 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
 |
|
||
Historical Capitol Hill Weeks
The objective of the congressional orientation is to develop insight into the operations and organization of the Legislative and Judicial Branches of our government. This is done through discussions with Members of Congress, staff committee members, and representatives from the Congressional Research Service, the Congressional Budget Office, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the General Accounting Office, among others. Emphasis is placed on attitudes and actions regarding scientific and technical matters, and the impact of congressional policy on industry and commerce.
Class of 2004-2005 -- March 14-18 & March 31-April 1, 2005
Class of 2003-2004 -- March 22-26, 2004
Class of 2002-2003 -- March 24-28, 2003
Class of 2001-2002 -- March 18-22, 2002
Class of 2000-2001 -- March 19-23, 2001
Class of 1999-2000 -- March 13-17, 2000
Class of 1998-1999 -- March 08-12, 1999
Class of 1997-1998 -- March 16-20, 1998
MARCH 14-18, 2005 (PART I)
Judith Schneider
Specialist in American National Government
Congressional Research Service
Library of Congress
(March 14, 2005)Topic: Introduction to Congress/The Legislative Process/Congressional Organization/The Committee System and Floor Procedures/How Congress Really Works
As always, the ComSci Fellows started their Capitol Hill week with a fast-paced, power-packed introduction to how Congress works from Ms. Judith Schneider. She gave the Fellows a shortened version of a course she teaches to new Members of Congress.
She started by stating the purpose of Congress was not to pass legislation, but to keep bad laws from being enacted. Out of the approximate 10,000 bills introduced each session, less than 400 are passed.
She gave the Fellows her theory of the drivers on Capitol Hill – the three P’s – policy, politics, and procedure. If the policy is good, the politics satisfied, and the procedures adhered to or overcome, the three P’s must all align before one achieves success on Capitol Hill.
Ms. Schneider gave the Fellows insight into unanimous consent in the Senate, the importance of committees in the House, and the unfortunate membership in the 55 Club (those members who were elected with less than 55 percent of the vote in their district who get to serve on more than two committees in the House).
Ms Schneider’s insight into the rules, committee hearings, and politics were confirmed as the Fellows spent the rest of the week on Capitol Hill.
Peter Rooney
Deputy Chief of Staff (Majority)
Committee on Science
U.S. House of Representatives
(March 14, 2005)Topic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the House Committee on Science
The afternoon began by meeting with Dr. Peter Rooney, Deputy Chief of Staff of the House Committee on Science. The House Committee on Science is an authorizing committee and has legislative jurisdiction over civilian, non-biomedical research. These include jurisdiction over astronautical research and development (R&D), scientific R&D (energy, environmental, atmospheric), science scholarships, energy, and civil aviation R&D, and legislation relating to the following scientific agencies (either completely or partially): the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Fire Administration, and the U.S. Geological Survey.
Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-New York) continues as Chairman of the Committee. Dr. Rooney specifically pointed out that this Committee has no jurisdiction over biomedical research (Committee on Energy and Commerce), but he would like to see these committees interact.
When asked about the process of getting a bill through Committee, Dr. Rooney responded that everything is done within the Committees, and usually only those that are narrow in scope come out of Committee and get sent to the floor of the House. Actions on the House Floor are really structured in comparison to those on the Senate Floor.
Science policy was then discussed. Dr. Rooney stated that most of the time, the budget is the policy and that action is in the appropriations. This Committee is able to request more money for R&D because it is more bipartisan. In contrast, he told the Fellows that no one really wants to serve on this Committee because their constituencies don’t understand the role of science and the government. It is not necessarily a powerful Committee, but it is an important one.
Dr. Rooney stated that NIST is very important to this Committee even with gross under funding. This brought a smile to the NIST ComSci Fellows. He went on to discuss the next important areas of science and technology. Human exploration of space (the moon, near galaxies, Mars) was first on his list. The questions to be asked will be, “How will this impact science programs in NASA, NIST, etc. in the future?” A task of this Committee will be to come up with constraints for these. Climate change is also on the radar of this Committee. Issues will have to be carefully framed such that those Members with strong views will listen/consider this contentious area.
The discussion with Dr. Rooney concluded with a series of questions and answers. A question was asked regarding how caps are put on a bill. He answered by stating that, in theory, the authorizations themselves are the caps. However, in absence of an authorization, the previous authorization is used. The real power is to write a law but there really isn’t a need in science for a lot of laws. Effectively, this Committee provides guidance to the appropriators and agencies. Another question was asked that concerned the United States’ competitiveness in science with other countries. Dr. Rooney believes that our competitiveness is parochial. There is not so much interest in what is happening with foreign science and technology. There is more concern with what is happening at home and in science for its own self. Ultimately, there is interest in the benefits science and technology can provide for the Members’ constituency. A robust science and technology enterprise is beneficial to all. A final question was posed regarding how an agency can effectively communicate with a committee. Dr. Rooney stated that there are many good working relationships between agencies and committees already. Either reaches out to the other.
A parting thought he left the ComSci Fellows with was to keep in mind that societal impact will always play a part in the role of science.
For more information on the House Science Committee, visit: http://www.house.gov/science/.
Philip Webre
Senior Analyst
Microeconomic and Financial Studies Division
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
(March 14, 2005)Topic: Overview of the CBO, and Relationship and Interaction between CBO and Congress
Dr. Philip Webre introduced the ComSci Fellows to the budget process by mentioning that the current budget process is 31 years old and the current form of budget process started with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
The budget process begins each January. The President submits his budget to Congress in February. CBO evaluates the President’s budget. Congress passes budget targets in April. The Appropriations Committees hold hearings and pass resolutions during May through September. Tax and mandatory spending committees hold hearings and pass resolutions during May through November.
Congress avoids fighting many individual battles by sometimes passing Omnibus bills. CBO helps Congress draw a budget plan. In the first quarter of a calendar year, CBO participates in economic forecasts and projections by talking to leading economists around the country about the outlook for the year. CBO reviews Presidential projections.
CBO helps Congress stay within plan by estimating costs for bills, performing scorekeeping (maintains records of actual money spent during the year for a bill), and preparing sequestration reports. Also, CBO needs to explain at the end of the year the discrepancy between what CBO forecasted and the actual figures. Cost estimates from CBO are attached to every bill that goes to the floor.
CBO is involved a great deal on the supply side economics. CBO also helps Congress assess federal mandates (e.g., intergovernmental mandates, private sector mandates). CBO also helps Congress consider and assess budget and economic policy. CBO is involved in the following: budget analysis, economic and fiscal policy, health and human resources, national security, and economic and financial studies.
For additional information, CBO’s website is: http://www.cbo.gov.
Jerry C. Skelly
Assistant Director
Office of Congressional Relations
U.S. Government Accountability Office (March 15, 2005)Topic: Overview of GAO – A Congressional Resource
The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), along with the Congressional Budget Office, Government Printing Office, and the Library of Congress and Congressional Research Service, is part of the Legislative Branch of government. It is an independent, non-partisan audit organization. Mr. Jerry Skelly, Assistant Director of GAO’s Office of Congressional Relations, presented an overview of GAO’s history, organization and scope of work. With a 34-year career with GAO, Mr. Skelly, a certified public accountant, provides liaison between GAO and the congressional oversight committees, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform.
GAO was established by Congress through the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 and is headed by the Comptroller General of the United States, a political appointee. This individual serves a 15-year term, which, as Mr. Skelly pointed out, provides political insulation. GAO has a staff of 3,200 employees located at its headquarters and 11 field offices. The staff includes professionals with advanced degrees across many disciplines, with accounting making up one-third or less.
Mr. Skelly explained that GAO began as a voucher-examining agency and has since evolved to financial and management program analysis. In support of congressional oversight of the Executive Branch, GAO’s mission is to examine the use of public funds and review and evaluate federal programs and activities. GAO performs its data collection and analysis work at agencies according to specified protocols identifying what the agencies can expect from GAO and what GAO expects of them. GAO then issues recommendations based on its findings. Agencies must report actions taken in response to these recommendations to Congress. GAO also issues legal opinions concerning government revenues and expenditures and can conduct criminal investigations.
There are 14 mission teams, including acquisition and sourcing management, financial management assurance, health care, homeland security and justice, natural resources and environment, and physical infrastructure. About 90 percent of GAO’s work is congressionally directed – through either mandates or requests – and ten percent is self-initiated. Most of the work for Congress comes from the committees rather than from the members themselves. Mr. Skelly said that the self-initiated work enables GAO to take a look at potentially emerging issues, such as aviation security and nuclear cleanup.
GAO’s products include reports and testimonies, which are available by subscribing to a daily e-mail alert. The GAO website is: http://www.gao.gov. There is also a special Internet hotline for whistleblowers at: www.fraudnet@gao.gov.
Visit to the U.S. Botanic Garden
(March 15, 2005)The ComSci Fellows’ visit to the U.S. Botanic Garden (USBG) provided a welcomed respite from the otherwise intensive week on Capitol Hill.
The visit helped the ComSci Fellows to understand the mission of USBG, which is to demonstrate the ecological, economic, cultural, and aesthetic benefits of plants, and to maintain a collection of rare and endangered plant species through partnerships with other organizations and countries.
The idea of a national botanic garden first emerged in 1816 when the Columbian Institute for the Promotion of Arts and Sciences in Washington, D.C. proposed the creation of a garden for the benefit of the American people. In 1820, Congress designated an area west of the Capitol grounds between Pennsylvania and Maryland Avenues for the purpose of establishing the U.S. Botanic Garden. In 1842, the idea of a national garden was further invigorated with the addition of a collection of living plants acquired from the recently returned United States Exploring Expedition to the South Seas (the Wilkes Expedition).
The USBG moved to its present location on Independence Avenue S.W. in 1933, and includes a Conservatory and two acres of surrounding exterior grounds, the outdoor display gardens in Frederic Auguste Bartholdi Park, and the Administration Building. A plant production and support facility, opened in Anacostia in 1993, includes 34 greenhouse bays and maintenance shops. In addition, there are plans to build The National Garden, funded by the National Fund for the USBG on three acres directly west of the Conservatory. Currently, the USBG maintains about 26,000 plants that are used for exhibition, study, and exchange with other institutions. Plant variety is immense, including economic plants, medicinal plants, orchids, cacti and succulents, bromeliads, cycads, and ferns. At any one time, about 4,000 of these are on public display in the Conservatory and around the grounds.
