 |
 |
 |
|
||
 |
|
 |
|
||
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 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 10 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. There is also a special Internet hotline for whistleblowers: fraudnet@gao.gov.
The GAO website is: http://www.gao.gov.
NOTE: Through a provision of the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-271, 118 Stat. 811 (2004), which became effective July 7, 2004, the GAO was renamed the Government Accountability Office.
Robert Palmer
Staff Director (Minority)
Committee on Science
U.S. House of Representatives
(March 23, 2004)Topic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the House Committee on Science
Dr. Robert Palmer, Staff Director of the House Science Committee, met with the ComSci Fellows to discuss the history and legislative functions of this Committee. He began by stating that the Committee on Science has its roots in the intense reaction to the Soviet launch of Sputnik in 1957. Early in 1958, the House of Representatives passed the following resolution: "Resolved that there is hereby created a Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration..." The Select Committee performed its tasks efficiently by writing the Space Act creating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and chartering the permanent House Committee on Science and Astronautics, now known as the Committee on Science, with a jurisdiction comprising both science and space. In 1977, with the abolition of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, the Committee was further assigned jurisdiction over civilian nuclear research and development thereby rounding out its jurisdiction for all civilian energy research and development (R&D).
Dr. Palmer pointed out that the Science Committee has had a long tradition of alerting the Congress and the Nation to new scientific and technological opportunities that have the potential to create dramatic economic or societal change. Among these have been recombinant DNA research and supercomputer technology.
The start of the 107th Congress, Dr. Palmer noted, brought a change in the Committee's leadership. Representative Sherwood L. Boehlert from New York's 23rd Congressional District became the new Chairman of the Committee on Science. In his first speech as Chairman, Representative Boehlert pledged to "build the Science Committee into a significant force within the Congress," and "to ensure that we have a healthy, sustainable, and productive R&D establishment - one that educates students, increases human knowledge, strengthens U.S. competitiveness and contributes to the well-being of the Nation and the world." With those goals in mind, Chairman Boehlert laid out three priorities for the Committee – “The Three E’s” – science and math education, energy policy, and the environment. Under Chairman Boehlert's leadership, the Committee was able to enact important legislation on these areas. Chairman Boehlert also reorganized the subcommittees to reflect these new priorities. The current subcommittees are Research; Energy; Environment, Technology and Standards; and Space and Aeronautics.
Dr. Palmer observed that after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, terrorism moved to the forefront of the Committee's agenda. Heeding Chairman Boehlert's admonition that "the war on terrorism will be won in the laboratory as much as on the battlefield," the Science Committee worked to ensure that the Federal Government was investing in the science and technology necessary to combat terrorism over the long term. The Committee also played a key role in the development of legislation establishing a new Department of Homeland Security, and led the push to make science and technology a priority in the new Department.
He concluded by observing that the Committee successfully enacted legislation that sets the National Science Foundation (NSF) on a path to doubling its budget over five years. Chairman Boehlert and Subcommittee on Research Chairman, Representative Nick Smith of Michigan, led the bipartisan, bicameral effort to ensure that future generations will continue to reap the benefits of NSF's invaluable basic research.
Additional information on the Committee may be found at: http://www.house.gov/science/.
Honorable George Allen
United States Senate
(R-Virginia)
(March 23, 2004)Topic: Photo Op Session with the Honorable George Allen
Senator George Allen, the 51st United States Senator from Virginia, entered the conference room and personally greeted each ComSci Fellow. He expressed his gratitude for having a ComSci Fellow in his office and thanked the others for their contributions to their respective offices. After the group photograph, Senator Allen wished all the ComSci Fellows continued success in their assignments.
Elected to the United States Senate in 2000, Senator Allen is a member of the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee; the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee; and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Because of his interest in the high-tech presence in Northern Virginia, Senator Allen in the last Congress was appointed to serve as the Chairman of the High Tech Task Force, where he looked for ways to address the downturn in the tech economy through sound public policy.
In the First Session of the 108th Congress, Senator Allen was the lead Republican sponsor on the Senate Bill S.189, The 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act, which was signed into law (P.L. No. 108-153) by the President on December 3, 2003. The Law authorizes appropriations for coordination and implementation of an interagency and interdisciplinary program to support long-term investment in nanoscale research in the fields of nanoscience, nanotechnology and nanoengineering as part of the National Nanotechnology Research Program. The legislation authorizes a total of $3.63 billion in appropriations over four years from FY 2005 through FY 2008.
On April 1, 2004, at a conference in Washington D.C. on National Nanotechnology Initiative: Vision to Commercialization, Senator Allen announced the formation of a bipartisan and bicameral Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus that will serve as a forum to keep nanotechnology issues before Members of Congress. The new Congressional Nanotechnology Caucus is aimed at promoting nanotechnology and helping to educate policymakers and their constituents about this new and emerging industry. This Caucus will serve as industry’s portal to the U.S. Congress.
Prior to his election to the Senate, Senator Allen served as the 67th Governor of Virginia from 1994-1998. Senator Allen was unanimously elected a member of the Senate Republican Leadership as Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2002.
William K. Suter
Clerk
U.S Supreme Court
(March 23, 2004)Topic: Overview of the U.S. Supreme Court
Mr. William Suter, a retired Assistant Judge Advocate General of the Army, has served as Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court for the past 13 years. He heads the office that manages the legal business of the Court, maintains the Court’s records, and aids in getting documentation for cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court, as the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government, is charged with interpreting law and legislation in the context of the U.S. Constitution. When fully staffed, there are nine Justices on the Court – one Chief Justice and eight associate justices – all of whom are appointed to the Court for a life term, assuming good behavior.
