went back to many of these offices two or three times.  There was a constant exchange of interview information through the Fellowship network and relatively little competition.  We found out a lot about ourselves, Congress, legislative issues, and especially the underground tunnels interconnecting the congressional office buildings.

In spite of all my criteria for choosing an office in which to work, my choice rested very heavily on office "chemistry."  I chose to work in the personal office of Rep. George E. Brown, Jr. (D-Cal.).

Work

Besides being on the House Science and Technology Committee and the House Agricultural Committee, Rep. Brown has a personal interest in remote-sensing applications, water resources, and data base management, all of which I was involved in at the University of Maryland.  Some of the other Fellows have told me that the members they work for do not even know the Fellow's name.  I felt quite fortunate in this respect, because I get a chance to talk with Rep. Brown frequently and I have accompanied him on hearings and speech trips.

For the first 2 months, I read congressional reports, attended meetings, hearings, and floor debates and familiarized myself with congressional and office procedures.  I was given industrial policy, space, information, and water policy as issue areas.  I was not given a specific project, except a speech on the role of the federal government in science and technology.  During this time I helped on office projects and constituent work.  (The volume of letters, requests, and information coming in to a congressional office is staggering.)  I attended Congressional Research Service programs to familiarize myself with the Library of Congress and its data bases.

In November, Rep. Brown asked me to examine the possibility of drafting legislation for the commercialization of Landsat based on discipline resources and not the 80-m resolution of current proposals.  I learned a great deal about possible suggestions at the National Telecommunications Conference and Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

However, after Congress adjourned in late November, I was asked to write four speeches on industrial policy, innovation, R&D, and productivity topics.  The Landsat proposal was shelved for awhile.

During the recess Rep. Brown also asked me to examine an Office of Technology Assessment recommendation that the United States needed a National Center for Water Resources Research modeled after the successful National Center for Atmospheric Research.  I have made some proposals for such a structure that have generated interest with Rep. Brown, members of the Interior Committee, and the National Associate of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges.  The timing may actually be correct for this legislation.  A lot of politics and arrangements must be worked out before such a bill will be introduced.  However, this legislation has now become my main focus.  The chances are small that it will make it to hearings before I leave, but I am endeavoring to lay the foundation.

I am enjoying the Hill very much.  I know already it has had a great impact on my life.  I know I will remain politically active when I return to the scientific community, and I would high recommend this program to anyone regardless of profession or age.

Jack Fellows, AGU Congressional Science Fellow, 1983-1984.

Return to AGU's Congressional Science Fellowship page
Return to Science and Policy