As the unpredicted and unpredictable 97th Congress convenes, I would like to report on my experience thus far as the 1980-1981 American Geophysical Union Congressional Science Fellow.  The past 4 months have been exhilarating, and, as one who has never had the slightest contact with political science, I have found the opportunity for a glimpse of the Washington 'corridors of power' an incredible education.  I spent the last 10 years in planetary geology with the U.S. Geological Survey.  Before that I worked for both oil and mining companies and taught in a couple of universities.  Having also been active in community affairs, I was intrigued by the opportunity to see firsthand how congressional policies dealing with energy, environment, minerals, and land use are developed.  Breadth of interest is an asset in approaching this sort of experience.

I hope a brief summary of my impressions may entice others in the earth science community to explore the possibility of lending time and talents in exchange for a unique experience in our capital.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) arranged a superb orientation program for this year's class of 38 fellows who come from academia, government, industry, or fresh from graduate school.  About half of the fellows are social scientists (anthropologists, historians, philosophers, psychologists), and the other half are physical scientists, such as biologists, physicists, chemists, engineers, and one geologist (me).

During orientation, in the first 2 weeks of September, we were accorded special briefings from the State Department, Pentagon, Library of Congress, National Academy of Sciences, then Presidential Science Advisor Frank Press and staff, Office of Technology Assessment, General Accounting Office, and Management and Budget.  In addition, we had numerous sessions with former fellows who now have permanent staff positions with individual congressmen or committees.  It was an exciting time, perhaps highlighted by a luncheon in the Senate dining room and by remarks from Senators John Glenn, Paul Tsongas, Charles Mathias, and Strom Thurmond.

Following this heady introduction to our new environment, each of us faced the task of seeking desk space in the office of a senator, representative, or one of the committee staffs.  Armed with AAAS guidelines and some sanguine advice from former fellows, we sailed forth down the hallowed halls of Congress to gain entree beyond all those doorways with now familiar names and state seals on them.  Admittedly, as fellows we had a distinct advantage in that we were looking for work as free bodies, funded by out sponsoring organizations.  Nevertheless, one still had to overcome the serious problem of space.  Many offices simply had no room.  Another difficulty was caused by the uncertainty of the 1980 elections.  Numerous senators and representatives were unwilling to take on additional staff given their election prospects.  Then there was the matter of vested interests: Most offices have the necessary legislative areas covered already by a legislative assistant, and many of them are 'protective of their respective turfs' (a buzz phrase quickly learned!).  Some offices, despite the efforts of AAAS to explain our program, simply were unaware of the existence of science fellows.  Persistence and fortitude were the key, but exalted views of one's status and credentials were rather unceremoniously squelched.

Clearly, the objective was to find an office which had interests compatible with one's professional background, and the legislative priorities of congressmen (I use the term to refer to both senators and House members here--but more commonly, only the latter are so addressed) are best inferred by their committee affiliations.  Most of us, I suspect, were unaware of the enormous importance of committees and subcommittees, which indeed determine the ultimate fate of legislation.  'Congress is a collection of committees that come together in a chamber periodically to approve one another's actions' (Clem Miller, in Member of the House, 1962).  As a geologist, I limited my interviews to those committees or congressmen with jurisdictions in areas such as energy or environment.  I was most anxious to investigate all the available options before committing myself, and in so doing I followed the example of my AGU predecessor Bob Barbera, who subsequently chalked up such a dynamite record that he is now a permanent staffer with Senator Paul Tsongas.  I eventually interviewed in about 40 offices.   I am now on the staff of Congressman Jim Santini of Nevada.   Perhaps it is appropriate to review the route by which I got here.

I began my quest for desk space with the House Science and Technology Subcommittee staffs, which include a number of former fellows.  Gaining entree there was easy.  The same was true with various Senate committees.  Committees are fewer in the Senate (15, as opposed to 23 in the House), with better defined jurisdictions and less obvious overlap.  (I concluded that virtually every subcommittee in the House had its finger in the energy pie one way or another--explaining in part why policy is so long in forthcoming!)  The most obvious advantages of committee affiliation, in contrast to a member's office, are the limited focus of legislative issues, the luxury of having time to research an issue in some depth, the chance to participate in floor action, and the lack of distractions like constituent mail response or sometimes inconsequential chores.  Despite interests in many committee jurisdictions, however, I ultimately decided that the purview of a single subcommittee would not offer the breadth of opportunity to participate fully in the legislative process that I was seeking for my 1 year in Washington, and further, that the committee scene was a bit removed and insulated from the congressional scene.  I opted for a wider range of experiences, and therefore I searched for a congressmen with committee leadership in an area of interest to me.

An additional factor in my selection process was the geography of the state or district represented.  A Californian at present, I checked out a number of that state's delegations, partly because of the state's large assortment of geologically related concerns and partly because I felt most attuned to the special interests of my own state.  Failing affiliation with California, I was inclined to think my enthusiasm for parochial matters would be greatest within delegations from western states.

Having invaded offices of both senators and representatives, I might describe some perceived differences between the two sides of the Hill.  First of all, there are only 100 egos to accommodate in the Senate, as opposed to 435 in the 'other body,' so that generally speaking the Senate seems more organized and orderly, not to mention elite.  Of course, running for reelection every 2 years imposes a considerable burden on House members, and the pace seems notably more frenetic.  But Senate staffs are much larger (having to serve more constituents) than are House staffs, and my impression was that senators were likely to be less accessible to staff than representatives.  Congressional staffs are surprisingly large, having proliferated considerably in the last 10 years--a trend recently lamented in the Washington Post as 'stafflation.'