Mr. Suter informed the ComSci Fellows that, of the 8,000 cases submitted for review annually, only about 80 are selected to be heard by the Court. Typically, of the 150 cases per week that are received and reviewed by the law clerks, only one or two cases are chosen to be presented to the Justices, who meet on Fridays to review the selected cases. If four of the Justices are in agreement, a case will be formally heard by the Court.
The cases reviewed by the Court fall into two main categories: 1) important federal questions that have not been addressed before, and 2) legal questions of federal law where there has been disagreement among Circuit Court decisions. Mr. Suter also noted that the Supreme Court is often left to “fill in the blanks” when Congress passes an overarching law that is not very specific, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act.
He described briefly to the ComSci Fellows the case that was to be heard the day following their visit – a challenge to the phrase, “one Nation, under God,” in the Pledge of Allegiance. It was interesting to the ComSci Fellows that there are actually two legal questions that will be reviewed. The first is whether the petitioner actually has standing to plead the case, since he does not have legal custody of his daughter named in the case, and second, whether the law requiring a student’s mandatory presence each morning during the Pledge in the California school system violates the First Amendment.
Mr. Suter ended his presentation with two important mottos of the Court – Discipline and Tradition.
The website for the U.S. Supreme Court is: http://www.supremecortus.gov.
Visit to the U.S. Supreme Court Chamber and Library
(March 23, 2004)Following Mr. Suter’s presentation, docent Ms. Sally D. Liff provided the ComSci Fellows with a tour of the Court. The tour began in the Supreme Court Chamber, where a fellow docent gave a short introduction to the Supreme Court and the Chamber itself. The docent described the physical layout of the room and the positions within the room where the public and other attendees, including the press, sit during a hearing. She also described the architecture and art of the Chamber. Interestingly, to emphasize the separation of the Judicial Branch from the Legislative and Executive Branches, the Chamber was built using only foreign materials while the rest of the building was built with domestic materials.
After the lecture in the Chamber, the ComSci Fellows were given the opportunity to enter the Supreme Court Library. This stunningly beautiful room is only accessible for use by Members of the Supreme Court Bar and Supreme Court clerks. The docent next guided the group to the Justices’ dining room. Rather than sit at the table based on seniority as they do in the Chamber, the Justices can take any vacant seat, without regard to protocol.
The final stop of the tour was the John Marshall dining room, which can be reserved by the Justices for entertaining guests. Portraits of Marbury and Madison hang on one wall of the dining room to emphasize the importance of the landmark case that established and justified the power of judicial review – a case that established the Supreme Court as a branch with the power to invalidate the actions of the other branches of government.
Philip Webre
Senior Analyst
Microeconomic and Financial Studies Division
Congressional Budget Office
(March 23, 2004)Topic: Overview of the CBO, and Relationship and Interaction between CBO and Congress
The ComSci Fellows visited with Dr. Philip Webre of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to learn more about how this non-partisan office is involved in the federal budget process. Congress relies on the CBO to provide robust analyses of potential budget scenarios for any legislation that may obligate government spending.
The CBO participates in the entire budget cycle. It develops estimates of the “baseline” costs of existing programs and obligations. It “reprices” the President’s budget based on its own analyses. It estimates the cost of budget proposals (called “scoring”) coming from appropriations committees. These cost estimates include projecting costs to state governments and to the private sector.
CBO uses a number of analytical tools to generate forecasts and projections. One model is based on the consensus forecast among leading private analysts in the United States, and is called the Blue-Chip forecast. CBO forecasts are made on three, five and ten-year horizons, which may inform how appropriators time particular programs, depending on whether costs will be included in a particular forecast or delayed to a longer-horizon forecast.
Dr. Weber gave several examples of recent CBO analyses of legislative initiatives. The universal service program would subsidize telecommunications in remote/rural areas, which may be needed as cell phones and the Internet decrease the fixed-line charges that supported the program in the past. CBO estimated the cost impacts of allowing pharmaceutical imports from Canada, analyzing whether (and for whom) it would save drug costs in the United States. The CBO has also been very active in estimating the costs of the war in Iraq, since the magnitude and timing of costs are of great importance in the current public policy discussions surrounding the war.
Dr. Weber also mentioned that few congressionally mandated analyses take into account modern theories of financial economics. But, with a new chief economist trained in this field, CBO is able to contemplate whole new ways to think about the impact of government programs on the financial sector.
CBO’s website is: http://www.cbo.gov.
Visit to the Thomas Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress
(March 24, 2004)The ComSci Fellows visited the Library of Congress and received a wonderfully in-depth tour of this national treasure. Mr. Rob Spalding, who is one of the main librarians, conducted the tour. After going through the usual security ritual, Mr. Spalding first gave the group a delightful history of the Library of Congress and how it became known as the “Temple to the Book.”
The Library of Congress is part of the Legislative Branch of the U.S. Government and collects from 10,000 to 12,000 items – photographs, manuscripts, maps, films, books – per day. This institution can trace its roots back to a number of our founding fathers, such as James Madison, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, who had early influence in establishing and contributing to the Library of Congress. The first Library of Congress was started by John Adams, but the building was burnt to the ground by the British during the Revolutionary War. Thomas Jefferson also sold some of his library to the U.S. Government in later years, and, along with many other books and archival materials, such as maps, the new Library of Congress opened its doors in 1897. Though the Library of Congress resides in the United States, its motif and focus is not only American but international as well.