The Architect of the Capitol through the Joint Committee on the Library of Congress is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the USBG, and for any construction, changes, and improvements made to the buildings and grounds. In the mid-1990s, the USBG initiated a major renovation and reorganization of buildings and staff. Renovations required the Conservatory and other buildings to be closed for four years. Staff changes were accomplished through buyouts and retirements to address reorganization needs. The long-awaited changes have provided not only state-of-the-art environmental controls for the benefit of both plants and people, but also an educational living plant museum that will help ensure long-term protection of our precious plant resources.
Additional information on the U.S. Botanic Garden can be found at: www.usbg.gov.
Tour of the U.S. Supreme Court
(March 15, 2005)In 1800, when the Federal Government moved to Washington, the permanent capital, the U.S. Supreme Court moved with it. The Court did not have its own building and was loaned space by the Legislative Branch in the new Capitol building. In there the Court convened in a variety of rooms. Then, from 1819 to 1860, it met in what is now known as the Old Supreme Court Chamber. This room was once the Senate Chamber. Later the Court convened in what is now known as the Old Senate Chamber (from 1860 until 1935). After the War of 1812, when the Capitol was set on fire by the British, the Court convened in a private house.
In 1929, Chief Justice William Howard Taft, who had been President of the United States from 1909 to 1913, persuaded Congress to end this arrangement and authorize the construction of a permanent home for the Court. Architect Cass Gilbert was charged by Chief Justice Taft to design a building of dignity and importance suitable for its use as the permanent home of the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Court Building cost less than the $9,740,000 Congress authorized for its construction. This is unique in government building procurement history. Not only was the final and complete cost of the building within the appropriation, but all furnishings were also procured. Upon completion of the project, $94,000 was returned to the U.S. Treasury.
The ComSci Fellows met their docent, Mr. George Hutchinson, at the statue of John Marshall, who is the fourth and most famous Chief Justice. The statue used to be located on the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol. In 1981, it was moved to its current location. John Marshall is the Justice that established the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review. He did so in 1803, in a written opinion issued in the case of Marbury v. Madison. This was a seemingly insignificant case where a citizen (Marbury) went to court to claim his appointment as a civil servant by the previous administration and asked to have this appointment affirmed by the current one (represented my Madison). The details of the case matter little or none, the important point was that the Chief Justice asserted that the Supreme Court’s responsibility to overturn unconstitutional legislation was a necessary consequence of its sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. That oath could not be fulfilled any other way. “It is emphatically the province of the judicial department to say what the law is,” he declared.
From the statue of John Marshall, the ComSci Fellows walked their way to the courtroom through what is known as the main corridor. This is the place where lines are formed for Court hearings. The main corridor is known as the Great Hall. At each side, double rows of monolithic marble columns rise to a coffered ceiling. Busts of all former Chief Justices are set alternately in niches and on marble pedestals along the side walls. The frieze is decorated with medallion profiles of lawgivers and heraldic devices.
The courtroom is magnificent and simple at the same time: 82 by 91 feet and rising 44 feet to a coffered ceiling. It is flanked by 24 marble columns. The raised Bench, behind which the Justices sit during sessions, and other furniture in the Courtroom are mahogany. Overhead, along all four sides of the Chamber, are sculpted marble panels depicting legal themes and famous historical figures associated with giving law.
At the left of the Bench is the Clerk of the Court’s desk, who the ComSci Fellows would meet later in the day. The Clerk of the Court is responsible for the administration of the Court’s dockets and argument calendars, the supervision of the admission of attorneys to the Supreme Court Bar, and other related activities. To the right is the desk of the Marshal of the Court. The Marshal is the timekeeper of Court sessions, signaling the lawyer by white and red lights as to time limits. The Marshal’s responsibilities include the maintenance and security of the building and serving as the Court’s building manager.
The attorneys arguing cases before the Court occupy the tables in front of the Bench. When it is their turn to argue, they address the Bench from the lectern in the center. A bronze railing divides the public section from that reserved for the Supreme Court Bar. Representatives of the press are seated in the red benches along the left side of the Courtroom. The red benches on the right are reserved for guests of the Justices. The black chairs in front of those benches are for the officers of the Court and visiting dignitaries.
William K. Suter
Clerk of the Court
U.S Supreme Court
(March 15, 2005)Topic: Overview of the U.S. Supreme Court
Mr. William Suter has been Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court since 1991. He is the 19th person to hold the position since 1790, when Mr. John Tucker became the first appointed Clerk. The Clerk works for all nine justices, and is essential to the business of the Court. The Clerk maintains the Court’s docket, which contains information about both pending and decided cases. This is a large responsibility, because the Court receives over 8,000 petitions and responses each year. The Court’s docket was initially written in elaborate calligraphy, but is now maintained by computer.
Mr. Suter explained that the U.S. Constitution provided for establishment of the Supreme Court and other lower courts in Article III, § 1, which provides that “[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” However, the Constitution provided no details on the organization or authority of the courts. Accordingly, Congress passed the Judiciary Act of 1789, and the Supreme Court first met on February 2, 1790. The Judiciary Act also provided for the lower courts by establishing 13 judicial districts, which were organized into three circuits. This system was the predecessor to the modern organization into 13 circuits (including the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). The Supreme Court has jurisdiction over cases and controversies, and does not issue advisory opinions.
Mr. Suter explained that the Clerk is responsible for setting the Court’s calendar, and seeing to it that the Court’s rules are followed. For example, he noted that the Court’s geographic jurisdiction recently changed, so as to include the courts of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. To undertake his responsibilities, he supervises a group of attorneys and paralegals that are part of the 425 employees of the Supreme Court. These employees, who generally view their careers as a “calling,” and are happy to put in as much time as needed, are not part of the federal civil service system. A recent opening in his office generated 400 applications without any advertisement.
Mr. Suter gave the ComSci Fellows an overview of how a Supreme Court case arises and is handled by the Court. In general, the Supreme Court hears appeals arising from decisions of state Supreme Courts and the 13 federal courts of appeals. A petition for a writ of certiorari from these lower courts must be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court within 90 days after entry of judgment. While the fee to file a case is only $300, the average cost of the legal work in preparing a petition is $20,000. A large number of cases are filed in forma pauperis, in which the filing fee is waived. The importance of the “Question Presented” in the petition is a key factor in the Court’s decision whether to take the case. The question generally involves a question of federal law or constitutional law, and may involve a conflict between decisions of the circuit courts of appeals; factual issues do not come to the Supreme Court. The Justices’ law clerks play an important role in the review of the petitions. Each Justice has four clerks, except for the Chief Justice, who requested only three. Law clerks, who are hired for only a year, are typically outstanding graduates of top law schools who have previously clerked at a federal court of appeals. In some cases, the Solicitor General is invited by the Court to file a brief giving the United States’ view as to whether the Court should hear the case. The Court will hear a case if four justices vote to take it. Plenary review, with oral arguments by attorneys, is granted in about 100 cases per term.
After the Court grants certiorari, petitioners, respondents, and sometimes amici curiae (“friends of the court,” possibly including the Solicitor General) submit briefs on the merits. Each side is allowed 30 minutes for oral argument. The Justices interrupt the attorneys frequently with questions; the attorneys cannot stick to their original presentation plans, and must think on their feet. It usually takes several months for the Court to issue an opinion. One Justice writes an opinion for the Court, but individual Justices may write concurring or dissenting opinions. Approximately 40 percent of the opinions are unanimous. Most of the issues are nonpartisan, but important. The Court is sharply divided only in regard to certain social issues. Typically, Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas vote conservatively; Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Souter, and Stevens vote liberally; and Justices Kennedy and O’Connor are the “swing” votes. No one has ever leaked a Supreme Court opinion before its official issuance. However, in important cases the media has occasionally been in such a hurry to announce a decision that the first reports, based on quick examination of an opinion, have been incorrect. Opinions are generally long, complex documents; the publication of a term’s written opinions approaches 5,000 pages.
Mr. Suter also presented several anecdotes about interesting, topical cases. He talked about the copyright case, Luther R. Campbell aka Luke Skywalker, et al. v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994). In that case, Acuff-Rose Music sued the rap music group 2 Live Crew and their record company, claiming that their song, “Pretty Woman,” infringed the copyright held by Acuff-Rose on a rock ballad, “Oh, Pretty Woman.” The Supreme Court held that 2 Live Crew’s song was a parody that made fair use of the original song under 17 U.S.C. § 107, and thus did not infringe. Mr. Suter also discussed the announcement of the decision in George W. Bush v. Albert Gore, on Dec. 12, 2000, at 10:00 p.m.
The ComSci Fellows saw many interesting memorabilia in Mr. Suter’s office, and greatly enjoyed and appreciated this very personal presentation about the workings of the Supreme Court.
Floyd DesChamps
Senior Professional Staff Member (Majority)
Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
United States Senate
Jean Toal Eisen
Professional Staff Member (Minority)
Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
United States Senate
(March 16, 2005)Topic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Mr. Floyd DesChamps and Ms. Jean Toal Eisen gave the ComSci Fellows a great overview of the bipartisan nature of science in the United States Senate. As the Fellows learned earlier in the week, unanimous consent in the Senate is essential for success and the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space sees rare conflict over matters in front of the Committee.
The larger Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has broad jurisdiction encompassing the National Science Foundation, science agencies in the Department of Commerce including the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, issues of climate change, homeland security research and development, earthquakes, and weather. It includes “all matters relating to science and technology, oceans policy, transportation, communications, and consumer affairs” and includes such missions as the U.S. Coast Guard, highway safety, marine fisheries, inter-oceanic canals, interstate common carriers and sports.
