It seems like only yesterday that I walked through the oppressive summer humidity in Washington D.C., to the first day of my fellowship orientation.  As it turned out, this was a very important day for me, because my fellowship has had a great influence on my career goals.  Prior to the fellowship, I had completed my doctorate at the University of Maryland.  At that time I was seeking an academic position to teach and to conduct research that would utilize remotely sensed data in hydrologic modeling.

Currently, I am the space science and application program analyst in the Executive Office of the President of the United States.

As one can imagine, making this drastic career shift was arduous.  I worried about closing the door to academia, but the fellowship year had made a significant impact on me.  While in Congress I had absolutely marveled at the unexplainable maze of forces that shape our nation's science and space policy.  Even though I still plan one day to return to the academic world, 1 year was not enough.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the AGU staff and members for my fellowship experience, to review the events of my year in Congress, and to discuss briefly how valuable this opportunity is to the science community.

It is difficult to thank the AGU adequately for this experience.  I hope that my continued involvement in science and space budgeting and policy development may partially repay the AGU community for my fellowship opportunity.

After successfully competing for the position, the fellowship year begins with a very intense 2-week congressional orientation, skillfully conducted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.  After orientation the Congressional Science Fellows are free to place themselves in any congressional office or committee and assume the responsibilities of a permanent Hill staffer.  The AGU Congressional Fellow does not go through the process alone: 41 other fellows from various other scientific societies participated in the 1983-1984 program.  The relationships that one develops with these colleagues become very strong throughout the always exciting but sometimes stressful fellowship year.  In addition, I had the great pleasure of being the chairman of my fellowship class.

After roughly 30 interviews with congressional offices and committees, I chose to spend my year in the personal office of Rep. George E. Brown, Jr. (D-Calif.).  My choice was based on Brown's 22 years of experience as a congressman, his interest in remote sensing and water resources, and the chance to be his liaison for his House Science and Technology and Agriculture Committee assignments.  This was a very opportune arrangement because during my fellowship year I was able to experience both the political domain of a personal office and the legislative process as a committee liaison.  During the year I worked on a variety of issues, including the budget of the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Bureau of Standards, and the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration.  I also was involved in the development of the remote sensing commercialization bill that passed in the 98th Congress (Eos, July 3, 1984, p. 425).  I organized and conducted a hearing on our nation's role in producing weather information to sustain our world leadership in agricultural production.  In addition, I was involved in work on legislation for the peaceful uses of space, funding for state water resources research institutes, and the international competitiveness of the United States.  I worked with industry and special interest lobbies ranging from frozen foods to advance communication satellites.  In retrospect, it was both an exhausting and exciting year.  I developed very strong admiration for the dedication of members of Congress and their staffs to an extremely difficult job.

It was most valuable to see how deeply dependent the support of science and engineering research is on the budget process.  This process is largely driven by political pressure, self-interest groups, and executive branch agencies fighting for survival.  Science support is rarely driven by "good science."  I was amazed at the lack of presence of the science community's needs in Congress.  The science community is not to blame for this situation.

The process by which Congress operates is beyond rational explanation.  The pressures of reelections and the complexity of committee jurisdiction continually confuse and reduce the efficiency of the process.  This is why the AGU fellowship is so important.  It is very difficult to learn about our nation's legislative process away from the Hill.  This process is run more by personal contacts than by a given set of rules.  For agency budget authority legislation the process starts when the agency submits a budget request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the early fall.  Through substantial political horse-trading and program analysis these requests are developed into the President's budget and submitted to Congress in late January or early February.  The President's budget levels are set by OMB, but the program development within that budget normally rests with the agencies.  Once the President's budget is submitted to Congress, the corresponding committees in both the Senate and the House produce budget authority legislation for the agencies by amending the President's budget.  This authorizing of legislation must be passed by both houses of Congress; then any differences must be settled in a Senate-House conference committee.  This step only authorizes an agency's budget level; no money can be spent on the basis of the authorizing legislation.  The entire process is repeated for appropriation legislation.  An agency needs appropriation legislation to conduct business.  Therefore the appropriation committees are very powerful.

The science community then has four opportunities to influence the support of science research: the Agency, OMB, the authorizing committee members, and the appropriation committee members.  It would be very effective if the science community as a whole lobbied for their needs.  However, I was pleasantly surprised at how effective individuals were at gathering support within both the Executive and Congressional branches.  The problem was that there were so few who sought support.  As I mentioned earlier, "good science" will not ensure federal support.

In conclusion, I would like to thank the members of AGU again for supporting the fellowship program and encourage them to get involved in science both in the laboratory and in policy making.  An excellent start can be made through the AGU Fellowship program.

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

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