After the brief but interesting history lesson, Mr. Spalding guided the ComSci Fellows around the Great Hall, pointing out some very artistically rich and somewhat humorous details pertaining to the art and architecture that surrounded them. Entering the Great Hall, one is overcome by the French and Italian Renaissance themes that permeate that section of the Library. In conjunction with its strong French and Italian motifs there is a unique and distinct American presence. Mr. Spalding was very careful in pointing out the Americana interspersed among the French and Italian features. For example, he showed the ComSci Fellows a particular ceiling painting that looked similar to a Michelangelo fresco that might be seen in the Sistine Chapel. Further investigation of the picture, which showed a group of naked men walking together, revealed a distinct American pastime – some of them were carrying baseball equipment.
Mr. Spalding then moved the ComSci Fellows from the Great Hall to the Gallery that overlooks the Main Reading Room. The Main Reading Room is a real treat to the eyes with a magnificent and stunning rotunda that displays multiple floret patterns, stained glass windows and intricate sculptures of past scientists, teachers and religious leaders who have contributed to knowledge, enlightenment and illumination. The furniture and walls surrounding the Main Reading Room are made of various types of wood, mostly oak, which again gives this portion of the Library a visually stunning effect, as well as implanting the desire to just go down and read a book. There are at least 20,000 reference books that can be made available through the Library’s non-browsing policy. A member can visit the Main Reading Room, check the computer listings for the desired reading material and have the Library staff deliver the books directly to the reader. Mr. Spalding informed the ComSci Fellows that for a small fee one can obtain a membership card that allows access to the Main Reading Room and its many references.
The website for the Library of Congress is: http://www.loc.gov.
Howard Waltzman
Senior Counsel (Majority)
House Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of Representatives
(March 24, 2004)Topic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Mr. Howard Waltzman, Senior Counsel of the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, provided an overview of the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee. This Committee is the oldest committee in the House of Representatives. The six subcommittees address matters of telecommunications, energy, health, environment, oversight and consumer affairs. Following the overview, Mr. Waltzman emphasized the challenges facing staff members working on a committee with oversight of highly technical areas. For example, his Subcommittee is currently considering proposals for re-allocating certain wireless frequencies to increase the efficiency of service delivery and to reduce interference with frequencies used by emergency services providers, such as fire departments. The issues involved are highly technical and challenging for scientific lay people, such as lawyers, to assess.
Mr. Waltzman was asked why lawyers are very heavily represented on committee staffs. He pointed out that this reflects the need to have staffs who are trained in interpreting the law and who have the necessary preparation to draft legislation. He noted that, while it would be useful to have an engineer on the committee staff, hiring an engineer who does not have legal expertise would be probably an inefficient use of staffing resources. The Committee relies heavily on industry engineers and Wall Street analysts for technical expertise.
There was also discussion of the balance in drafting legislation that must be struck between providing sufficient specificity to ensure that the will of the Congress is reflected in the implementation rules adopted by the Executive Branch, while allowing sufficient flexibility for the Executive Branch to utilize its expertise and judgment in implementing the legislation. Mr. Waltzman illustrated this issue by discussing the Telecommunications and Internet Subcommittee’s concern over recent indecency allegations concerning certain radio show broadcasts; although some members of the Subcommittee feel that some of the broadcasts were indecent, it is a strategic decision not to define standards for indecency at the congressional level. Instead, the Federal Communications Commission has been given a general mandate to decide what is indecent and to level sanctions within guidelines set forth by the Congress.
Honorable Christopher Van Hollen, Jr.
U.S. House of Representatives
(D-Maryland)
(March 24, 2004)The ComSci Fellows had the pleasure of meeting with the Honorable Christopher Van Hollen outside his office for a group photo. Congressman Van Hollen (D-MD), represents the 8th District of Maryland, having been elected to the House of Representatives in November 2002. He serves on the Committee for Education and the Workforce, and the Committee on Government Reform, and is also the Vice Chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, a Co-Chair of the Congressional Chesapeake Bay Watershed Task Force, and a Vice-Chair of the Democratic Task Force on Tax Policy and the Budget.
Congressman Van Hollen greeted the ComSci Fellows warmly, and he confirmed his support of constituents in the group, together with the organizations of the ComSci Fellows that are included in his district, including NIST, NOAA, and NIH.
John Haskell
Senior Fellow
The Government Affairs Institute
Georgetown University
(March 24, 2004)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 24, 2004)Topic: The Bush Administration and Congress
Dr. Garry Young, a professor at Georgetown University, made a presentation on the current President’s relationship with the 108th Congress. Dr. Young began his presentation by identifying three factors that influence the relationship between a president and Congress – structure, resources and choices.
Dr. Young first explained that the current structure of Congress has the ability to obstruct a president’s agenda or policies in a variety of ways. Four areas greatly influence how Congress and the president relate to one another. The first area concerns the different constituencies served by the president and Congress. When a president begins to form policy, his perspective usually deals with the concerns of a widespread or diverse populace, while the concerns of the House and Senate are usually much narrower because of individual district or state issues. In other words, the president must target high-risk issues, such as homeland security, that affect the entire Nation, while Senators and Members of the House of Representatives cater to the needs of their own states to insure their re-election.
Secondly, there are time differences that motivate Congress and the president to address the issues at hand. The president needs to make a mark sooner rather than later, because his administration at most has only eight years to accomplish its goals, whereas Members of Congress can be in office for 15 to 25 years. Thirdly, minority coalitions 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, such as President Bush is finding with his judicial appointments. 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 control over the media than Congress in determining when and where to reach out to the American people on issues or events that are important to the Administration’s agenda.