Mr. DesChamps and Ms. Eisen described their Committee as “where policy meets science.” They were helpful in letting the ComSci Fellows understand how Senators view scientists who come to testify before their hearings and their role in preparing the Committee members for the information being presented. They also gave the group advice on how to deliver messages as scientists to Congress if the need ever arose . . . concise and backed up with consensus from the scientific community vice the results of a single study.
Mr. DesChamps and Ms. Eisen addressed many questions including risk-aversion in government science, education, the commercial space industry, space policy, sources they use for current science thinking, and their roles as professional staff. They were a great example of how professional staff can work across the aisle to obtain good policy.
United States Senate Floor Action
(March 16, 2005)The pulse of the Senate chamber was strong on the day that the ComSci Fellows got a glimpse into its daily activities. Lined up in the tourist-packed hall, there was a feeling of anticipation and excitement as the ComSci Fellows each clutched their congressionally-provided gallery passes and waited for their turn to enter. Once inside, the sitting area was small, but the characters were larger than life. There was a shock wave of whispers “there’s John Kerry,” “there’s Lieberman,” “is that Kennedy?” that carried through the group as they each made comments on seeing a familiar face, in this famous place, and still not really knowing if they were comfortable with the answer to the question “are we allowed in here?” However, the U.S. Senate Gallery is entirely open to the public with the provisions of having a ticket and obviously that Congress is in session. Tickets may be obtained daily outside the Capitol or by request through your Senator’s office.
There were a few topics of day that, unless you had been living in the proverbial cave, you were sure to have read about or seen on television. The first of these was the Federal Budget. Below is a summary of the Senate chamber action that transpired on March 16, 2005.
Measures Reported: S. 161, to provide for a land exchange in the State of Arizona between the Secretary of Agriculture and Yavapai Ranch Limited Partnership.
Concurrent Budget Resolution: Senate continued consideration of S. Con. Res. 18, setting forth the congressional budget for the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2006 and including the appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2005 and 2007 through 2010, taking action on the following amendments proposed thereto:
By 96 yeas to 4 nays (Vote No. 54), Ensign Amendment No. 171, to increase veterans medical care by $410,000,000 in Fiscal Year 2006.
By 63 yeas to 37 nays (Vote No. 56), Specter/Harkin Amendment No. 173, to increase discretionary health and education funding by $2,000,000,000.
Rejected: By 46 yeas to 52 nays (Vote No. 51), Byrd Amendment No. 158, to provide adequate funding of $1.4 billion in Fiscal Year 2006 to preserve a national intercity passenger rail system.
By 49 yeas to 51 nays (Vote No. 52) Cantwell Amendment No. 168, to strike section 201(a)(4) of the Energy Bill relative to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
By 50 yeas to 50 nays (Vote No. 53), Feingold Amendment No. 186, to fully reinstate the pay-as-you-go requirement.
By 47 yeas to 53 nays (Vote No. 55), Akaka Amendment No. 149, to increase veterans medical care by $2.8 billion in 2006.
Pending: Bingaman (for Smith) Amendment No. 204, to create a reserve fund for the establishment of a Bipartisan Medicaid Commission to consider and recommend appropriate reforms to the Medicaid program, and to strike Medicaid cuts to protect states and vulnerable populations.
Carper Amendment No. 207, to provide for full consideration of tax cuts in the Senate under regular order.
Snowe Amendment No. 214, to ensure that any savings associated with legislation that provides the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to participate in the negotiation of contracts with manufacturers of covered part D drugs to achieve the best possible prices for such drugs under part D of title XVIII of the Social Security Act, that requires the Secretary to negotiate contracts with manufacturers of such drugs for each fallback prescription drug plan, and that requires the Secretary to participate in the negotiation for a contract for any such drug upon request of a prescription drug plan or an MA-PD plan, is reserved for reducing expenditures under such part.
Harkin Amendment No. 172, to restore the Perkins Vocational Education program and provide for deficit reduction paid for through the elimination of the phase out of the personal exemption limitation and itemized deduction limitation for high-income taxpayers now scheduled to start in 2006.
Hutchison Amendment No. 218, to fully fund the level of Border Patrol Agents authorized by the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 and as recommended by the 9/11 Commission.
Landrieu Amendment No. 219, to establish a reserve fund in the event that legislation is passed to D250 providing a 50 percent tax credit to employers that continue to pay the salaries of Guard and Reserve employees who have been called to active duty.
[Page: D250] GPO's PDF Salazar/Conrad Amendment No. 215, to provide additional funding for rural education, rural health access, and rural health outreach programs.
Conrad (for Dorgan) Amendment No. 210, to repeal the tax subsidy for certain domestic companies which move manufacturing operations and American jobs offshore.
Collins (for Lieberman/Collins) Amendment No. 220, to protect the American people from terrorist attacks by restoring $565 million in cuts to vital first-responder programs in the Department of Homeland Security, including the State Homeland Security Grant program, by providing $150 million for port security grants and by providing $140 million for 1,000 new border patrol agents.
Vitter Amendment No. 223, to express the sense of the Senate that Congress should provide dedicated funding for port security enhancements.
Vitter Amendment No. 224, to restore funding for Corps of Engineers environmental programs to Fiscal Year 2005 levels.
Allen Modified Amendment No. 197, to increase by $1,582,700,000 over fiscal years 2006 through 2010 funding for Transportation (budget function 400) with the amount of the increase intended to be allocated to the Vehicle Systems account of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for subsonic and hypersonic aeronautics research.
A unanimous-consent agreement was reached providing for further consideration of the resolution at 9 a.m., on Thursday, March 17, 2005; that certain Senators be recognized to offer amendments; and that at approximately 1:20 p.m., Senate begin a series of votes on certain amendments.
Nominations Confirmed: Senate confirmed the following nominations:
Ronald Rosenfeld, of Oklahoma, to be a Director of the Federal Housing Finance Board for the remainder of the term expiring February 27, 2009.
Raymond Thomas Wagner, Jr., of Missouri, to be a Member of the Internal Revenue Service Oversight Board for a term expiring September 14, 2009.
Routine lists in the Coast Guard, Foreign Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Measures Introduced: Fourteen bills and three resolutions were introduced, as follows: S. 632-645, S.J. Res. 10-11, and S. Res. 83.
Record Votes: Six record votes were taken today. (Total – 56)
Adjournment: Senate convened at 9 a.m., and adjourned at 9:48 p.m., until 9 a.m., on Thursday, March 17, 2005.
U.S. House of Representatives Floor Action
(March 16, 2005)Below is a summary of the U.S. House of Representatives chamber action that transpired on March 16, 2005.
Measures Introduced: 27 public bills, H.R. 1329-1355; and 9 resolutions, H. Con. Res. 100-102 and H. Res. 159-161, 164-166, were introduced.
Reports Filed: Report were filed today as follows: H. Res. 162, providing for consideration of H.R. 1334, to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the removal to Federal court of certain State court cases involving the rights of incapacitated persons (H. Rept. 109-20); and H. Res. 163, waiving a requirement of clause 6(a) of rule XIII with respect to the same day consideration of certain resolutions reported by the Committee on Rules (H. Rept. 109-21).
Speaker: Read a letter from the Speaker wherein he appointed Representative Bradley to act as Speaker pro tempore for today.
Chaplain: The prayer was offered today by Rev. James P. Campbell, Pastor, Christ Life Church in Woodstock, Illinois.
Journal: Agreed to the Speaker's approval of the Journal by voice vote.
Committee Election: The House agreed to H. Res. 147, electing the following Members to the following Committees:
Joint Committee on Printing: Representatives Doolittle, Reynolds, Millender-McDonald, and Brady (PA); and
Joint Committee on the Library: Representatives Ehlers, Miller (MI), Millender-McDonald, and Zoe Lofgren (CA).
Emergency Supplemental Wartime Appropriations Act: The House passed H.R. 1268, making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, by a yea-and-nay vote of 388 yeas to 43 nays, Roll No. 77. The bill was also considered yesterday, March 15.
Rejected the Hooley motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on Appropriations with instructions to report the bill back to the House forthwith an amendment, by a recorded vote of 200 yeas to 229 nays, Roll No. 76.
Yesterday it was agreed by unanimous consent to limit further amendments offered and the time for debate on such amendments.
Agreed to: Velazquez amendment that prohibits the use of funds for any contract in contravention of section 15(g) (2) of the Small Business Act;
Markey amendment (debated yesterday, March 15) that reaffirms the U.S. commitment to the U.N. Convention Against Torture (by a recorded vote of 420 yeas to 2 nays and 3 voting “present,” Roll No. 75).
Withdrawn: Obey amendment that was offered and subsequently withdrawn that would have prohibited the use of funds provided for national intelligence programs until the President submits a proposal on how to inform Congressional committees of clandestine military activities in terrorist-sponsored countries.
Point of Order sustained against: Filner amendment that sought to guarantee that companies receiving contracts from the bill make every effort to hire veterans.
Pursuant to sec. 2 of the H. Res. 151, the text of H.R. 418, to establish and rapidly implement D253 regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, and to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence, was appended to the engrossment of H.R. 1268; and the title of H.R. 1268 was conformed to reflect the addition of the text of H.R. 418. Conformed so as to read: making emergency supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2005, to establish and rapidly implement regulations for State driver's license and identification document security standards, to prevent terrorists from abusing the asylum laws of the United States, to unify terrorism-related grounds for inadmissibility and removal, to ensure expeditious construction of the San Diego border fence.
Suspensions: The House agreed to suspend the rules and pass the following measures:
Amending the Internal Revenue Code of 1986: H.R. 1270, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund financing rate, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 431 yeas to 1 nay, Roll No. 80;
Expressing concern regarding the recent passage of the anti-secession law in the People's Republic of China: H. Con. Res. 98, expressing the grave concern of Congress regarding the recent passage of the anti-secession law by the National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China, by a \2/3\ yea-and-nay vote of 424 yeas to 4 nays, Roll No. 81; and
Protection of Incapacitated Persons Act of 2005: H.R. 1332, amended, to amend title 28, United States Code, to provide for the removal to Federal court of certain State court cases involving the rights of incapacitated persons.
