Introduction

Probably my most illuminating experience on the Hill as the American Geophysical Union Congressional Science Fellow has been understanding how the Congress and the federal government work.  The continuous interface with government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as with congressional subcommittees and congressmen, constitutes the daily classroom setting for the Congressional Science Fellow.  Familiar words and terms often used in Systems Engineering, such 'legal, institutional, social, and political considerations and constraints,' now carry much deeper connotations.  They are not merely theoretical or abstract terms, but rather very real ones that can be associated with my discussions with congressmen and representatives of federal, state, and local agencies.

In retrospect, the Congressional Science Fellowship proved to be an excellent medium through which a university professor can relate the state-of-the-art in science and technology to solving national problems and can provide technical advice used in the complex decision-making process.

Orientation Program

The first month of the Fellowship Program (September 3- October 3, 1977), which was an extremely informative and enlightening period, was devoted to acquainting the fellows with Congress and selected federal agencies.  We met as a group with several senators and congressmen and with the management staffs of various Senate and House committees, General Accounting Office (GAO), Congressional Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), Congressional Research Service (CRS), Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Department of State, National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Science Foundation (NSF), Congressional Budget Office (CBO), former fellows, and many others.

Each meeting with such a group unveiled the complex activities and responsibilities of that group, which most of the fellows were either unfamiliar with or had misconceptions of.  The orientation period also offered the fellows an opportunity to get acquainted with each other, with the various offices with which they would interact during their tenure on the Hill, and with numerous acronyms and technology used by government; most importantly, this period provided the fellows with the needed sense of security that continued to grow with time.  The documentary material distributed at these meetings indeed proved to be very valuable at later times, particularly the telephone directories and organizational charts.

During the last two weeks of September, each fellow planned his or her own schedule of meetings with committee staff, congressmen, and senators for the purpose of finding a 'home' for the remaining tenure of the fellowship.  On average each fellow scheduled between 20-30 different meetings.  Prospective offices were visited more than once, and when a mutual interest with a specific office developed, an offer was made to the fellow.  The final stage, and probably the most difficult one, was to decide which offer to accept.  It was clear to most fellows, however, that this was a nonlosing proposition, because the final selection for a home base was made from a set of very interesting and exciting opportunities.

The set of options included the Senate and the House, and within each a position with either the personal staff of the selected congressman or senator, a committee, or a subcommittee.  During the interview period an additional option became available to me, namely, the Office of Science and Technology Policy.  Two major attributes of each option as perceived by the fellows are
1.  The Senate is more glamorous, but in the House, members are more accessible.
2.  A position with the Congressman's personal staff provides, in general, a broader exposure to the politics on the Hill and in the district (or state) of the Congressman, whereas a position with a subcommittee makes more use of the fellow's previous professional experience and thus contributes more to it.  A disclaimer should be added, however, that much is dependent on the specific office.

Following an intensive interviewing process a decision was made to split my fellowship into two parts.  The first three months (October 3, 1977 to January 3, 1978) were to be spent with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President.  The second part (January 3 1978-August 1978) was to be spent with the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere of the House Committee on Science and Technology.  This arrangement provide an invaluable experience with both the Executive Office and the Congress.  Highlights of this experience are discussed here.

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)

The notion of being 'the right man at the right time and in the right place' could not have better fit my case.

In his Environmental Message to the Congress on May 23, 1977, President Carter called for a review and reevaluation of our Water Resources Policy.  The Water Resource Policy Study constituted a policy committee chaired by Guy R. Martin, Assistant Secretary of the Interior for Land and Water Resources, with Eliot R. Cutler of the Office Management and Budget, and James Gustav Speth of the Council on Environmental Quality as the other two members.  In turn, the policy committee formed seven task forces with about a hundred professionals from the federal and state governments, as well as other institutions, to conduct the study.  Listing these task forces may illuminate the breadth and magnitude of the task that was to be undertaken: (1) Revision of Water Resource Planning and Evaluation Criteria and Resources, (2) Cost Sharing, (3) Institutions and Institutional Arrangements; (4) Federal Reserved Water Rights, (5) Water Conservation, (6) Water Quality, and (7) Water Research Policy.

My major task during this period was to guide the OSTP effort on the study with the assistance of five consultants who represented different disciplines in water resources.  The outcome of the OSTP effort was a report submitted to Guy Martin, the chairman of the policy committee for the Water Resources Policy Study.

An article co-authored by the consultants and OSTP staff which summarized this report entitled 'Scientific and Technological Considerations in Water Resources Policy' appeared in the June 1978 issue of EOS.

The OSTP report (and the article) identified major water issues including climate and water supply, floods and droughts, groundwater and its conjunctive use with surface water, water conservation in irrigation, water quality, erosion and sedimentation, water for energy, new methods to increase water supply, future demands for water, urban water programs, and a systems approach for water planning and management.  For each of these issues, specific policy recommendations and research directions were identified.

On the basis of the voluminous reports issued by the seven Task Forces, the OSTP report, and numerous public hearings and meetings, the President sent his Water Policy Initiative to Congress on June 6, 1978.

