As I lay on the frozen ground of the Quantico Marine training facility, my fingers were so numb that it was nearly impossible for me to work the loading mechanism of the M-19 40-mm machine gun.  The gray skies overhead portended the worst blizzard of the winter for the mid-Atlantic states. I was grateful for the thin layer of outdoor carpeting separating me from the rocky ground.  I was also grateful I wasn't an enlisted marine because they weren't afforded such luxuries as mats.  Once the automatic weapon was loaded, hitting the discarded tank and other targets 1500 m away wasn't all that difficult.  In fact, watching the tracers find their mark was rather fun.  But standing around in the cold for several hours, wearing heavy bulletproof vests and camouflage helmets, while we waited for a fire elsewhere on the range to be put out, took some of the thrill out of the experience.  That, and the fact that my one-size-fits-all helmet kept slipping over my eyes so that I couldn't see what I was shooting at.  A courteous Marine eventually resorted to holding it off my face while I fired a few rounds.  At least we weren't required to have branches sticking out of the helmet buttonholes.

The day spent at Quantico was just one episode out of my year-long experience as the AGU Congressional Fellow for 1992-1993.  What does firing automatic weapons at a military base have to do with being a congressional staffer?  It was all part of the annual Congressional Marine Corps Orientation Day, which was designed to get staffers who handle defense issues away from their desks for a day and into the real environs of the Defense Department.  After flying down along the Potomac River from Bolling AFB to Quantico in refurbished Vietnam era helicopters, we were turned loose in two aircraft hangars full of the latest defense technologies, including Sniper night vision enhancement devices; lightweight 155 Howitzers; amphibious assault vehicles; various types of land mines and detectors; a Cobra attack helicopter; Light Armored Vehicles (LAVs); and nuclear, biological, and chemical reconnaissance systems.  The isolation I felt as I was shut alone into an M-9 Armored Combat Earthmover reinforced my respect for the troops that had seen active duty in Desert Storm.  The aircraft available for our inspection included KC-130s used for in-flight refueling and an array of AV-8B Harrier jets flown up from Cherry Point, N.C.

Later, back in the office of Congressman Jim Bacchus (D-Fla.), I felt reasonably comfortable discussing the replacement of C-130 transports with C-17s and upgrading old Huey helicopters with lobbying contractors who sought our support.  After all, hadn't I had oil drip on me from the roof of one of those helicopters all the way to Quantico?  Coming to Capitol Hill from a Department of Defense-sponsored Federally-Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC), I had some background knowledge with respect to defense downsizing, infrared satellite sensors, air force launch vehicles, and a host of other issues that concerned the constituents of Congressman Bacchus' district.  But for many young staffers fresh out of college, the orientation at Quantico provided invaluable information.

The January 1993 presidential inauguration and the 1st session of the 103rd Congress brought a wave of fresh faces to Washington.  In general, the science and engineering fellows in our program, which was organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, had an advantage over many new staffers because we had undergone an intensive 3-week orientation on Capitol Hill.  Some of us also opted to participate in the Advanced Legislative Institute held by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), off-site in Richmond, Va.  This is an immersion program that is also offered to new members of Congress when they arrive in Washington.  The goal of the institute is to teach new staffers and members enough about floor and committee procedures to survive and maybe even to get an amendment or a bill passed.  The Congressional Record and amendment tree charts are used as learning tools, as are role-playing scenarios.

It is interesting to note that while C-Span I and II are enlightening programs for viewers interested in congressional procedure, much of what we see there is staged for the sake of the television cameras.  An inside look at C-Span programming headquarters was included in our fellows' itinerary.  Video cameras, owned and operated by Congress, run virtually incessantly, with C-Span choosing what is broadcast over cable networks.  One press ploy used by members occurs nearly every day after the House adjourns.  For instance, at 2 p.m. on a Thursday afternoon, a member may be seen by Cable TV viewers giving an emotional floor speech in favor of improved health care, gays in the military, and lower taxes.  The viewer in his or her home district gets the impression that the elected official is truly working hard on each and every one of those issues.  Astute viewers may wonder why no one repudiates the member's comments or limits the length of the speech.  What the viewers don't always recognize is that the floor is entirely deserted, the Speaker of the House is not present, and most members are already on flights headed back to their districts.  Prior to the November 1992 elections, viewers of C-Span II could often see various well-groomed, concerned-looking senators passing repeatedly across the Senate Floor between a rear door and a side door.  The senators were getting free television exposure and creating an apparent party presence without having to sit through debates or give controversial speeches.  Scholars from CRS separate congressional behavior patterns into pre- and post-C-Span categories.