Suspensions – Proceedings Postponed: The House completed debate on the following measures under suspension of the rules. Further consideration of the measures will resume tomorrow, March 17:
Expressing concern regarding the continued violations of human rights and civil liberties of the Syrian and Lebanese people by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic: H. Con. Res. 18, amended, expressing the grave concern of Congress regarding the continuing gross violations of human rights and civil liberties of the Syrian and Lebanese people by the Government of the Syrian Arab Republic; and
Expressing concern regarding the occupation of the Republic of Lebanon by the Syrian Arab Republic: H. Con. Res. 32, amended, expressing the grave concern of Congress regarding the occupation of the Republic of Lebanon by the Syrian Arab Republic.
Budget Resolution for Fiscal Year 2006: The House began consideration of H. Con. Res. 95, establishing the congressional budget for the United States Government for Fiscal Year 2006, revising appropriate budgetary levels for Fiscal Year 2005, and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. Further consideration will resume tomorrow, March 17.
[Page: D253] GPO's PDF Agreed that during further consideration of the bill, the Hensarling amendment (No. 2 printed in H. Rept. 109-19) may be considered out of the specified order.
Began consideration of the Hensarling amendment in the nature of a substitute (Republican Study Committee) No. 2 printed in H. Rept. 109-19, that replaces the current 19 functional categories with four functions: Defense, Homeland Security, Non-Defense Discretionary and Mandatory Spending, and Interest; and accepts the Iraq Operations Reserve Fund and creates a new “rainy day” fund for non-military emergencies. Further consideration will resume tomorrow, March 17.
H. Res. 154, the rule providing for consideration of the measure was agreed to by a yea-and-nay vote of 228 yeas to 196 nays, Roll No. 79, after agreeing to order the previous question by a yea-and-nay vote of 230 yeas to 202 nays, Roll No. 78.
Committee Election: The House agreed to H. Res. 161, electing Representative Matsui to the Committee on Rules.
Measures Introduced: 27 public bills, H.R. 1329-1355; and 9 resolutions, H. Con. Res. 100-102 and H. Res. 159-161, 164-166, were introduced.
Adjournment: The House met at 10 a.m. and adjourned at 12 midnight.
Jamila Thompson
Legislative Assistant
Office of the Honorable Barbara Lee
(9th District, D-California)
U.S. House of Representatives
(March 16, 2005)Topic: Science Agenda of Congresswoman Barbara Lee
Ms. Jamila Thompson did not have a prepared presentation and was on a short schedule, so she took questions from the ComSci Fellows. She did defend the Congresswoman’s position in being the only Member of Congress to vote against the resolution authorizing President Bush to "use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." Ms. Thompson stated that Representative Lee’s position was dictated by the position of her constituents, who were strongly against the President’s resolution.
Ms. Thompson then fielded a range of questions from the ComSci Fellows, and talked about the typical day of a legislative assistant and that of the Congresswoman (very long), the degree of influence a staffer has on access to the Congresswoman (considerable), the logistical problems of operating and coordinating offices in Washington D.C. and in their home district, the issues she works on (International Relations in the Caribbean, Telecommunications, Africa/AIDS, Aerospace Industry, Intern Coordinator), and some of the differences in responsibilities between legislative assistants and those dealing with constituents.
United States Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) Hearing
(March 17, 2005)Topic: Current/Future World Wide Threats to National Security of the United States
Mr. Porter J. Goss, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and Vice Admiral Lowell E. Jacoby, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), gave testimony to the SASC as witnesses to the Committee. Senator Warner as the majority leader chaired the SASC. The purpose of the hearing was to question the Directors of the CIA and DIA on what their agencies current roles and activities to combat the current worldwide threats to the United States. After Mr. Goss and Vice Admiral Jacoby read their prepared testimony, the Senators launched into a wave of questions, with most questions directed and fielded by Mr. Goss. Mr. Goss requested to answer many of the more interesting questions at the closed-classified session immediately following the unclassified, public-accessible hearing. Most of the Senators’ questions were related to current and past operations in Iraq, plus their concerns with countries of interest including China, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Lebanon, and South/Central America countries. The Senators touched on many areas they are concerned with including the current adequacy of Human intelligence in the CIA, nuclear weapon programs in countries of interest, United States’ border controls, prisoner treatment, and the war in Iraq.
Alan M. Hantman
Architect of the Capitol
(March 17, 2005)Topic: The Role of the Office of the Architect of the Capitol
Inside the U.S. Capitol, tucked at the bottom of a well-traveled flight of stairs, there is an ornate office. Somewhat cluttered with papers and drawings, and the faces of those who have come before, this place is very representative of what one would think that the Office of the Architect of the Capitol would look like. The ComSci Fellows began their session with an explanation that the Architect is responsible to the U.S. Congress for the maintenance, operation, development, and preservation of the U.S. Capitol Complex – over 300,000 acres. The Complex includes the Capitol, the congressional office buildings, the Library of Congress buildings, the United States Supreme Court building, the United States Botanic Garden, the Capitol Power Plant, and other facilities.
Until 1989, the position of Architect of the Capitol was filled by appointment from the President of the United States for an indefinite term. Legislation enacted in 1989 provides that the Architect is to be appointed for a term of ten years by the President, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate from a list of three candidates recommended by a congressional commission. Upon confirmation by the Senate, the Architect becomes an official of the Legislative Branch as an officer and agent of Congress; he is eligible for reappointment after completion of his term. Additionally, there are superintendents that work for the Architect and each has their own staff of around 500 personnel.
The rest of the meeting was focused on the current ongoing project of the new Capitol Visitor’s Center. Mr. Hantman explained that the new Visitor’s Center will create additional aesthetic beauty as well as security for the Capitol by moving the security operations underground. There will be 80,000 square foot of expansion in the congressional rooms as well as additional meeting and hearing rooms. There was an original building allocation of $265 million and an additional allocation of $160 million. The project is now on schedule and will be finished in a few years.
Honorable Zoe Lofgren
U.S. House of Representatives
(D-California)
(March 17, 2005)Topic: Current Issues of Concern to the 16th District of California
The Honorable Zoe Lofgren is California's 16th Congressional District representative. Congresswoman Lofgren is the ranking Republican on the Cybersecurity Committee. She discussed the complexity of Silicon Valley and the fact that only Apple is vertically integrated. She stated that the increase in outsourcing in Silican Valley will only increase as the United States produces fewer scientists and engineers. She mentioned that start-ups will go elsewhere if the United States makes it unfriendly for foreign educated students to stay.
Congresswoman Lofgren participates in classified briefings every Thursday on emerging threats. She discussed the issue of biometrics with IDs at ports of entry and working with the National Institute of Standards and Technology on the standards. She discussed that information systems are still creating paper files which can’t link the watch with the entry list. She discussed that border patrol resources are not adequately deployed, specifically with the number of agents deployed to the northern border.
Timothy D. Brown
Assistant Counsel
Office of the Legislative Counsel
U.S. House of Representatives
(March 17, 2005)
Topic: Overview of the House Office of the Legislative CounselMr. Timothy Brown provided a very comprehensive overview of the functions of his office, which was immediately described as non-partisan. The office staff is responsible for assisting Members of the House of Representatives in the development of legislative policy and the drafting of the laws to be considered for enactment by Congress. The counsel staff provides this optional, confidential service and works with representatives and their staff to convert ideas for laws that have been submitted by representatives, constituents, or other entities into legislation that is clear and not in conflict with existing laws. The counsel staff is involved in all parts of the legislative process – the preparation of the initial draft bill, its introduction on the floor, and the mark-up in various subcommittees, as required.
The Office of the Legislative Counsel consists of 37 attorneys and a number of support staff, with more responsibility given to senior attorneys. The staff often works in teams and is sometimes asked to develop both sides of an issue during the vetting process with congressional staff.
The vetting process with congressional staff consists of listening to the idea for the proposed law, walking through the idea, options development, and discussion of various options and their potential consequences. If required information for supporting the bill is lacking, the staff provides potentially references or resources not commonly known to congressional staff due to frequent turnover in staffing.
After the vetting process, the counsel office staff meets to break down the idea into technical issues, format, identifying examples, and finally providing a draft of the bill to the congressional staff. In keeping with the bipartisan mission, counsel staff cannot provide policy or timing decisions – a responsibility of the representative or that his staff.
Mr. Brown indicated that a small percentage of the initial bills drafted by the counsel staff become law; the vetting process sometimes results in the determination that the idea is flawed or that the idea is in conflict with existing law.
Vince Thompson
Deputy Chief Counsel (Majority)
Committee on Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
(March 18, 2005)Topic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the House Committee on Resources
Mr. Vince Thompson has a background in the technology industry and has been involved in e-GOV initiatives. He works on intellectual property issues. Subcommittees of the House Committee on Resources include the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee; the Fisheries and Oceans Subcommittee; the Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee, the National Parks Subcommittee; and the Water and Power Subcommittee.
The House Resources Committee’s energy initiative is concentrated on all energy issues that relate to the use of public land. The Committee considers the budget side of an authorization bill. Mr. Thompson highlighted energy issues including the ANWR bill. The Fisheries and Oceans Subcommittee deals with domestic fisheries and works with international organizations such as those dealing with whale protection. The Committee dealt with Navy-Sonar issues and looks at appropriate regulations such as the Endangered Species Act. The Committee has jurisdiction over the U.S. Geological Survey. Mr. Thompson talked about the difference between amount authorized and amount actually appropriated for a bill.
The Forests and Forest Health Subcommittee is faced with a very important issue (e.g., how to deal with post-catastrophic issues such as those after a wild forest fire). Mr. Thompson noted that some of the policies on fire prevention are flawed. The Subcommittee deals with some of the broader policy questions related to catastrophes.
Water storage is a major issue. For example, California has a failed water storage policy. The Committee is involved in determining ways to expand broadband Internet use. The House Resources Committee works with other House committees such as the Science, and Energy and Commerce Committees on overlapping issues. While dealing with protection provided for the Endangered Species Act, the House Resources Committee interacts with the Armed Services Committee on encroachment issues.