Dr. Young also provided insight into how resources are used to influence the relationship between Congress and the Bush 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 the House and Senate. This should give the Bush Administration a distinct advantage, since the Republicans now control the leadership positions within Congress. This aspect of a Republican-controlled Congress should allow a cohesive instead of a corrosive relationship between Capitol Hill and the president. Dr. Young believes the Bush Administration is the most unified government since the days of President Eisenhower, but the homogeneous aspects of a Republican controlled House and Senate are beginning to be pulled apart by social and economic issues, as well as the war in Iraq. Dr. Young also noted that the size of the Republican majority is not very large, so, in order to hold their coalition together, a great deal of effort is needed from the leadership.
Popularity 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 Congress. The U.S. economy tends to drive a president’s popularity, but there are other rally 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 has made him popular. The rally point of 9/11, even though there have been disagreements between President Bush and Congress on a number of issues, such as the Patriot Act, has unified the United States during most of his administration. His popularity can also have a tremendous leverage over Members of Congress, especially those who are new or vulnerable and may need to use President Bush’s popularity factor in their re-election plans. However, this popularity could rapidly decrease, if the war on terrorism goes badly, especially in Iraq.
Dr. Young’s concluding remarks centered on how choices can influence the relationships between the president and Congress. The difficulty in strategically picking the right mix of choices (too many, too few, or the right balance) to push forward is a great dilemma for any president when working with Congress. The delicate balance of knowing when to go with or against the grain of what Congress desires, or favoring a partisan verses bipartisan approach are the choices a president needs to make, which inevitably will have a direct impact on his ability to work with Congress. President Bush has made some interesting choices that traditionally have been championed by the Democrats, such as increased funding for AIDS and improving the Medicare and educational systems. These choices have upset some of his base supporters. His focus on tax cuts and faith-based programs have not surprisingly angered the usual critics on the left side of the socioeconomic spectrum.
Probably the most interesting piece of information that Dr. Young shared with us during his talk was the graph done by a well-respected pollster showing President Bush’s approval rating over the last three years. Before 9/11 his rating was approximately 50 percent. After 9/11, his approval rating skyrocketed to over 90 percent. As time went by and with some mild increases in approval during the war with Iraq, and the capture of Saddam Hussein, President Bush’s job approval rating, approximately nine months before the presidential election, has settled back to 50 percent. In essence not much has changed since George W. Bush was elected as our 43rd President. Even with a strong stock market, increasing jobs, low unemployment figures, and high approval ratings on his handling of the terrorist threat, approximately half of the Nation’s voters don’t want to see this President continue on for another four years in the White House.
Amy Walter
Elections Analyst
Cook Political Report, CNN’s “Inside Politics”, and CBS’s “Face the Nation”
(March 24, 2004)Topic: The 108th Congress in the Shadow of the 2004 Elections
Ms. Amy Walter is the U.S. House Editor of the Cook Political Report, a non-partisan publication that provides analysis of presidential, U.S. Senate, House, and gubernatorial races for its subscribers. She also serves as an election expert for CNN’s “Inside Politics” and CBS’s “Face the Nation.”
Ms. Walter opened her talk by pointing out that a competitive presidential race in 2004 is almost inevitable, given the fact that our two major political parties are virtually evenly divided and voters are more polarized along partisan lines than any time in memory. The extraordinary degree of polarization is evident by a Gallup poll showing that President Bush enjoyed the third highest job approval rating of any modern president among members of his own party one year before the election. But the same poll showed he had the worst job approval rating among members of the other party. This high level of support among Republicans and the strong opposition to him among Democrats creates a level of polarization that leaves only a small portion of voters undecided for the November election.
The 2004 Presidential election battlefield for Bush, Ms. Walter continued, comes down to a handful of states. President Bush most likely has the electoral votes of 23 states with 200 votes. With some 16 states in question (Maine, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Washington, Florida, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oregon, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Wisconsin) having 170 votes, the President will need to secure at least 70 additional electoral votes to win the election. This would be no easy task but it can be done.
Ms. Walter concluded by noting that the bottom line for the 2004 Presidential election is that if the situation in Iraq improves and the economy picks up, then the Democrats could nominate the reincarnation of Franklin D. Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy and still lose the election. But if one or both of these factors get appreciably worse, then President Bush’s re-election will be anything but a foregone conclusion, and will likely be just as close as the previous presidential election.
Wendy H. Schacht
Specialist in Science and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service
Len Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service
(March 25, 2004)Topic: Overview of the Congressional Research Service
Ms. Wendy Schacht and Mr. Len Kruger, specialists in science and technology with the Congressional Research Service (CRS), gave an overview of their organization. CRS is a Legislative Branch agency whose mission is to do nonpartisan, objective public policy research for Congress. It is located within the Library of Congress, but independent of it.
With 750 employees, CRS handles about one million congressional requests a year. In addition to writing research papers, staff specialists conduct a number of briefings and help develop legislation. CRS also does anticipatory work. “The goal is to have a report on a question before it’s even asked,” said Ms. Schacht.
CRS products include both short reports and long papers on public policy issues. The staff also does issue briefs on legislation, which are updated monthly. These products are intended for congressional use only. They are considered confidential and the material is not copyrighted. Constituents can ask for copies of reports through a Member of Congress. There is also a website available to congressional staff only. The e-mail is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
CRS does not do original research. Instead, it relies on research done by other agencies, such as the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), and universities. Unlike GAO, CRS does not take a stand on issues.
Ms. Schacht emphasized the balanced approach used in analyzing an issue. Both sides will be presented. There is an in-house, multi-leveled peer review process within CRS to make sure that a paper is balanced.
More information on CRS can be found at: www.loc.gov/crsinfo.
