In a few short weeks, I will have reached the midpoint of my Fellowship year.  Like others before me, this is a time of frustration, knowing there is so much left to accomplish and so little time.  The past 5 months have been exhilarating.  When I came to Washington, I knew very little about how Congress works and even less about the role of the Congressional staff.  Imagine my surprise (and relief) when those "turkeys in Washington" turned out to be the most hardworking, capable, and dedicated group of people I know.

The 2-week orientation period run by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) brought three groups of Fellows together: the Congressional Science Fellows sponsored by various professional organizations, the Diplomacy Fellows sponsored by the Department of State, and the Department of Commerce Science and Technology Fellows.  In all, 48 individuals, representing the social, biological, and physical sciences, shared the orientation "experience."  Together, we jumped from building to building and room to room, gathering information and advice from over 100 speakers.  We had briefings from the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), the Office of Management and Budget, the General Accounting Office, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), the Department of State, and others.  George Keyworth, the President's science advisor, gave use his view of the role of industrial competitiveness in setting U.S. foreign policy.  Representative George Brown (D-Calif.) and Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) shared with us their views of how Congress works.

As part of orientation, AAAS arranged for panel discussions with former Fellows on the merits of working in individual offices or on committee staffs.  In addition, representatives from various offices and committees had a chance to "sell" their positions.  Did we want to work on a committee staff, where there was an opportunity for in-depth work on a particular subject?  Or did we want to work in the personal office of a member of Congress, where the work was likely to vary from day to day, depending on current needs, with no guarantees that the work would include our areas of expertise?  In addition, there was the decision of which body, the House or the Senate, to call home.  Since there were approximately four openings for each available Fellow, there was no doubt that we would all find jobs.

Armed with a lot of enthusiasm, much advice, and a list of offices that wanted our services, we went forward to our interviews.  For me, this was the best part of the placement process.  I interviewed in over a dozen offices, met a lot of people on whom I still call for assistance, and learned more about the personalities and interests of our elected officials than I could ever hope for in any 2-week period.

Eventually, I accepted an offer from the office of Senator Albert Gore, Jr. (D).  Senator Gore is the freshman senator from Tennessee, who came to the Senate after four terms in the House, where he made an impressive name for himself.  On the House Science and Technology Committee, he led investigations into genetic engineering, organ transplants, medical science fraud, supercomputer technology, robotics, and other science issues.  Sometimes referred to as the "Futurist of the Senate," Gore has long been a friend of science.  In the Senate, he is cochairman of the Energy and Environmental Study Conference and serves on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, the Rules Committee, and the Governmental Affairs Committee.

From the beginning, Senator Gore's legislative director made me feel right at home.  The staff was friendly and helpful.  I was given not only a desk (something not to be taken lightly in the limited space given a junior senator) but also my own computer terminal.  In addition, I have a legislative correspondent to answer constituent mail, a task that can use up all your spare moments.

My job title is "Legislative Assistant for Energy Issues."  I monitor the programs funded by the Department of Energy (DOE).  Recently, I was given the added responsibility of providing the Senator with input on the National Science Foundation budget, the hearings for the President's new science advisor (when they occur), and other issues of special interest to me that relate to Gore's work on the Space, Science, and Transportation Subcommittee.

Among the energy issues, nuclear waste disposal has top priority.  The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 required the DOE to submit a proposal to Congress in June 1985 for a monitored retrievable storage (MRS) facility.  A MRS is a surface facility for packaging and storing spent fuel from nuclear reactors prior to final disposal in an underground repository.  Essentially, it is a way station between the reactors and the repository that can only be built with authorization from Congress.  In April 1985, DOE notified Tennessee that the three locations selected for the MRS were all in Tennessee.  The siting decision was made without consulting Tennessee in advance.  Of the three locations, the preferred choice is the now abandoned site of the Clinch River breeder reactor near Oak Ridge.  In June, DOE sent notice of the feasibility of the MRS to Congress and rescheduled submission of the proposal.  Rescheduling happened several times.  The last date given was February 7, 1986.