The interview process was indeed exhausting--but undeniably stimulating and challenging.  Staff time is precious, so one has to be organized to exchange essential information quickly (with a one page only resume) and try for a return engagement in those offices that seem especially promising.  One must inquire about probable assignments, space (a gigantic problem, especially in the House), special interests of the congressman, and his probable accessibility.  It's helpful to know what kinds of legislation he has sponsored, how successfully, and what other staffs have to say about his office.  Also, political philosophy is likely to enter into most placement decisions, so voting records on key issues are useful to have at hand; it's the congressman who has been elected, so a fellow's political inclinations must be 'torqued' accordingly.  Most important is the general ambiance of the office; tension clearly pervades some staffs, and quarters are so tight that personality conflicts could make life unnecessarily difficult.  Furthermore, in my case it was essential to find out the amount and calibre of typing required.  A number of offices have no clerical help, so fellows and everyone else have to do final typing for a congressman's signature--an untenable set-up for me!

My long odyssey finally ended in the office of Congressman Santini, the only representative from Nevada.  His Legislative Director was not only cordial, relaxed, good humored, and competent, but also totally unpretentious quality I've found rather rare on Capitol Hill.  Santini's chairmanship of the Interior Subcommittee on Mines and Mining has been illustrious; he has become a well-known, effective, and respected spokesman for the minerals industry and is an advocate of a national minerals policy, an issue in which I have long been interested.  Santini also serves on the Public Lands Subcommittee, has been actively involved in an effort to save Lake Tahoe from environmental deterioration, has wrestled with the problem of nuclear waste disposal, and is vitally concerned about the potential impact of the Air Force MX missile deployment across vast portions of Nevada public lands.  My geological background meshed with the needs of the office, and the staff seemed exceptionally congenial, and so I finally committed my peripatetic feet to a desk, phone, and yes, a typewriter (after ensuring I would not be required to do final typing).  The office isn't luxurious (none are), but the 'chemistry' seems right.  Thus far I've answered some constituent mail regarding issues of interest to me (including the fate of wild horses), have delved into the Environmental Impact Statement prepared for the Air Force on its MX project, and am catching up on the minerals policy issue.  I've acquired names and phone numbers and information from impressively knowledgeable people on specified topics, and have concluded that the 'name of the game' is knowing whom to call.

Probably the greatest frustration in this experience is the necessity of doing most assignments in the 'quick and dirty' mode.  One collects superficial knowledge on a wide array of topics, and tunnel vision just won't wash.  The information resources of the Congress are extraordinary, particularly the Congressional Research Service which issues and updates timely briefs on 'hot' legislative topics (like the MX or nuclear waste disposal); the services provided by this arm of the Library of Congress are outstanding.  In addition, congressmen can call on the Office of Technology Assessment, General Accounting Office, and Congressional Budget Office for the in-depth analyses which an individual's staff has neither the time nor the expertise to carry out.  'Network' is another of those buzz words a newcomer quickly learns, but the importance of 'plugging in' cannot be overemphasized; every casual contact is a potential source of critical information.  Fellows and former fellows are a vital part of the network, and AAAS does a great job of facilitating continued contact through a series of seminar programs during the year at which distinguished speakers share views on relevant topics and fellows compare notes on their congressmen's predilections.  Perhaps most important are one's professional colleagues and acquaintances, including former professors.

A fact quickly learned is that political realities color every decision and vote; in the House at least, reelection is never on the back burner.  And shepherding legislation through the Congress is but one of countless demands on a congressman's time and staff.  To be effective, a congressman must pick and choose his issues carefully, become expert on a very few, and rely on staff and colleague advice for most votes he casts.  So a fellow cannot assume he/she automatically has a pipeline for a long cherished proposal (a Nevada congressman is not likely to squander effort on a recycling bill, for example).  Still, every bill starts with an idea, and Congress is eager for good ones, the magic component of which is generally compromise.

One perceives that there is indeed a paucity of staff people with scientific credentials, yet the numbers of legislative issues that require scientific and technological analyses are increasing with every Congress.  Staffs do a remarkable job of keeping on top of such issues, however, and I think most of us would acknowledge with admiration the thousands of talented, articulate, dedicated, highly motivated, and mostly young men and women who grease the wheels of the federal machinery.  Thanks to the efforts of AAAS and member organizations like AGU which support the Science Fellow program, technical and scientific personnel are gradually infiltrating the system.  For one with interest in civic affairs and anxious for career direction, or change of direction, or simply enlarged horizons--and having a tolerance for cold winters and hot summers--this is surely a most splendid opportunity.  For me, it was a chance to clear away the cobwebs from a beclouded mind that had been pursuing the planets for 10 years, and now I shall certainly have a different perspective on the news that pours forth daily from 'our nation's capital.'

Having explored what seemed to me to be all available options on the Hill, I am delighted with the association I've established for the year and look forward enthusiastically to plunging into the legislative foray.  I might add that the procedure I followed for gaining entry into as many offices as possible that seemed potentially promising was arduous, and sometimes discouraging, but ultimately rewarding.  It was essential to me that interaction with staff be informal, and that the congressman be one whose political views I could respect if not consistently agree with.  Work assignments are generally so far removed from anything one has ever done before that it is bound to be stimulating experience, regardless of the name on the office door.  The major challenging is forging a modus operandi that enables one to be effective in this role of uniquely privileged bit player on such an awesome stage.

Carroll Ann Hodges, AGU's 1980-1981 Congressional Science Fellow, on leave from the U.S.G.S. in Menlo Park, California.

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