Mr. Floyd DesChamps
Senior Professional Staff Member (Majority)
Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
United States Senate
Ms. Jean Toal Eisen
Professional Staff Member (Minority)
Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
United States Senate
(March 25, 2004)Topic: Overview of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
The session was addressed by Mr. Floyd DesChamps, Senior Professional Staff Member (Majority) and by Ms. Jean Toal Eisen, Professional Staff Member (Minority) of the Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee. Ms. Eisen explained that, due to the high volume and complexity of its work, the U.S. Senate divides its tasks among various committees and subcommittees. Each committee adopts its own rules within chamber guidelines; thus, there is considerable variation among the committees. In addition, each committee has its own hearing rooms.
The Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation is one of the 16 standing committees of the U.S. Senate. The chairman is Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) and the Ranking Member is Senator Fritz Hollings (D-South Carolina). There are 23 committee members, including 12 majority and 11 minority members. The Committee’s jurisdiction includes the Coast Guard, highway safety, interstate commerce, marine and ocean navigation, marine fisheries, merchant marines and navigation, nonmilitary aeronautical and space sciences, oceans, weather, and atmospheric activities, regulations of consumer products and services, including testing related to toxic substances, sports, and transportation. It also studies and reviews, on a comprehensive basis, all maters related to science and technology, ocean policy, transportation, communications, and consumer affairs.
The Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space is one of the seven standing subcommittees of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. It is chaired by Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), with Senator John Breaux (D-Louisiana) as the Ranking Member. Membership on the Subcommittee is comprised of fifteen U.S. Senators, including eight Republicans and seven Democrats. The Subcommittee exercises broad control over a diverse array of federal agencies and key technologies including the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the U.S. Fire Administration. In addition, the Subcommittee has jurisdiction over technology matters critical to federal research and development funding, the Internet, earthquake research programs, encryption technology, and international science and technology.
Today, the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation and its standing Subcommittees derive their jurisdiction from the Standing Rules of the Senate. With a broad mandate for oversight of advanced technological issues, the Committee members have addressed a wide range of concerns. Recently, the Committee reported out the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, the Climate Change Research Bill, Nanotechnology Research and Development Bill, NASA’s Future of Space Mission, and Prescription Drug Importation. Mr. DesChamps commented that the work of the Committee members is critical to the future of technology in the United States and the Nation’s ability to excel in the global marketplace and to lead the world in technical innovation.
Ralph Nurnberger
Government Affairs Counselor
Preston, Gates, Ellis and Rouvelas
(March 25, 2004)Topic: The Work of the Lobbyist
Dr. Ralph Nurnberger, Government Affairs Counselor with the law firm of Preston, Gates, Ellis and Rouvelas, discussed the role played by lobbyists in the legislative process. Dr. Nurnberger previously was a vice president at the Washington office of Conkling, Fiskum and McCormick, a public relations firm. He also served as Director of Congressional Affairs for the Bureau of Export Administration at the U.S. Department of Commerce, and as Legislative Liaison for the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for over eight years. Dr. Nurnberger had congressional experience on the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was a foreign policy assistant to Senator James Pearson (R-Kansas). He also served as Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies here in Washington.
The origin of the term “lobbyist” is believed to date back to the early days of Washington, D.C., when reporters would wait in the lobby of the Hay-Adams Hotel to interview generals and politicians who were staying there. Dr. Nurnberger discussed the negative connotation that “lobbyist” currently carries and presented the view that lobbyists have a long tradition within our government. Many respected Americans have been lobbyists, including Benjamin Franklin. It was argued that lobbyists promote democracy by providing a means whereby individuals and groups can present their views to elected officials and government agencies in an organized, professional manner.
One of the keys to being an effective lobbyist is having a large number of personal contacts. These contacts are developed and maintained through a variety of means, including visiting congressional offices, dining with staffers and Members of Congress, and sharing recreational interests, such as golf or tennis. The importance of access is also reflected in the high percentage of lobbyists who are former congressional staffers. In addition to access, it is important to garner the respect of the staffers and Members of Congress by presenting information in an efficient and honest format. Indeed, effective lobbyists are often contacted by staffers to comment on issues relevant to the clients they represent.
Dr. Nurnberger also discussed the registration requirements for lobbyists. All lobbyists must register and there are distinct registration requirements for foreign versus domestic lobbyists. Overall, there are more than 30,000 registered lobbyists in the United States. Some lobbyists work full-time for a single cause, whereas others represent a variety of clients and divide their time among them. Depending upon the lobbying needs of the client and the preferred practices of the lobbyist, compensation is either hourly or on a retainer basis. However, compensation based on outcome, such as the passage of a particular piece of legislation, is illegal.
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. He has previously held positions at American University, including Academic Director of the Washington Semester Program, and has authored a book, United States Foreign Economic Policy Making: An Analysis of the Use of Food Resources.
Dr. Gold spoke to the ComSci Fellows about how Congress works and how the process of legislation has recently changed due to the current political climate. He noted that, for each bill introduced in Congress, there is a policy component, which is more in the national interest and a political component, which is often more parochial. If one is trying to represent one’s electorate, it is not always in the national interest, and therefore political interests become dominant. During the past ten years, the balance between national and electorate interests has been altered, with much more attention on the representative, or political, function of Congress.
Because of this shift, there have been definitive changes to the legislative and appropriations processes in Congress. Most markedly, there has been an explosion of earmarks, which are specific spending for a project in a Member’s District requested by the Member. An earmark is generally something that the agency or department has not requested in the President’s budget and is not initiated in the regular committee process. Usually, it is inserted at the end of the legislative process during the conference procedure.