Working on parts of the 1979 F.Y. budget was another fascinating experience.  The fact that OSTP works very closely with OMB provided me with an opportunity to learn about OMB's operation.  The Zero Base Budgeting (ZBB) Process, adopted by the Federal agencies in the preparation of their proposed annual budget, facilitated my understanding of the hierarchical administrative structure of specific agencies (such as the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association) and in my appreciation of their priorities at the various organizational layers.  I was fortunate to work on parts of the 1979 F.Y.  budget at OSTP and then follow-up with the budget from the Executive Office and its perspectives to the House of Representatives and its perspectives.  (The reader may not that as is common, the President presented his 1979 F.Y. budget to the Congress on January 20, 1978, in his State of the Union Message).  The fact that OMB and OSTP were located in the same building and worked closely with each other enhanced my experience and exposure to the way priorities are handled at this level of government.

The weekly staff meetings with Frank Press, the director of OSTP, who is also the Scientific Advisor to President Carter, added much to my understanding of the government's operation at its highest level.  My experience at the Executive Office was not limited to the professional activities alone.  The annual White House Christmas Party hosted by President and Mrs. Carter constituted the highlight of the social engagements.

In summary, my overall experience with OSTP was extremely positive, and I very much enjoyed working with the OSTP staff headed by Frank Press, and with Philip Smith, who is the Assistant Director for Natural Resources and Commercial Services and with Richard Meserve, who is the Senior Policy Analyst.

House Committee on Science and Technology

Among the diversity of activities in the Subcommittee on the Environment and the Atmosphere, two major responsibilities occupied most of my time.  These were

1.  The 1979 R & D Authorization for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  The Subcommittee's jurisdictions over the authorization of all EPA's R & D activities provided an exceptional medium for learning the ZBB procedure and participating in the rewarding experience of the F.Y. 1979 authorization process.  I assumed responsibilities associated with the water resources aspects of EPA's R & D programs, including contacting and working with witnesses, evaluating EPA's R & D budget, meeting with EPA's staff, participating in hearings and questioning witnesses, making policy recommendations on programs and budgets to the subcommittee, and assisting in the preparation of the committee's authorization report.

Studying the voluminous budget for one single federal agency, which contains succinct information on various programs and past, present, and future priorities, helped to illuminate the complexities associated with the Washington bureaucracy.  The magnitude of these complexities is amplified when an agency, such as EPA, promulgates hundreds of standards and regulations each year, which involve scientific and technological considerations.  Working with the subcommittee's technical staff on the authorization process added to my appreciation for and conviction of the necessity of our system of checks and balances.

2. Legislation on Groundwater R & D.  I assumed responsibilities associated with legislation on groundwater R & D, including arranging prelegislation hearings, forming and cochairing an informal interagency task force to assist the subcommittee in preparing the legislation, reviewing numerous reports and documents on groundwater, interacting with various agencies on the subject, assisting in drafting and redrafting of the legislation on groundwater R & D that became known to be H.R. 13946, and assuming the lead responsibility for the preparation of a groundwater R & D report which summarized the hearings, the workshop, the interagency task force activities, and the above legislation.  The purpose of H.R. 13946, which was introduced by Congressman George E. Brown, Jr., of California, the subcommittee chairman, is to promote and assist in the conduct of environmental research and development of groundwater.

I had good interaction with the subcommittee's staff and most of its members.  In particular, the chairman of the subcommittee, Congressman George Brown, Jr., of California, was very accessible and extremely kind and helpful.  The unusually good and cooperative relation between the subcommittee's staff and Congressman Brown's staff added much to the productivity of my work.  Former Congressman Charles Mosher, who is the committee's Executive Director, and Skip Spensley, the subcommittee's Staff Director, were extremely helpful in making my stay and work both enjoyable and worthwhile.  The financial and outstanding administrative support provided my by Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union, and his staff alleviated many of the difficulties that usually arise in a transition period.  The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which is responsible for the entire Congressional Science Fellowship Program, and its program director, Richard Scribner, provided invaluable guidance and support and also enriched the social and cultural activities of the fellows during the year.  For all this I am grateful.

By the AAAS account, the total number of fellows who have participated in the program since its inception is almost 70, not including the new 1978-1979 fellows.  Over the last 5 years, fellows have held key staff posts in the House and Senate and within the Office of Technology Assessment.  They have provided staff direction and follow-through in such diverse areas as solar energy development, national energy policy, national science policy, upper atmospheric/ozone issues, and various other R & D, biomedical, and social issues.  About one-third of the fellows have remained in important congressional staff roles, and many of the others have gone on to new positions which to varying degrees bring together the worlds of science, technology, and public policy.

In short, the Congressional Science Fellowship program offers an exciting and extremely valuable opportunity to the fellow.  The program constitutes an intensive educational and professional experience at the highest level of government, where the fellow is an active student-participation-decision maker.  Although the congressional staffer (Fellow) does not make decisions per se, but rather makes recommendations to members of Congress, his recommendations are not taken lightly.

Yacov Y. Haims, AGU's first Congressional Science Fellow.

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