Eric Steiner
Professional Staff Member
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
United States SenateBetsy Croker
Professional Staff Member
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
United States Senate
(March 18, 2005)Topic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
The elegant room where the Senators conduct the business of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry reminded the ComSci Fellows of the long history and traditions behind modern lawmaking. Each seat had red, green, and yellow lights to control the senators’ speaking time, and the room was lined with mirrors and bookshelves containing the U.S. Code, Congressional and Administrative News. A chandelier glistened above.
Mr. Eric Steiner and Ms. Betsy Croker explained that the Committee, which was created in 1825, has a broad science and technology jurisdiction: agricultural economics and research, agricultural extension services and experiment stations, agricultural production, plant industry, soils, and agricultural engineering. Many of today’s issues, which include commodity price and income supports, trade, research, food safety, nutrition, and soil conservation, date back to the Great Depression, when price supports and production controls were instituted.
The Committee has four subcommittees, which address proposed legislation and other matters within their areas of jurisdiction: (1) The Subcommittee on Production and Price Competitiveness, with jurisdiction over legislation on agricultural commodities and price and income support programs; (2) The Subcommittee on Marketing, Inspection, and Product Promotion, with jurisdiction over legislation on foreign agricultural trade and domestic agriculture product marketing programs; international agreements and export controls on agricultural commodities; and inspection of meat, flowers, fruit, vegetables; (3) The Subcommittee on Forestry, Conservation, and Rural Revitalization, with jurisdiction over rural development legislation and rural electrification legislation; the Farm Credit System; crop insurance; forestry; soil conservation; and watershed and flood control programs; and (4) The Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition, and General Legislation, with jurisdiction over legislation on agricultural education and research; animal welfare; food, nutrition and hunger; and agricultural pesticides.
Mr. Steiner and Ms. Coker also explained that the Committee was working on the federal budget. Although the Senate Committee on the Budget is responsible for drafting Congress’ annual budget plan and monitoring action on the budget, subject area committees such as the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry decide how budget increases and cuts will be distributed within their areas of jurisdiction. The President had proposed a $9 billion cut in agriculture spending in the 2006-2010 budgets. The Senate; however, had agreed upon a $2.8 billion cut proposed by the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-Georgia). This cut could be spread over many different areas of agriculture spending without changing the current Farm Bill. Thus, in addition to affecting important farming, nutrition, and trade issues, the Committee’s deliberations on the budget could impact important programs related to science and technology, such as the Agricultural Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Andrew Wheeler
Staff Director (Majority)
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate
(March 18, 2005)Topic: Overview and Major Issues of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
The final briefing of the week took place in the Dirksen Senate Office Building with the majority Staff Director of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Mr. Andrew Wheeler. Mr. Wheeler is a lawyer who started working for the Environmental Protection Agency fresh out of law school. He came to Capitol Hill as a Legislative Fellow while working with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). During his year on Capitol Hill, EPA underwent a reorganization that essentially eliminated his former position. Although Mr. Wheeler could have stayed with EPA, he was offered and accepted a position as a general council with the Clean Air Subcommittee staff. He later became Staff Director for Senator Moynahan, former Democrat from New York. When Senator Inhofe (D-Hawaii) assumed the Chair of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, he asked Mr. Wheeler to become Staff Director.
Working as a staff member on a committee is different than working on a personal staff. Committee staff is more issue-driven, with different staff having more knowledge about the various issues within the jurisdiction of the committee. Mr. Wheeler also mentioned that committee staffs in general have a longer tenure than personal staff, and that this was important from an institutional memory perspective. However, given that the average age of committee staff in the United States Senate is only about 30, the average age of Senate personal staff is about 25 and that these averages are lower in the House of Representatives, the institutional memory of Congress is limited. It is not unusual for staffers to be able to double or even triple their salary in the private sector. Mr. Wheeler mentioned that this could be a problem.
Mr. Wheeler outlined the history of the jurisdiction of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, speaking from a pamphlet the Committee had prepared. In 1837, the Senate created the Committee on Public Buildings and grounds to oversee the development of Federal Buildings in the young, but growing Federal City of Washington, D.C. In 1947, during a reorganization of the Senate committees, the panel was renamed the Committee on Public Works. Following another reorganization in 1977, the name was changed to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
Over the years, the Committee’s public works jurisdiction has grown from oversight of new federal building construction, additions to the U.S. Capitol building and grounds, and the White House and its grounds, to legislative responsibility for the development of the Nation’s interstate highway system, flood control and navigation projects.
In 1963, the responsibility for creating new laws to achieve air and water pollution control, rural and community economic development, and relief from natural disasters was given to the Committee. The passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, brought the Committee recognition as the Senate forum for protection of the environment. In 1977, the Committee was assigned the jurisdiction over endangered species, fish and wildlife programs, national wildlife refuges, and the regulation of nonmilitary nuclear power.
The Committee’s recent activities have included reporting legislation to expedite the clean up of brown fields (contaminated industrial sites), reauthorization of the Economic Development Agency, the Marine Turtle Act, a bill to help prepare for and respond to disasters (natural and terrorism), expansion of wildlife refuges, reauthorization of the Federal Highway system, Army Corps of Engineers reform, improving our Nation’s water infrastructure systems, reforming of national fuel standards, and legislation to ensure security at our Nation’s infrastructure and nuclear facilities. The Committee also has conducted oversight on a number of issues including management of EPA grants, climate change science, and response to the attacks of September 11. The Committee is also responsible for reporting to the Senate on over 60 Presidential Nominees encompassing 13 departments, agencies, councils, commissions and other Federal Government organizations.
The Committee’s oversight extends to programs in five cabinet level departments and seven independent agencies, including the Department of Interior’s Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Transportation’s Federal Highway Administration, the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resource Conservation Service, the Environmental Protection Agency, the General Services Administration’s Public Buildings Service, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Civil Works Program of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Missouri River Commission, and the non-performing functions of the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts.
During the question and answer portion of the briefing, one of the ComSci Fellows asked Mr. Wheeler to discuss some of the current issues that the Committee is dealing with. Mr. Wheeler responded that the most pressing issue currently being considered by the Committee is the reauthorization of the Highway Bill, one of the largest non-defense bills that Congress deals with. Mr. Wheeler said he had three staff that concentrates on the Highway Bill with two additional staff that is assigned to help during periods of heavy activity, such as is currently the case. The Committee plans to mark-up the Highway Bill in early April.
Prompted by the ComSci Fellows’ earlier visit with the Architect of the Capitol, another Fellow asked about how the moves associated with the change in majority and minority party affected the staff and the operation of the Committee. Mr. Wheeler explained that the members’ moves were all accomplished first and that staffs were accommodated last.
Another Fellow asked if the Committee was dealing with the issue of introduction of waste products from the emerging nanotechnology industry. Mr. Wheeler responded that the Committee was not, but that is not unusual. The Senate is very deliberate and they are just getting into the issue of recycling computer equipment.
A question was asked about the role of subcommittees and how important they are. Mr. Wheeler said that that varied from committee to committee. He did state that most hearings took place at the subcommittee level.
A question was raised about the politics associated with the Highway Bill that Mr. Wheeler had mentioned as one of the most pressing pieces of current business before the Committee. The specific question asked Mr. Wheeler to discuss the earmarks put forward by both the House and the Senate and the process by which these came about. Mr. Wheeler characterized the projects inserted by the House as being more specific to a particular district or constituency, reflecting the representative nature of the House, whereas the Senate tended to add projects that were more at the state level. He further mentioned that the Senate preferred to add these projects at conference rather than during mark-up. He further mentioned that one of the most contentious aspects of the Highway Bill was the fact that many states want to get back as much money as they contribute in user fees and taxes. The current version of the Highway Bill being deliberated by the Committee assures that at least 92 cents on the dollar goes back to the donor state.
That spurred a question on how a particular state delegation, representatives and senators, work as a group to put forward a particular state’s agenda. Mr. Wheeler said that they do try to work together on some issues.
The briefing lasted only one hour, but it provided a useful and fascinating insight into the workings of Congress and the legislative process at a practical level.
MARCH 31-APRIL 1, 2005 (PART II)
John Haskell
Senior Fellow
The Government Affairs Institute
Georgetown University
(March 31, 2005)Topic: Congressional Power and Presidential Authority: An Overview of the Executive-Legislative Relations
Dr. John Haskell a Senior Fellow at the Government Affairs Institute (GAI) at Georgetown University, spoke to the ComSci Fellows on the changing relationship between the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Federal Government. As originally conceived by the drafters of the U.S. Constitution, the branches of the government were separated into the judicial, legislative, and executive branches; however, power was meant not only to be balanced, but shared, especially between the Legislative and Executive Branches. The balance between congressional power and presidential authority has not been static over the history of the United States.
The actual form of the Executive Office has changed through the years. For example, it was not until 1921 that the President was required to submit a formal budget request to Congress. The extent of presidential power has evolved, with Congress ceding accountability to the Executive Branch, but not necessarily the authority to act “carte blanche” without congressional approval. Taking some examples from recent history, Dr. Haskell described some instances where Congress ceded additional power to the President. This usually occurred during times of economic crisis.
The Executive Branch held more power over Congress in the mid-1930s. In 1933, President Roosevelt requested greatly enhanced executive privilege in response to the Great Depression. He wanted to “exercise the privilege as if we had been invaded by a foreign power.” The privilege was granted and the President was able to push through the far-reaching programs of the New Deal.
Another example of increased Executive Branch power was in the 1960s, in the aftermath of President’s Kennedy’s assassination and the unrest associated with the Civil Rights Movement. During this time, President Johnson was able to push through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. It is difficult to believe that these overarching programs could have been successfully implemented in a time when congressional and presidential relations were so divisive.
In the early 1970s, another economic crisis gave President Nixon the authority to implement the wage and price controls of 1970-1971. However, Congress then decided that it had ceded too much and wanted to reign in presidential authority. As a partial response to this concern, the Congressional Budget Office was created in the 1970s, so that Congress would have the data to check on or challenge presidential initiatives, especially the figures of proposed presidential budgets.