Dr. Gold gave statistics on how earmarks have exploded during the appropriations process – from $5 billion in 1999 to $25 billion in 2003. For those who wish to obtain further information, he noted that Senator John McCain’s (R-Arizona) office sponsors a website, http://www.cagw.org (Citizens Against Government Waste), which elaborates on specific earmarks (or so-called pork-barrel spending). Dr. Gold did point out, however, that not all earmarks are bad, since some specific spending is needed to protect the interests of smaller districts.
In conclusion, the speaker noted that Executive Branch agencies have not really changed the way they deal with Congress in order to keep up with changes in the way Congress currently does business. Executive Branch agencies and congressional liaison offices need to constantly keep in touch with the legislative process to ensure proper communication of needs and not get short-changed. Although no advocacy is allowed, of course, the primary goal of continuing communication is education.
Susan Sullivan Lagon
Senior Fellow
The Government Affairs Institute
Georgetown University
(March 25, 2004)Topic: The Shape of the 108th Congress
Dr. Susan Sullivan Lagon provided an overview of the composition of the 108th Congress. She included a handout with statistical breakdown of political parties, their leadership, and member demographics, such as gender, ethnicity and age.
The main theme of the 108th Congress is the close margin of the majority controlled by the Republicans. In the House, Republicans hold a 228 to 205 advantage (1 independent), with 218 votes needed to pass a bill. In the Senate, Republicans hold a 51 to 48 advantage but lack the 60 vote majority needed to pass legislation. The effect is a reversal on what the Founding Fathers intended – a stable house dominated by the Republican Party’s strict partisanship to move legislation and a competitive Senate where nonpartisan cooperation is needed to manage policy.
Although the margin of control by the Republicans 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 slant supports the President and his agenda. The one exception is the latest concern over the budget deficit. Moving into an election year for both Congress and the President, the House and the Senate Members are looking to limit negative press. The growth of the deficit could give an edge to an incumbent’s opponent on the campaign trail.
Dr. Sullivan Lagon discussed with the ComSci Fellows some of the aspects of particular bills and issues being considered in Congress, such as the highway bill, welfare reform, the Headstart Program, the corporate tax bill, and the 2005 federal budget. She also gave the group her opinions on what topics Democrats and Republicans should focus on during the upcoming 2004 election.
David Pomerantz
Professional Staff Member (Minority)
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. House of Representatives
(May 26, 2004)Topic: Overview of the House Committee on Appropriations
Dr. David Pomerantz has worked on Capitol Hill for about 20 years, coming first as a congressional fellow after teaching at the State University of New York, Stonybrook. Since that time, his experience has included positions in the personal offices of Members of Congress, on the House Rules Committee, where he served as the Deputy Staff Director, and finally on the House Appropriations Committee. He currently serves as a professional staff member on the Commerce, Justice and State Subcommittee.
Dr. Pomerantz’ presentation consisted of a number of facts about the Appropriations Committee and the operations of the House as a whole. He pointed out that the “power of the purse” dominates the Legislative Branch and all its actions. For example, Cabinet Secretaries have to state their case for funding and answer questions at the annual appropriations hearings.
The House is bigger than the Senate and is more oriented towards majority. If a majority (218 votes) is obtained, you win your case. The House was the first parliamentary body to have a “germaneness” rule – all amendments must be germane to the original bill. This was based on their interest in being “of the people.”
The House works in two ways. Items are debated in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. This is a carryover from the British Parliament. Members on the floor can only address the Speaker or the Chair of the Committee of the Whole. When Members speak, they are allowed to do so for one hour – the Hour Rule. They often yield half of that time to the other side – for “purposes of debate only.” When the hour has passed, the Speaker says “Ordering the previous question,” which puts it to vote. If the previous question is defeated, then it goes up for another hour of debate. This happens rarely. Once voted on and passed, it goes to the Committee of the Whole, where a Member can only be recognized for five minutes. In addition, only those who offer the initial amendment can add amendments. Consequently, Members will often say something like “I move to strike the last word” – thereby giving that Member the opportunity to amend.
The Authorizing Committees versus Appropriating Committees are a result of the 1970s Budget Act. Once an allocation is made to the Appropriations Committee, they have to decide how to slice it up. The Committee often looks to the President’s priorities as a place to start. Once appropriations work goes to the House floor, it’s very hard to undo it.
Timothy D. Brown
Assistant Counsel
Office of the Legislative Counsel
U.S. House of Representatives
(March 26, 2004)Topic: Overview of the Office of the Legislative Counsel
Mr. Timothy Brown is the Assistant Counsel in the Office of the Legislative Counsel. He spoke to the ComSci Fellows about the functions of this office, which is non-partisan. Mr. Brown explained that his office is responsible for drafting legislation and assisting in the development of policy. The Counsel staff takes ideas from the House staff or Members of Congress and then develops the ideas into legislation that is as clear as possible, so that the laws and resulting policy are clear. The Counsel staff is involved in every step of the legislative process – the preparation of the initial draft bill, its introduction on the floor, and the markup in various subcommittees. If a bill is considered on the floor and an amendment is proposed, the responsible Counsel staff member could be asked to draft the amendment on the spot.
Mr. Brown informed the group that the office is an optional service and that House members use the services much more frequently than Senate members. He also mentioned that he usually works with the staff and not the Members of Congress themselves. His particular jurisdiction is the House Science Committee.
The attorney-client privilege does apply to the services of the office and all communications are treated as confidential. This is especially important as the office is non-partisan and staff members can be asked to work on both sides of an issue (sometimes simultaneously).
The group was told that the office consists of 35 attorneys and 15 support staff, with most of the attorneys recently out of law school. Since the office trains its own staff, the most important qualifications required are good writing and communication skills.
