As the AGU Congressional Science Fellow for 1980-1981, I had a unique opportunity to witness the federal engine in action--a remarkable piece of machinery.  The American Association for the Advancement of Science organized an excellent orientation program, introducing our class of science fellows (about 30) to the kinds of options available for a year's tenure on Capitol Hill.  These included affiliation with a congressman's or senator's staff or with one of the hundred or so standing, select, or joint committees and subcommittees.  I arranged to join the personal staff of Congressman Jim Santini (D-Nev.), largely because of his demonstrated interest in Department of Interior affairs in general and the minerals industry in particular.  The position of fellow provides on guarantee of work in one's areas of expertise or inclination, however, and I found that my staff assignments included topics ranging from wild horses to peanut subsidies.  My principal task involved evaluation of the Air Force proposal to deploy the MX missile in Nevada and the consequent impact of that incredible scheme on the physical and economic environments of the state and the nation, including effects on minerals exploration.  I had not expected to become conversant with missile technology, but the exercise provided quite an education.

The fellowship program is designed to enhance the fellow's understanding--and, by extension, his profession's awareness--of the democratic process, a rather amazing institution.  My enlightenment was dramatic, and I should like to share a few memorable impressions.

1.  The next election is always on the front burner.  Perhaps we fail, or forget, to appreciate the effort and expense required to run for Congress, but be assured that good rapport with the folks back home is the number one priority.  A congressman's constituents govern his longevity in office, and thus a member of Congress (M.C.) must know how his constituency stacks up on issues and must seek to represent it accordingly.  Voting is easy when clear consensus exists in the district; but needless to say, this is seldom the case.  Santini has a larger problem than most congressmen since he is one of six who represent entire states.  The ranching and mining interests of rural Nevada often conflict with the urban, development-oriented interests of Reno and Las Vegas.  Consider the MX missile, for example.  Although Santini was himself opposed to the deployment of the MX across 40,000 square miles of his state, he was obliged to evaluate carefully the potential economic benefits that the system could bring to the state; a substantial segment of the Las Vegas business community was very much in favor of bringing in the Air Force, so the political liability of his chosen stance had to be assessed.  Of course, congressmen are elected to lead, as well as to follow, constituent thinking, and having determined that the net result of MX was negative for Nevada, Santini tirelessly cited facts and figures substantiating his position.

2.  The work of the Congress is done in committee; a bill introduced is inconsequential without committee action, and support of key staffers is essential for a bill to progress to hearing stage.  To be effective, a congressman must seek committee assignments that reflect the interests of his district, and he must support those interests.

3.  Staff--the 'unelected representatives'-- are the backbone of the legislative process; an M.C. is dependent on and nurtured by his staff, who constantly monitor the constituent pulse, as well as craft and draft legislation that may, in fact, derive from constituent advocacy.

4.  Gaining a congressional staff's attention is 90% of the battle; so many disparate issues are vying for time that attaining a receptive ear for commentary or for proposing a legislative initiative is a major challenge.

5.  Congressional staffs have enormous information resources at hand, notably the Congressional Research Service (an arm of the Library of Congress), the General Accounting Office, and the Office of Technology Assessment.  In addition, every executive agency has a congressional liaison office geared specifically to answer questions and provide information to congressional officers.  We kept the Air Force liaison constantly hopping over MX; the Interior Committee calls frequently on the U.S. Geological Survey liaison.  Data and analyses on virtually any given topic, in varying degrees of condensation, are available with the appropriate telephone numbers.  Specialists (e.g., scientists), therefore, are seldom hired on a congressman's personal staff.

6.  The vast majority of congressional staffers are talented, competent, articulate, and totally committed to their respective congressman; they also must be resigned to anonymity.  They are masters at fighting brushfires, but they rarely have time to pursue issues in depth; what research is done is generally handled by committee staff, most of whom are, predictably, lawyers, though a few knowledgeable souls from other disciplines come out of the woodwork now and then.  Several of my fellow fellows took positions with committees on which they could use their specialized experience to some degree.

7.  Scientists are nobody's constituency.  In fact, it is probably fair to say that scientists are among the most politically naive of the intelligent electorate.

Scientists may be called to testify at hearings, but such contributions often seem almost wasted effort inasmuch as there are frequently no more than one or two congressmen who remain throughout a hearing, or even attend at all, depending on the degree of controversy or district concern over the issue.  It is left to the staff to assimilate whatever is said that might have some bearing on a congressman's vote.