In summary, the current state of the interaction of the Executive and Legislative Branches is that the Executive Branch has oversight capacity, while Congress retains the power. The power of the Legislative Branch is expressed in several ways, such as threatening to change a law, using the power of money (holding the purse strings), and actually changing law.
Garry Young
Professor
Political Science Department
George Washington University
(March 31, 2005)Topic: The Bush Administration and Congress
Dr. Garry Young, a professor at George Washington University presented the relationship between President Bush and the 109th Congress. Dr. Young began his presentation by identifying three factors that influence the relationship between the President and Congress – structure, resources, and choices.
Dr. Young first explained that structure is determined in the U.S. Constitution, first mentioned in the Legislative Branch, then the Executive Branch. He stated that structure is at a disadvantage to the President. The Congress has the ability to obstruct a president’s agenda or policies in variety of ways.
There are four areas that greatly influence how Congress and the President relate to one another. The first area concerns the different constituencies served by the President and Members of Congress. When a president begins to form policy, his perspective usually deals with the concerns of a widespread and diverse populace, while the concerns of the representative or senator are much narrower influenced by their individual district or state. In other words, the President can target high-risk issues, such as homeland security and social security that affect the entire Nation, while representative and senators can cater to the needs of their own states to insure their re-election.
Secondly, there are time horizon differences that motivate Congress and the President to address the issues at hand. The President needs to make a mark sooner than later, because his administration at most has eight years to accomplish its goals, whereas Members of Congress can be in office for 15 to 20 years.
Thirdly, minority coalitions of two or three senators can stop a president’s agenda very effectively. Filibusters or just a few unhappy senators can delay a president’s desire concerning important governmental matters.
Lastly, agenda setting seems to be a strategy that gives greater advantage to the President than to Congress. For example, the President seems to have greater access to the media than Congress in determining when and where to reach out to the American people on issues and events that are important to his agenda.
Dr. Young also provided insight into how resources are used to influence the relationship between Congress and a president’s administration. A unified government is a great advantage to a sitting president, especially to a commander-in-chief whose party has a majority in both Houses of Congress. He believes that the Bush Administration and the 109th Congress is the most unified government America has seen since the Eisenhower Administration, but the homogenous aspects of the Republican-controlled House and Senate is beginning to be pulled apart by social and economic issues, as well as military actions in Iraq. Dr. Young also noted that the size of the Republican majority, though larger than that of the 108th Congress, is small enough to require strong leadership to maintain unity.
Popularity of the President is also a driving force in the way a president can influence the resources that surround him, and how those resources can affect relationships between a presidential administration and the Congress. The United States’ economy tends to drive a president’s popularity, but there are other “rallying points” that can be used effectively by a president to remain popular and maintain a good working relationship with Congress. The way President Bush responded to the terrorism attacks on September 11, 2001, made his popularity rating skyrocket to historic heights. When a president’s popularity is high, he can influence Members of Congress, especially those who may be facing a tough re-election fight. However, we have seen President Bush’s popularity numbers decline to around 50 percent as of late as gasoline prices increase and the military presence in Iraq continues.
In conclusion, Dr. Young expressed that President Bush has been effective in his relationship with Congress, as demonstrated in his never having to use his veto power. This implies that just the threat of a veto seems to be enough to influence Congress and what they send to the White House for the President to sign.
Daniel Waldmann
Director of Federal Affairs and Reimbursement
Johnson and Johnson
(March 31, 2005)Topic: The Work of the Lobbyist
Spontaneously, but with eerie, soothing naturalness, the ComSci Fellows were compelled to listen, agree and vote yes – and didn't know why. Mr. Waldmann briefly described the definition and function of a lobbyist. He explained that lobbying is the practice of private advocacy with the goal of influencing a governing body, in order to ensure that an individual's or organization's point of view is represented in the government.
A lobbyist is a person who is paid to influence legislation. Lobbying is in many countries a regulated activity, with limits placed on how it is conducted. In an attempt to prevent political corruption in the United States, lobbyists are required to be registered unless they represent an elected official, or an organization of elected officials such as the National Governors Association. Most major corporations and political interest groups do hire lobbyists to promote their interests. Think tanks aim to lobby, by means of regular releases of detailed reports and supporting research. Lobbyists in the United States target the United States Senate, the United States House of Representatives, and state legislatures. They may also represent their clients' or organizations' interests in dealings with federal, state, or local executive branch agencies or the courts. A separate form of lobbying, called outside lobbying or grassroots lobbying, seeks to affect the legislature or other bodies indirectly, through changing public opinion (or purporting to).
Mr. Waldmann informed the ComSci Fellows from the beginning of his presentation that Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is not very aggressive in their lobbying efforts. They have 15 professional staff in Washington, D.C. to negotiate millions of dollars worth of decisions. Mr. Waldmann also defined some of the parameters regarding the philosophy associated with the thought processes that various lobbyist use to guide their actions. He stated that a participant needs to “know their opposition” and their opposition’s perspective on the topic at hand. He stated that “credibility is very important on the Hill,” and if a person compromises their political integrity for a short-term success then they put their long-term sustenance at risk. Mr. Waldmann told the ComSci Fellows that he spends a lot of time with Members of Congress where J&J have manufacturing plants, for instance, Indiana, New Mexico, California, and New Jersey. The lobbyist is also very concerned with congressman who have influential positions on “key” committees related to their interest, such as the House Energy and Commerce Committee; the House Ways and Means Committee; and the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Mr. Waldmann also informed the ComSci Fellows of some of the issues that J&J are currently concerned with, such as international and intellectual property rights and foreign patent protected pharmaceutical products, particularly from India and Brazil.
Concluding the discussion, Mr. Waldmann spoke to the ability of a lobbyist or their employer to measure success. If a beneficial or advantageous decision is made on the Hill, was it because of the lobbyist efforts or was it just good fortune? How is anyone to know if the lobbyist just takes credit for this good fortune? Mr. Waldmann explained that this aspect of his profession is very difficult to control and really depends on the individual to hold themselves to a higher standard. He explained that there are a few individuals out there who try to mislead, but they are certainly in the minority. Sometimes referred to as social lobbyists, they don't usually pass the test of time.
Wendy H. Schacht
Specialist in Science and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service
Library of CongressLen Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service
Library of Congress
(March 31, 2005)Topic: Overview of the Congressional Research Service
The ComSci Fellows met with Ms. Wendy Schacht and Mr. Len Kruger from the Congressional Research Service's (CRS) Resources, Science, and Industry Division. CRS is part of the Library Congress and is basically a nonpartisan policy shop whose employees perform objective analyses for Members of Congress and their staffs. CRS has approximately 700 staff members divided into other divisions such as the American Law Division, Government and Finance, Foreign Affairs and National Defense, and Domestic Policy and Health. The Resources, Science, and Industry Division employs approximately 90 people. Employees are largely professional policy analysts with some support staff including librarians and information technology people. The head of CRS is a former analyst himself.
CRS handles over one million information requests per year, ranging from the very simple to the very complex. CRS also does informal consultations with congressional staff and members. CRS analysts do secondary research (unlike the Government Accountability Office, which does primary research).
CRS produces issue briefs, reports, and other written documents on the panoply of policy issues facing Congress. Issue briefs track the progress of legislation and are updated frequently.
CRS analysts' writing is subject to rigorous review to ensure accuracy and nonpartisanship. Issue briefs and other reports, for example, are vetted at the section, division, and CRS wide levels.
CRS reports are available to the public through one’s individual Member of Congress.
Occasionally, CRS analysts are asked to do "directed writing," which is the exception to their nonpartisan, balanced, two-sided analyses. Such directed writing is clearly marked on every page to distinguish it from their other publications.
Ms. Schacht and Mr. Kruger invoked former Speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill's aphorism that "all politics is local" to mean that virtually all policy issues are politicized these days, but not necessarily along Democrat-Republican fault lines. Politics is often constituent oriented and thus geographically or otherwise oriented.
Tour of the Thomas Jefferson Building, Library of Congress
(March 31, 2005)An agency of the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government, the Library of Congress includes several internal divisions, including the Office of the Librarian, the Congressional Research Service, the U.S. Copyright Office, the Law Library of Congress, Library Services, and the Office of Strategic Initiatives.
The Library of Congress was founded in 1800. On August 24, 1814, the Library’s core collection of 3,000 volumes was destroyed when the British burned the U.S. Capitol, where the Library was originally housed. On January 30, 1815, Congress approved the purchase of Thomas Jefferson’s personal library of 6,487 books for $23,950. On Christmas Eve 1851, another fire destroyed two-thirds of the collection. Many of the volumes have since been replaced, but nearly 900 are missing. As part of the Library’s Bicentennial celebration in 2000, Jefferson’s library – the foundation of the Library – was reconstructed and opened to the public.
The Library is the Nation’s oldest federal cultural institution and serves as the research arm of Congress. It is also the largest library in the world, representing some 460 languages, with more than 130 million items on approximately 530 miles of bookshelves. The collections include more than 29 million books and other printed materials, 2.7 million recordings, 12 million photographs, 4.8 million maps, and 58 million manuscripts. The Library receives some 22,000 items each working day and adds approximately 10,000 items to the collections daily.
The Library’s mission is to make its resources available and useful to the Congress and the American people and to sustain and preserve a universal collection of knowledge and creativity for future generations.
The ComSci Fellows’ tour of the Thomas Jefferson Building, which was led by Dr. David Burrelli, began in the Visitor’s Center on the ground floor. Special emphasis was placed on the Bob Hope Gallery. Mr. Burrelli indicated that the Library is very competitive over other museums in acquiring historical collections from celebrities and other notable individual’s estates.
The tour proceeded to the Great Hall on the first floor, whose interior design consists of French and Italian Renaissance themes popular at the time of construction; however, there is plenty of Americana themes included. The ComSci Fellows then visited the Gallery that overlooks the Main Reading Room, which features a magnificent rotunda with multiple floret patterns, stained glass windows, and intricate sculptures of past scientific and other leaders in all fields of knowledge.
The tour of the second floor allowed the group to view the Rare Book and Special Collections Reading Room, which contains the largest rare book collection in North America (consisting of more than 700,000 volumes) including the largest collection of 15th Century books in the Western Hemisphere.