Many AGU colleagues have asked me what I did on a day-to-day basis during my fellowship.  Essentially I was Representative Bacchus' Legislative Assistant (LA) for the Technology, Environment, and Aviation (TEA) Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (SST).  The chairmen of the subcommittee and full committee are Representatives Tim Valentine and George Brown, respectively.  Several major pieces of legislation were introduced by them during my tenure, including the National Competitiveness Bill.  My duties associated with the TEA included monitoring all hearings associated with such legislation and ensuring that the congressman had details and talking points on any sections he was particularly interested in or that would affect his district.  TEA has jurisdiction over the aviation portion of the NASA Authorization Bill, Environmental Protection Agency R&D, U.S. manufacturing concerns, Department of Transportation issues, and many other items.  One of the details which LAs must keep track of is the location of the member and/or his proxy during bill mark-ups, which can drag on for days.  Proxies, which allow the chairs or another member to vote for absent members, are valuable items during close votes.  We also had to study and prepare amendments to measures.  Sometimes special interest groups or business lobbyists would alert us to sections of legislation they had a problem with.  The members LAs work closely with committee staffers to resolve such differences before the legislation even reaches the subcommittee or committee mark-up stages.

My second set of responsibilities was Department of Defense issues, the two most prominent being the 1993 Base Closure Commission process and defense downsizing.  With respect to the latter, I drafted a defense reinvestment bill, HR1880, which was being introduced by Representative Bacchus.  Senator Bob Graham of Florida introduced the "companion bill," which was essentially the same text designated by a Senate number.  Since Representative Bacchus is a major proponent of defense reinvestment programs, he sits on several congressional and state level commissions.  Therefore I worked not only with the U.S. Armed Services Committee, but with the Florida Department of Commerce and regional technology transfer organizations.  Tasked with helping defense-dependent companies in central Florida diversify their businesses, I organized a reinvestment workshop in Orlando for CEOs and program managers.  Congressman Bacchus, Florida State Representative Alzo Reddick, and representatives from both the U.S. and Florida Departments of Commerce were in attendance.  In Washington, Representative Bacchus chaired a TEA Subcommittee hearing with the new Technology Reinvestment Program (TRP) as a focal point.  I recruited witnesses from central Florida defense companies while the recently appointed directors of NIST (Arati Prabhakar) and ARPA (Gary Denman) represented the administration.  I also provided statements and questions to the chair and generally made sure that things ran smoothly at the hearing.  These events are good press opportunities and our press secretary was responsible for lining up TV stations and newspapers to cover the hearing.  However, I responsible for providing the Congressman with "talking points" for his TV interview and for the accuracy of statements made to the press.  To the dismay of our office staff, Congressman Bacchus often totally disregarded anything he had in front of him on paper in favor of his own spontaneous statements.

In addition to the duties described above, I assisted with Space Subcommittee concerns,, of which keeping the Space Station funded was the major one.  With the Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral in Bacchus' district, NASA and commercial interests in the U.S. Space program were a full-time commitment for our legislative director.  This year, amendments to eliminate Space Station funding were offered to the House NASA Authorization Bill at the subcommittee, committee, and floor levels.  Even though I personally disagree with funding the station, I learned a tremendous amount by being included at the bipartisan whip meetings where team coordination was used to forecast and tally numbers for the upcoming votes.  With respect to space issues, I also monitored the authorization process for many scientific projects such as the U.S. Global Change Program and NOAA "dry programs."  This allowed me to gain insights into the policies behind the science funding, something that many scientists would rather not hear about.

I hope this brief description of my fellowship is enough to whet the appetites of other AGU members who are considering working in a congressional capacity.  Officially, the congressional science fellows are not lobbyists for their sponsoring societies, and they are often reminded by AAAS that they are not elected officials.  They should not be concerned with a personal political agenda but rather with garnering skills that will help them in their future professional lives.  If adhered to, these guidelines actually make it easier to work in a supportive capacity for a particular member of Congress or a congressional committee.

Key science issues identified by the AGU Committee on Public Affairs (COPA) are published regularly in Eos, as are transcripts from particularly interesting congressional hearings.  One of the most disappointing aspects of my experience was the reluctance of AGU members (especially those in academia) to concern themselves with the Congressional authorization/appropriations process, by which the fate of their research is decided each year.  A booth set up by COPA at the Spring Meeting in Baltimore generated little response.  I had mistakenly expected that many AGU scientists (at least the U.S. residents) would be concerned about the general health of basic scientific research in this country.  Several persons approached our booth with complaints about the lack of funding in their highly specialized fields of research, but they were not willing to devote any time to studying the larger context of our national competitiveness goals.  Few people wanted to give us their names for a mailing list so that AGU could alert them to upcoming congressional measures that would potentially affect them.  If AGU scientists don't take a few moments to periodically communicate with their congressional representatives, we can't expect our interests to be served on Capitol Hill.  Lobbyists competing for a share of a shrinking pot of money are ever-present in congressional offices.  The low profile kept by scientists is often interpreted on Capitol Hill as being indicative of an elitist attitude with a lack of concern for the applicability of scientific research to the general welfare of the country.

Valerie Lang, AGU Congressional Science Fellow, 1992-1993

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