I have carried out many different types of acitivites while working as an Earth scientist over the last 20 years, but the past year was extremely different from those that preceded it.  During most of my career I have engaged in investigative activities mandated at one level or another by Congressional edict.  Often during my work I have pondered how well we, as scientists, communicate with decision makers (let alone with each other).  Two years ago it seemed likely that I would be moving to Washington, D.C., and this provided me with the long-desired opportunity to compete for the American Geophysical Union Congressional Science Fellowship in order to learn about such communication first hand, as well as to learn the legislative application of Earth science information.

My overall impression is that we do not communicate as well as we might, but since I have not yet encapsulated my impressions or suggestions concerning this issue, this is not the subject of this short narrative.  Here I briefly outline my activities during the past year.

About 20 Fellows made up the 1988-1989 class of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship Program, of which I was the AGU-supported member.  We joined a similar number of AAAS Science, Engineering, and Diplomacy Fellows for a 3-week orientation program in September 1988.  The lectures, tours, seminars, and receptions introduced us to many aspects of the legislative process and presented our first opportunities to talk with the senators, representatives, and congressional staffers with whom we would be working.  Briefings by agencies affiliated with Congress, exectutive branch organizations, and nongovernmental organizations provided insight into their roles in science and technology policy analysis, development, and implementation.

Perhaps the most difficult of the year's activities began toward the end of the orientation program: selecting for whom we would work.  Congressional Science Fellows choose suitable positions for themselves through discussions with the potential "employers," and most work either on committee or personal staffs.  Fellows working as committee staff members become specialists in a few issue areas, often continuing to develop expertise brought to the program.  Those working on a member's personal staff generally are assigned a wide range of issues, though a few pursue specialized research projects.

I conducted 20 interviews with senators and representatives with interests in science and technology policy issues as evidenced by their positions on committees with jurisdiction on those matters.  I also spoke with the staff directors of several relevant committees.  I was offered 8 positions (heady stuff, but remember my salary was not a consideration).  The process led me to a position with Congressman Norman Y. Mineta, who represents California's 13th District, which is located at the southern tip of the San Fransico Bay and consists of the highly urbanized southern part of Silicon Valley in which numerous electronics, aerospace, and defense plants are located.

Congressman Mineta is on the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology as well as the Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications and the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology.  He is also very interested in the bricks-and-mortar aspects of the nation's infrastructure and, as a high-ranking member of the Committee on PublicWorks and Transportation, is one of the nation's chief policymakers on transportation issues.  Until recently the chair of the Subcommittee on Aviation, Mineta now chairs the Subcommittee on Surface Transportaion.

I served as a legislative assistant and science policy analyst, advising Representative Mineta on several issues: defense, energy, environment, FEMA, and telecommunications, as well as providing backup for his work on the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology.  Thus I was assigned responsibility for supplying backup information and analysis for meetings, briefings, and legislation in these issues areas, as well as helping with related mail (incoming and outgoing) and preparation of related speeches.  The pace was fast, and I remained on the steep part of the learning curve for the entire year.

Fellows have an opportunity to work with a very dedicated group of individuals whose diverse backgrounds and combined talents significantly aid the member's activities.  There is no such thing as a "typical day."

Generally a staffer has a dozen or so really active projects going that, by themselves, could easily consume all available time.  However, to keep things at a near-panic level, at least a couple of emergencies disrupt these "routine" activities each week.  Such emergencies can include an unexpected, but important, event in the home district, an unscheduled meeting with a political leader in the Capitol, or a call for a floor statement on short notice, to name a few.

It is typical to spend part of one's time with one's representative or senator, clarifying a briefing note, rewriting a letter or speech, analyzing an issue, or determining the best coalition to attain some goal.  Staffers from one office also commonly work closely with staffers from other offices or from committees on issues of mutual interest.  Less often, but not atypically, one also assists members who are associated on a given issue.

The phone serves both as a constant source of harassment and information.  These phone calls could inflate one's sense of self-importance, but the three to four dozen calls per day are to the member, not the staffer, who merely extends the member's ability to absorb information.

Such information is the key commodity in Washington.  The best workers are mostly quite free with information.  If one has good information, ideas, and analysis, people call back and share, and such networking is critical to timely preparation of backup materials.

One lasting impression will be the dedication of the members and their staff.  These folks truly represent their constituency (about 550,000 people for a representative and a whole state for a senator).  The political cartoon image of fat cats misses the mark considerably.  Our lawmakers are human beings, to be sure, but they strive to do a good job with the resources and personnel available.  They are always in need of additional skilled help, however, and they accept it from any reasonable source when it is offered.

Because input from individuals with scientific or technical backgrounds is becoming increasingly critical, and because of a shortage of scientists on Capitol Hill, I urge you to compete for next year's AGU Fellowship if you have any interest in public service.  Your analytical skills and viewpoint are needed and your outlook will change forever.  Please give me or any other former AGU Fellows a call if you think that this may be an appropriate activity for you.

Virgil Frizzell, AGU Congressional Science Fellow, 1988-1989

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