Dr. Burrelli informed the ComSci Fellows that Library membership is available that allows access to the Main Reading Room and its numerous resources.
Kenneth A. Gold
Director
The Government Affairs Institute
Georgetown University
(March 25, 2004)Topic: An Executive Branch Perspective on Working with Congress
Dr. Kenneth Gold is the Director of the Government Affairs Institute, Georgetown University. Prior to joining the Government Affairs Institute, Dr. Gold was Academic Director of the Washington Semester Program at the American University and an assistant professor with the American University’s School of Public Affairs and School of International Service, and author of United States Foreign Economic Policy Making: An Analysis of the Use of Food Resources.
Dr. Gold spoke to the ComSci Fellows about working more effectively with Congress and how the legislative environment has changed in response to the prevailing political climate. Dr. Gold emphasized how important it is for executives and managers to understand how Congress works, and how appropriations and legislation are made. Congress and their staff have two major responsibilities, legislative and representative. For each bill that is introduced in Congress, a congressman must evaluate two components, the policy component that would serve the national interest and a political component, which is responding to the interests of the constituents that he/she represents.
During the past ten years, the legislative environment has changed with most legislation coming out of the Executive Branch. Because of this shift, there has also been a significant change in the appropriations process, with a significant increase of earmarks. Earmarks are not included in the presidential budget, are introduced by a congressional member for specific spending in his district and are not proposed in committee. Similarly, there has been a ten-fold increase in the federal budget since 1975 with a concomitant increase in staffing from 8,000 to 20,000. These changes essentially dictate how one can more effectively work with Congress to promote a specific agenda.
Effectively working with Congress essentially involves gaining access, and building and maintaining relationships. This requires good public relations, being proactive and establishing good working relationships with the congressional staff. It is important to communicate and teach congressional staff about one’s specific cause and make sure the cause is represented. This requires identifying key staff, developing a strategy to gain access and developing a plan for a long-term relationship.
Dr. Gold also briefly touched on the role of the lobbyist, who plays a significant role in dealing with Congress. A lobbyist highlights programs that they represent to the congressional staff. The significance of the influence lobbyists have is reflected by the significant increase in the number of lobbyists in Washington, D.C., which has exploded from 1,000 in 1975 to 35,000 at the present time.
Ultimately, one needs someone on Capitol Hill, usually a staffer, who can champion one’s cause. Success depends first and foremost on the quality of information one provides, how well one presents information, and on one’s personal credibility.
Susan Sullivan Lagon
Senior Fellow
The Government Affairs Institute
Georgetown University
(April 1, 2005)Topic: The Shape of the 109th Congress
Dr. Susan Lagon provided the ComSci Fellows with an informal overview of the composition of the 109th Congress. Her presentation included a handout with demographics, such as gender, ethnicity and age.
Currently, the House of Representatives consists of 232 Republicans, 201 Democrats, and 1 Independent. The Senate consists of 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 1 Independent.
Her statistics showed that incumbency advantage is still very strong at election time – only seven House incumbents lost; most of those in redistricted Texas seats. Also, 95 percent of House incumbents were elected by > 10 percent; 83 percent by > 20 percent. In the Senate, only one incumbent lost – Senator Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota).
Other statistics Dr. Lagon shared with the ComSci Fellows included:
Freshman Members: 40 in the House (24 Republican, 15 Democrat), and 9 in the Senate (7 Republican, 2 Democrat).
Women Members: 69 in the House (including delegates; up from 108th), and 14 in the Senate (same as 108th).
African-American Members: 42 in the House, and 1 in the Senate.
Hispanic Members: 26 in the House, and 2 in the Senate.
Asian/Pacific Islander Members: 3 in the House, and 2 in the Senate.
South Asian American Members: 1 in the House.
Native American Members: 1 in the House.
Average age of Members: 55 in the House, and 60 in the Senate in 108th.
Members with military service: 110 in the House, and 31 in the Senate.
Previous profession: Lawyers still dominate the Senate with 58, but public service professions outweigh law or business professions in the House.
Education: 78 Senators hold advanced degrees and in the House, 281 members hold advanced degrees.
Similar to the 108th Congress, the 109th class is very experienced. All new Senators and most new House members have prior experience in elective office. Two hundred seventy-four members were former state legislators; 107 of the 109th members worked as congressional staffers.
Although the margin of control by the Republicans in the 109th Congress (as with the 108th) doesn’t allow them to sweep legislation through both the House and Senate, their majority status does allow them to control the committee chairs. The power of the committee chairs is to set the agenda for what bills make it to the floor for a vote. This effectively denies the Democratic minority the ability to push platform issues without the permission of the partisan chairs.
In general, the Congress with its Republican domination supports the President and his agenda. The exception to this blank support is issues that may negatively impact Republican seats during election years.
Dr. Lagon discussed some of the aspects of the most important bills and issues currently being considered in Congress, such as Social Security Reform and the National Energy strategy. She also provided her opinions on which topics both houses of Congress should focus on during President Bush’s second term.
John Haskell
Senior Fellow
Government Affairs Institute
Georgetown University
(April 1, 2005)Topic: The Congressional Budget and Appropriation Process
Dr. John Haskell, a Senior Fellow with the Government Affairs Institute (GAI) at Georgetown University, spoke to the ComSci Fellows about the congressional budget and appropriation process.
Dr. Haskell joined the Government Affairs Institute in 2000. He formerly taught Political Science at Davidson College, at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and at Drake University. He has particular knowledge about budget, education and tax issues.
Dr. Haskell handed the ComSci Fellows a flowchart that presented the overall process that Congress is supposed to follow each year in providing the money needed to run the government. The process begins with the President’s budget, usually in early February and proceeds, somewhat sequentially, with the House and Senate Budget Committees developing first independently and then agreeing in conference, to the annual Budget Resolution, usually around the middle of April. This sets overall spending limits on discretionary programs. The Appropriations Committees in both the House and Senate then work on the 13 annual Appropriation Bills. The House refers its bills to the Senate about the end of June. The Senate then crafts is version of the Appropriation Bills, a Conference is requested to resolve the inevitable differences and then the House and Senate passed bills are sent to the President by the end of September so that the Government has the money it needs to begin the next fiscal year on October 1st.
Dr. Haskell compared the congressional budget process to jazz. Whereas a piece of classical music usually sounds exactly the same and takes the same amount time each time it is played, a piece of jazz, like the Congressional Budget Process, might sound different and take more or less time, each time it is played, even by the same performer. It incorporates creativity and improvisation. With the Congressional Budget and Appropriation Process flowchart as the “sheet music,” Congress then improvises, within certain rules, to be able to get the budget passed through both houses. In reality, the President usually gets most of what is requested in the initial budget. He said that Congress usually fiddles around the margins and most, more than 90 percent, gets approved.
The Congressional Budget Resolution was likened to a New Year’s resolution that is fairly general in nature. It is not really binding, but is of political importance. Some of the items will have detailed program information, but this is not always the case. This resolution is where the majority party states its priorities in spending, taxes and the deficit. In contrast to the previous administration, the same party (Republican) controls the White House and Congress, so it is more difficult to blame “someone else” when the economy takes a downturn. Since the Budget Resolution is a majority statement, no filibuster is allowed. Sometimes the Budget Resolution includes reconciliation instructions to the authorizing committees on changes to the laws necessary to achieve budgetary objectives.
Dr. Haskell gave two reasons why it is difficult to “stick to the sheet music.” First, there is not enough money in the allocation to get votes on the floor. Politically motivated items “earmarks” are always added in. Second, since every Member of Congress knows that pet legislation may not go anywhere and an alternate approach is to amend essential appropriations bills. In other words, policy issues that should be dealt with elsewhere, and really unrelated, get added onto the bills. Therefore, the appropriation bills are put together as larger “omnibus” bills, with the extra programs included as incentives for votes in Congress. Dr. Haskell’s briefing was very useful and although Congress does not always follow the sheet music, the ComSci Fellows at least now know what the music is supposed to sound like
Lunch in the Senate Dining Room and Tour of the U.S. Capitol
(April 27, 2005)The last leg of the Congressional Orientation began with a lunch in the U.S. Capitol. Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut), possessing the right to invite individual citizens to have lunch in the private Senate Dining Room, had paved the way for the ComSci Fellows to enjoy just such an occasion. In addition, he had lent one of his personal staff, who – being a ComSci Fellow himself – was able to provide further appropriate entertainment in the form of a tour of the U.S. Capitol building.
The ComSci Fellows reached the Capitol through the Russell Senate Office Building, which is connected to the Capitol by an underground train.
The Senate Dining Room is located one level below the Senate Chambers and provides exceptional service. The menu offers a varied selection of traditional American foods alternated with traditional Senate fare such as Senate Bean Soup, a dish, whose origin turns out to be – as expected – subject to debate. As posted on the Senate’s website: http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_item/bean_soup.htm, one story states the Senate’s bean soup tradition began early in the 20th Century at the request of Senator Fred Dubois (first a Republican, later a Democrat of Idaho). Another story attributes the request to Senator Knute Nelson (Republican of Minnesota), who expressed his fondness for the soup in 1903. Whatever the politics, the soup was good.
From the dining room, the tour went through the first floor level of the Capitol building, walking from the Senate wing to the House wing (north to south). The current House and Senate wings of the Capitol were completed around 1868, while the central portion dates from the early 1800s (with the exception of the current dome which also dates from 1868). As one walks from the wings into the central portion, one experiences a sudden change from exuberantly painted walls with frescos and murals depicting American circumstance (all by “the ideal American Immigrant from Italy,” Constantino Brumidi) to the demure and dark original Capitol. It suddenly becomes clear that neo-classicism has a number sub-styles. It is in the old section of the Capitol that the ComSci Fellows visited the old Senate Chamber, which from 1810 to 1860 served as U.S. Supreme Court (the Senate moved upstairs, next to what is now the Office of the Majority Leader, who has put that room off-limits). The Old Senate Chamber is currently on display in Supreme Court setting.