Rhett Skiles
Legislative Assistant for Science and Technology
Office of the Honorable Steve Pearce
U.S. House of Representatives
(March 26, 2004)Topic: Science Agenda of Congressman Steve Pearce
Mr. Rhett Skiles, the Legislative Assistant for Science and Technology for the Honorable Steve Pearce (R-New Mexico), discussed some of Congressman’s concerns for New Mexico’s economy, which is heavily dependent on the science and technology fields. Mr. Skiles also highlighted water resource and education issues in New Mexico.
Mr. Skiles began his discussion by citing New Mexico as an “anomaly.” The state ranks fifth in research and development investment and first in the number of scientists and engineers with PhDs, yet forty-seventh in income per capita and fiftieth in education. The glaring question is why? Congressman Pearce has been focusing on why the resources do not equate to education and income, and is implementing policies to correct this economic discontinuity. Part of the policy is to focus on economic development while balancing that development while maintaining the beautiful natural resources in New Mexico. This focus involves the development of New Mexico State University’s Arrowhead Research Park. The Park contains space for small technology-based start-up companies. The aim is to use the Park to maximize innovation by getting research, including university research, to product quickly.
Later, Mr. Skiles discussed education initiatives in New Mexico. Congressman Pearce is focused on keeping employees in the local community and is working with local business owners to create an “incumbent training program” that will allow current workers to gain new skills and move up in the same company. He also discussed briefly with the ComSci Fellows on aspects of the “No Child Left Behind” Act and its effects on education in New Mexico.
Finally, Mr. Skiles discussed one of New Mexico’s major issues – water. New Mexico’s lack vast water resources and imports a large amount of its water. The State is often concerned with losing water to larger, more powerful states. Congressmen Pearce is considering many options to increase New Mexico’s water including the removal of non-native Russian olive trees which absorb high amounts of water along river beds and reducing the number of trees per acre to levels which are more in line with historic numbers. Of course, these policies are controversial and Congressman Pearce’s office must communicate effectively with its constituents to show that sound scientific rationale supports these policies.
The ComSci Fellows promised to consider these issues as they toured New Mexico during their field trip in May. It was also agreed that the ComSci Fellows would contact Mr. Skiles with any relevant information learned during the field trip that might help Mr. Skiles and Congressman Pearce implement policies that will help them reach their goals in New Mexico.
Andrew Wheeler
Staff Director (Majority)
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate
(March 26, 2004)Topic: Overview and Major Issues of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works
Mr. Andrew Wheeler is Staff Director for the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. During his ten years in the Senate, Mr. Wheeler has held a number of positions under the tutelage of Senator James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma), current Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee. Prior to his assignment in the Senate, Mr. Wheeler served as Special Assistant in the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics at the Environmental Protection Agency. He earned a degree in law from Washington University in St. Louis and an MBA from George Mason University.
The Senate Committee on Environment and Public works was created in 1837 as the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds to provide oversight of federal buildings in Washington, D.C. During two subsequent committee reorganizations in 1947 and 1977, the Committee was renamed the Committee on Environment and Public Works and assumed new responsibilities. Today the Committee’s public works jurisdiction includes not only federal buildings, but also the Nation’s interstate highway system, flood control and navigation projects. In the 1960s and 1970s, new environmental laws were passed to protect air, land and water resources, further expanding the responsibilities of the Committee. Current oversight functions in the environmental arena include air and water pollution control, rural and community economic development, relief from natural disasters, endangered species, fish and wildlife programs, national wildlife refuges and the regulation of nonmilitary nuclear power.
Mr. Wheeler described the Committee’s internal organization and management, as well as significant bills that have come before it. He highlighted significant Committee processes, such as selection of the Committee Chair by secret ballot and apportionment of the Committee’s budget between the majority and minority parties. He also discussed broader issues impacting the quality and efficiency of the Senate, such as tenure and benefits for Senate staffers, effects of seniority on the committee structure and apportionment of operating budgets for individual Senators. Mr. Wheeler concluded with a review of the current status of the Highway Bill and a step-by-step description of the legislative history of the Energy Bill that failed to pass in the last Congress.
James J. Hearn
Senior Government Finance/Management Analyst
(Majority)
Committee on the Budget
United States Senate
(March 26, 2004)Topic: Overview and Major Issues of the Senate Committee on the Budget
The Senate Committee on the Budget was created by the 1974 Budget Act to review the Executive Branch budget requests. Mr. James Hearn provided an overview of the budget process and his Committee’s actions related to the 2005 budget.
The process starts in February of each year with the release of the President’s budget. The Congressional Budget Office first provides a conservative assessment of the impact of the President’s budget. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees then add their own research and generate 13 bills for discretionary funding. The House and Senate will go to conference on the issue and enact some compromise, giving authorization for spending to the Executive Branch.
Mr. Hearn announced the Senate had passed the budget for FY 2005 and provided a summary book to the ComSci Fellows. The Senate bill, as usual, doesn’t agree with the House bill and therefore, issues need to be resolved with the conference procedure. One of the big issues in the FY 2005 budget is how the pay-as-you-go, or PAYGO, rules are interpreted by the House and Senate. PAYGO rules were intended to prevent Congress from cutting taxes unless they cut spending by an equivalent amount. In the Senate’s proposed bill, increases in spending or decreases in taxes have to be balanced during deficit years by a decrease in spending or increase in taxes in other areas. The House has interpreted the rule to apply only to new entitlement spending, not new tax cuts, reflecting the belief that tax cuts don’t increase the budget deficit.
The Senate Budget Bulletin can be found at: http://www.senate.gov/~budget/republican.