How then might science, as a large, though nebulous, political entity, be better represented in the legislative process?  Here are a few thoughts:

1.  Scientists must shoulder individual and collective responsibility to communicate professional views to their congressmen.  Group pressure is usually more effective than individual efforts: The Sierra Club carries a lot more clout than an independent environmentalist.  Congress is grappingly with increasingly complex issues that have substantially scientific bases (disposal of nuclear waste, the instant at which human life begins, etc.).  One cannot assume the logic of a question is immediately apparent; others of perhaps less rational disposition are writing their congressmen with different points of view.  And it is a fact that in Congress the squeaky wheel does indeed get the grease.  Thus if shuffling a fleet of missiles around in an enormous shell game makes no sense strategically, economically, environmentally, or otherwise to you, do not conclude automatically that the same diagnosis is equally clear to your congressional delegation.  And it should be emphasized that congressmen, like all the rest of us, are receptive to a little positive stroking now and then; so much of their mail is antisomething-or-other that the occasional letter of praise, support, or agreement is cause for special acknowledgement--and appreciation.

2.  Advocacy of new legislative initiatives requires contacting the congressman most likely to be sympathetic because of geographic or committee jurisdiction.  Congressmen want 'clear title' to an issue; they tend to be as possessive of issues as scientists are of hypotheses.

3.  Effective lobbying (and that is the name of the game) requires getting to the key staff member; congressmen seldom have time for issue advocates, particularly if they are not also constituents.  But staffers are generally receptive to a cogent and concise brief on behalf of a given viewpoint.  Personal contact is most effective; letters and phone calls are next best.  An offer of assistance in laying the ground work and overcoming obstacles usually enhances one's probability of successful influence.  Also, one must be selective with respect to issues on which to seek action.  Bombarding an office with an opinion on everything is a sure way to be labeled a crackpot, but voicing a well-reasoned argument on a few critical issues (one at a time) can be effective.

4.  Legislative goals of the scientific community must be politically realistic.  Trade-offs--polictical and scientific--are inevitable, and congressmen are more likely to look favorably on proposals when that reality is acknowledged.  Probably the most important aspect of reality is the price tag; requests for pie-in-the-sky don't fly.

5.  Numbers count.  Exhortations to write our congressmen are not intended as cathartic exercises.  True, the M.C. rarely sees the letters, but his staff keeps track of the yeas and nays: 'Congressman, your mail is running 3 to 1 against _______."

6.  Congressmen are receptive to any idea from which they can get 'good press.'

7.  Bills introduced should be analyzed by interested parties before committee hearing.  AGU often reviews, in Eos, pending legislation that affects geoscientists; copies of bills can be obtained easily (from your congressman's office), and commentary should be submitted for public record.  Even better is getting involved during the drafting stage; good lobbyists are usually welcome to submit preferred language for a given piece of legislation.  Amending public law is quite another matter and obviously more difficult.

8.  Once a bill reaches the floor of the House or Senate, every congressman needs buttonholing by those constituents with vested interests.  Most congressmen are loathe to miss votes, especially recorded ones.  Therefore, if the congressman himself happens to be noncommittal on a particular bill, one with no particular effect on his district (the NSF budget, for example, or the fate of baby seals), and his staff reports that two people have written urging passage without amendment (and no one has voted opposition), the congressman's vote is likely to be cast in accord with those constituents from whom he has heard.  Letters representing large organizations are most effective, of course, but a couple of letters can make a difference, especially if the issue is not one of vital personal concern to the congressman.  Congressmen, like scientists, necessarily must 'specialize' in limited areas of interest and expertise, but they eventually must vote on bills transcending the entire spectrum of governmental business.  It is our duty to ensure that they cast informed votes on those issues about which they have little personal knowledge.

9.  Scientists must participate in the political process to the extent of actively supporting candidates, at all levels of government, who are at least aware of the enormous benefits that have accrued to rich and poor alike through science and technology.  When the NSF budget hangs on the same balance as food stamps, the apples-and-oranges distinction becomes cloudy to congressional debaters.  But last summer's massive budget-cutting conflicts were testimony to the prevalence of simplistic comparisons.

10.  Equally compelling is the need for scientists and engineers to rally public support through better communication and education.  One nuclear plant mishap can, as we have seen, severely damage the entire technological enterprise, and it is difficult to get equal time to proclaim the positive benefits of industrial and academic research.  Innovative television programs like Nova and Cosmos have undoubtedly helped, but we need to relate the dramatic to the mundane--the daily importance of nonfuel minerals in the world's economy, for example.  The significance of basic research in attaining goals undreamed of at any given moment (earthquake prediction or planetary exploration) is a particularly troublesome concept to relay when budgets are tight and are shrinking further.  Politicians will take notice when constituents who are only indirect beneficiaries (for example, the newly formed Planetary Society) join with scientists to plead the cause for continued state and federal support of research and development.  Consider the effectiveness of agricultural spokesmen and political pressure applied by consumers who support ranchers, growers, or laborers.
 

Perhaps the single most important action we, as scientists can take is to communicate personally with elected officials.  If the medfly is running amuck, and knowledgeable people know the problem can be solved immediately and decisively, without undue environmental risks, such voices must be heard.  Our representatives cannot respond to a vacuum.

Carroll Ann Hodges was AGU's Congressional Science Fellow for 1980-1981.

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