From the old Senate Chamber, the ComSci Fellows moved to the second floor, where they got access to the magnificent Capitol Dome. The Dome, being decorated in late 19th Century style is decorated by many paintings as well as frescos. The most famous is all the way on the Dome itself: the Apotheosis of Washington. There are innumerable depictions of historical moments, the most important one, according to Senate staff, being the moment where George Washington resigns his commission as Commander-in-Chief of the Revolutionary Army. Many consider this the most important moment in the Nation’s history, which is just as well; because it is questionable that the United States would have developed the government it did without that moment taking place.
Walking though the Dome, one arrives in the south wing of the old Capitol building, which houses the old House Chamber, which currently serves as Statuary Hall – a room in which every state keeps one statue of a person that it feels is important. This is truly an eclectic collection. Statuary Hall is perhaps best known for the desk location of Representative John Quincy Adams, the only ex-president that was elected a member of the House. It so happens that his desk was located at a spot where – through an acoustic anomaly of the room – he could eavesdrop on strategy meetings of the opposition. In his days, Adams was known for his cunning political skills. We now know that his power was based in knowledge.
Descending once more from the Dome to the room below it, the ComSci Fellows arrived in what is called the Crypt. This room was intended to hold George Washington’s body at the geographical center of the City of Washington that was to bear his name. It so happened that his wife, who survived him – Martha Washington did not agree with that idea and decided to bury her husband near the family estate in Mount Vernon. The Crypt houses a number of models of the current Capitol and the way it looked at various times in its history.
The Capitol is a truly remarkable building. It is an architectural masterpiece, yet it is an eclecticism of the first order. Extrapolating from that, it represents the Constitution with all its intricacies, checks and balances, as well as the people who are governed by it.
Judith Schneider
Specialist in American National Government
Congressional Research Service
Library of Congress
(March 22, 2004)Topic: Introduction to Congress/The Legislative Process/Congressional Organization/The Committee System and Floor Procedures/How Congress Really Works
In the first minute of the ComSci Fellows’ week on Capitol Hill, they instantly learned that Ms. Judith Schneider would not only give them a great overview, but also offer seasoned insight to help them understand the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government. The ComSci Fellows were then treated to a condensed version of what Ms. Schneider normally gives to new Members of Congress.
Ms. Schneider, co-author of the Congressional Deskbook (2003-2004 edition) with Michael L. Koempel, provided the ComSci Fellows with a wealth of information about the legislative and budget process of the 108th Congress. Starting with the basic premise that the main job of Congress is to stop bad legislation, the ComSci Fellows learned that, in a two-year congressional period, approximately 10,000 bills are introduced and only about 400 actually get passed into legislation.
Ms. Schneider went on to explain that, even though the culture of the Senate is different than that of the House of Representatives, what drives them both is policy, politics and procedure – with patience as the underlying element needed to achieve alignment of the three “P’s.” The pressures facing Members of Congress, which include campaigns, ethics, constituents, media, courts, lobbyists, and, of course, the President, were discussed.
After the whirlwind talk with Ms. Schneider, the ComSci Fellows were well-equipped to understand the workings of Congress and were really excited to learn more.
Hunt Shipman
Staff Director (Majority)
Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
United States Senate
(March 22, 2004)Topic: Overview and Major Issues of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
Appointed by Senator Thad Cochran (R-Mississippi), Mr. Hunt Shipman is the Staff Director of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry. In his opening remarks, Mr. Shipman noted that the Committee has broad jurisdiction and deals with a wide range of issues. For example, the commodities support program, marketing, the Farm Bill and check-off programs are all addressed by this Committee. He informed the group that the Agriculture Appropriations Bill encompasses about $80 billion per year for support of agriculture programs. About two-thirds of the money goes toward mandatory spending programs, including the commodities, conservation, and nutrition programs. Mr. Shipman also pointed out that greater than 50 percent of the appropriation goes toward nutrition programs, such as food stamps, the school lunch program, and the supplemental nutrition program for women, infants, and children (WIC).
Through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Conservation Credit Corporation (CCC), $30 billion is spent on commodities and conservation, including $3 billion for the Conservation Reserve Program, over which this Committee has jurisdiction. The Committee also shares jurisdiction over the Healthy Forest Initiative with the Energy Committee.
Mr. Shipman also spoke about the Rural Development Program, which receives discretionary funds of approximately $11.5 billion per year, with a portion of this money being marked for mandatory spending. He noted that this program not only includes issues regarding farming, but also improvement of infrastructure, such as electricity in rural areas and a telecommunications program. The issue of broadband was raised and it was explained that very little – except through the Farm Bill – is being implemented.
As a result of homeland security efforts, the importance of food safety and plant and animal health issues has also been elevated. As evidence of this, the Food Safety Inspection Service has seen its budget double over the past ten years.
In closing, Mr. Shipman reviewed the research programs within the USDA, including those of the Forest Service.
Charles Ziegler
Deputy Chief Counsel (Majority)
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of Representatives
(March 22, 2004)Topic: Overview and Major Issues of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
The presentation consisted of an overview by Mr. Charles Ziegler, the Deputy Chief Counsel of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, as well as separate ones by a staff member from each of the subcommittees. The exception was the Highway Transportation and Pipelines Subcommittee, which was not represented due to an urgent need for that staff to work on the Highway Bill.
Mr. Ziegler pointed out that the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is the biggest committee on Capitol Hill, including both the House and Senate. It has 75 voting members across its six subcommittees. The Committee has three primary functions: 1) to move legislation; 2) conduct oversight; and 3) conduct investigations. It has very broad jurisdiction due to the wide-ranging nature of subjects covered by the Committee.
Ms. Susan Bodine works for the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee. The current structure of this Subcommittee combines four previous subcommittees, and, among other things, is responsible for: 1) Civil works programs of the Army Corps of Engineers; 2) Clean Water Act Program (for Environmental Protection Agency and the Corps of Engineers); 3) Ocean dumping and oil pollution; and 4) Invasive species (especially for water environments).
Mr. Adam Tsao described the work of the Aviation Subcommittee. This Subcommittee is responsible for all aspects of civil aviation except aviation research. This includes, but is not limited to, safety, security, air traffic control, airport infrastructure, airlines, and international aviation issues. This Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Transportation’s Office of Aviation and International Affairs, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Traffic Safety Administration.
Mr. John Rayfield gave an overview of activities within the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee. This Subcommittee oversees some research, spending from $7 to $22 billion on research and development, though science is not considered a major focus. The Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the Coast Guard, which is now in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Given the restructuring of the security-based agencies, DHS is setting up a science and technology office, and there are some who want this office to absorb the Coast Guard research and development funds. This Subcommittee also shares some of the water resource responsibilities of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, such as aquatic oil pollution and invasive species, and also oversees maritime law.
Mr. Dan Mathews, of the Economic Development, Public Building, and Emergency Management Subcommittee noted some of the highlights of this Subcommittee. Historically, Congress has provided funds to the Economic Development Administration within the Department of Commerce to support a public works grant program designed to aid economically distressed communities by developing infrastructure with the intent of attracting new industry and thus creating long-term, private sector jobs. With regard to public buildings, the Subcommittee is responsible for the Kennedy Center and the General Services Administration. Mr. Mathews touched on the perennial government issue of leasing versus owning buildings. One of the disadvantages of owning buildings is that it is very difficult to get the Appropriations Committee to appropriate money to renovate the buildings. The emergency management responsibilities of the Subcommittee center on the Federal Emergency Management Administration and disaster assistance.
Mr. Glenn Scammel spoke for the Railroads Subcommittee. He informed the group that none of the standard federal laws applies to railroads; consequently they have their own set of laws, which are mostly based on the old robber-baron days. The Federal Railroad Administration oversees the safety part of rail; others, such as the National Mediation Board, oversee things like mergers, railway labor, retirement system, insurance, and liability.
Mr. Ziegler closed the session by briefly describing the work that takes place under the Highway Transportation and Pipelines Subcommittee. This Subcommittee oversees the federal-aid highway program, federal transit, motor carriers and highway safety, and hazardous materials. The Members were marking up the Highway Bill. When asked about the Highway Bill going to conference, Mr. Ziegler said that the House version will be about $275 billion, and he estimated that the conference version will be between the Senate and House numbers, probably about $300 billion. He also said that they wanted to include the ability to reopen it after a year, on the hope/expectation that the economy will be better next year and hence will be able to increase the authorization. This logic also applies to the argument that the bill should only be for two years instead of six. That said, Mr. Ziegler also made it clear that we all will still have to face the fact that gas taxes will be insufficient to keep the Highway Bill growing in subsequent versions, and that a different approach will be necessary.
Jerry C. Skelly
Assistant Director, Office of Congressional Relations
United States General Accounting Office
(March 23, 2004)Topic: GAO: A Congressional Resource
The United States General Accounting Office (GAO), along with the Congressional Budget Office, Government Printing Office, and the Library of Congress and Congressional Research Service, is part of the Legislative Branch of government. It is an independent, non-partisan audit organization. Mr. Jerry Skelly, Assistant Director of GAO’s Office of Congressional Relations, presented an overview of GAO’s history, organization and scope of work. With a 33-year career with GAO, Mr. Skelly, a certified public accountant, provides liaison between GAO and the congressional oversight committees, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform.
GAO was established by Congress through the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 and is headed by the Comptroller General of the United States, a political appointee. This individual serves a 15-year term, which, as Mr. Skelly pointed out, provides political insulation. GAO has a staff of 3,200 employees located at its headquarters and 11 field offices. The staff includes professionals with advanced degrees across many disciplines, with accounting making up one-third or less.
Mr. Skelly explained that GAO began as a voucher-examining agency and has since evolved to financial and management program analysis. In support of congressional oversight of the Executive Branch, GAO’s mission is to examine the use of public funds and review and evaluate federal programs and activities. GAO performs its data collection and analysis work at agencies according to specified protocols identifying what the agencies can expect from GAO and what GAO expects of them. GAO then issues recommendations based on its findings. Agencies must report actions taken in response to these recommendations to Congress. GAO also issues legal opinions concerning government revenues and expenditures and can conduct criminal investigations.
There are 14 mission teams, including acquisition a