When Tennessee learned of its "good fortune," the Governor created a task force to study the MRS.  The State Attorney General filed a lawsuit asking for a declaratory judgment to keep DOE from submitting the proposal to Congress based on the failure of DOE to consult with Tennessee during the site selection process.  A few politicians and several environmental groups quickly stated their opposition.  A public opinion poll taken in December showed that approximately 90% of Tenesseans were also opposed.

A group of citizens and officials from Oak Ridge and Roane County also formed a task force to study the MRS.  With money from a grant given to the state by DOE, they produced a high-quality report that could easily act as a standard for local community involvement in the repository program.  The report stated that MRS was safe if operated correctly.  If DOE would incorporate the task force's recommendations, Oak Ridge would accept the MRS.  The recommendations included local participation in a steering committee, well-defined payments in lieu of taxes to the local communities, assurance that the MRS would not become a de facto repository, and the release of a schedule for cleaning up Oak Ridge's extensive environmental problems prior to the authorization of the MRS by Congress.

I walked into this complicated issue the first week of October knowing that Senator Gore would not take a formal position on the MRS until he had reviewed the proposal.  This gave me time to study the pros and cons of the issue and to evaluate alternative approaches, such as at-reactor storage of spent fuel.

It's been over 4 months, and the phone rings regularly with questions from constituents, updates on the lawsuit, and new information as DOE attempts to respond to the demands of the state and local governments.  In the past few weeks, the Governor came out against MRS, partly on the basis of the failure of DOE to prove that it needed a MRS and partly on the concern that Oak Ridge's options for future development would be curtailed.  Tennessee won its lawsuit, only to be forced to get an injunction against the Secretary of Energy when DOE still refused to delay the proposal.

In the meantime, DOE included $46 million for the MRS in its 1987 budget.  It's possible that Congress could appropriate the money for the MRS and include authorization as part of the appropriations bill without a formal proposal.  Senator James Sasser (D), Tennessee's senior senator and a member of the Budget Committee, has vowed to fight any attempt to bypass the proposal.  From my perspective as a newcomer, the MRS controversy is a great way to learn about the legislative process.

Sources of information available to assist the congressional staff are impressive.  The Congressional Research Service is on call with a staff of experts on any subject that you could name.  The Office of Technology Assessment provides in-depth evaluations.  Each agency has a staff of congressional liaison people to arrange for briefings and provide information about programs and policy.  Lobbyists add their own brand of advice and information.  The General Accounting Office will do both quick informal investigations and long-term analyses of specific programs.  There are people to help you write bills, analyze existing legislation, and advise you on the implications of what you're about to propose.  It's not what you know so much as who you know to call.

Given the uncertainty of the funding process, my report would be incomplete without a mention of the Gramm-Rudmann-Hollings (GRH) deficit reduction law.  Depending on who tells the story, GRH will either bring the economy to a grinding halt, pushing unemployment to 17%, or it will allow Congress to make a series of politically painful spending cuts that will ultimately result in a stronger, more resilient economy.

Although this year's cuts were generally acceptable, the battle for 1987 has just begun.  The President's budget is on target, but at great cost.  The National Science Foundation did well, but many programs were either eliminated or gutted.  For example, DOE's program to study the disposal of nuclear waste in the sub-seabed was eliminated in spite of commitments to the international community for a cooperative effort.  The solar energy program was reduced from $144 million to $72 million with the hope that technology development involving partnerships with industry will eventually make up the difference.  Understanding the impact of the ups and downs (mostly downs) of various programs will take up much of the staff's time in the coming months as the reality of GRH comes face to face with the demise of favored projects.  What is that old expression?  "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times."

If you're thinking of applying for the 1986-1987 Fellowship, go for it!

Dana Isherwood, AGU Congressional Science Fellow, 1985-1986.

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