Ms. Judith Schneider
Specialist in American National Government
Congressional Research Service
Library of CongressTopic: Introduction to Congress and an Overview of the Legislative Process
We started our Capitol Hill week with a power packed introduction to Congress from Ms. Judith Schneider. She gave us a distilled version of a much longer course that she normally gives to new Members of Congress. She described the legislative process, congressional organization, the committee system, floor procedures, the seniority system, the rule of 218 in the House, and the role of congressional hearings, among other things. She explained the forces that drive Congress, the three Ps -- policy, politics, and procedures -- plus one more P, patience. Even if the policy is good, the politics can be satisfied, and the procedures can be hurdled, it takes time to get all three Ps aligned at the same time, so patience is important. One of the important tasks of the Congress is to avoid passing bad laws. This is one of the main reasons so few of the bills introduced each session become law. Ms. Schneider's presentation was fast and furious and we really had to think fast to keep up with her. It was interesting that we saw everything she said about Congress confirmed at some point during the rest of the week.
James P. Beirne
Chief Counsel (Majority)
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. SenateTopic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Since its creation, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources and its predecessors has considered, reported, and overseen legislative activity in energy resources and development (including regulation, conservation, strategic petroleum reserves and appliance standards); nuclear energy; Indian affairs; public lands and their renewable resources; surface mining, federal coal, oil, and gas, other mineral leasing; territories and insular possessions; and water resources. The major issues facing the Committee in the 108th Congress are energy policy, climate change, and water resources. The current and former Committee chairs favor nuclear energy; however, this is not a politically popular position.
The Committee believes itself to be one of the most nonpartisan in the Senate, according to staffers Mr. James Beirne, Mr. Bryan Hannegan, Mr. Peter Lyons and Mr. Eric Webb. Because the issues affect regional more than partisan interests, the panel has traditionally approached its work in a consensus-building mode. Most policy considerations occur among members prior to public discussion of an issue, so that by the time the panel reports a measure, controversy has been abated and the vote is as close to unanimous as possible. Much of this consensus approach has been attributed to the narrow margin afforded the majority party on the Committee.
The Energy and Natural Resources panel is generally a constituent-oriented committee. The panel’s priorities closely match the state agendas of its senators and it has kept a Western emphasis in its composition. However, world events and the 1977 restructuring of committee jurisdiction have affected the geographic composition of the panel in the last decade.
A few senators from energy-poor states have been attracted to the panel to protect their state's interests in the face of energy shortages and rising energy prices. The addition of domestic nuclear energy production, coal, and other energy matters to the Committee's jurisdiction also has attracted new members seeking to serve the interests of their states. Finally, energy issues have enticed senators with personal policy interests in energy. Yet, for the most part, jurisdictional changes have served to reinforce the Committee's constituency orientation.
Philip Webre
Senior Analyst
Microeconomic and Financial Studies Division
Congressional Budget Office (CBO)Topic: CBO and Congress
Dr. Philip Webre of the Congressional Budget Office’s Microeconomic and Financial Studies Division briefed us on the congressional budget process. CBO is a nonpartisan institution led by a director who serves at the pleasure of Congress. CBO is a pricing agency, not an auditing agency like the General Accounting Office (which is five to six times larger). Surprisingly, the formal estimation of costs and budget impacts for Congress did not exist prior to 1975.
Dr. Webre outlined the main activities performed by CBO for Congress, which include helping develop a budget plan, helping Congress stay within the plan, and adhering to federal mandates. Helping Congress stay within the budget plan means costing every bill in terms of projected future revenue to the treasury. Dr. Webre reviewed the ongoing legislative budget process throughout the calendar year, as well as the difference between discretionary and mandatory spending, the former being subject to an annual appropriations process.
To keep an accurate accounting of federal spending, CBO produces a variety of economic forecasts and projections, forecasts being straight-line extrapolations from current conditions, and projections being more complex analyses that factor in one-time events. Budget plans depend on factoring in current economic conditions, such as unemployment, as they pertain to discretionary and mandatory spending. Additional factors such as the impact of the "Baby Boom" retirement on future federal budgets are also considered in microsimulation models. Forecasted deficits in budget are calculated as if no actions would be taken. Sequestration occurs if outlays do not equal appropriations.
CBO was recently tasked with helping Congress assess the economic impact of unfunded federal mandates. It assesses the budget impact of all mandates, with the exception of civil rights, national defense, and appropriations bills. Finally, CBO assists Congress in considering larger issues of budget and economic policy. It conducts long-term studies on budget analyses, economic and fiscal policy, federal taxes, health and human resources, national security (such as the cost of war in Iraq), and microeconomic and financial studies.
David Pomerantz
Professional Staff Member (Minority)
Committee on Appropriations
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: Overview of the House Committee on Appropriations
Dr. David Pomerantz provided an overview of the House Appropriations Committee. He began with the three steps in the appropriations or budget process -- budget resolution, authorization bills, and appropriations bills. Trade-offs must be made between all three in order to move through the process. Dr. Pomerantz maintained that these three elements are generally uneven as matters of consequence. He added that the tax cut is currently driving other decisions in the appropriations process. Dr. Pomerantz suggested that the best case would include a reasonable spending plan, a tax cut, and a deficit that taxpayers could accept.
Dr. Pomerantz described how the House Appropriations Committee empowers the subcommittee to work on each separate bill. He also discussed the assignment of members to subcommittees by each party. Historically, the Republican Chairman has made all the assignments to subcommittees. Currently, there is more leadership involvement. Democratic members bid on subcommittee service. The Democrats vote only on the ranking members.
The life of the appropriation bill begins when the Chairman puts together the mark or draft in bill form. It is then sent to the subcommittee members for full and open subcommittee markup and debate. The subcommittee product is then presented to the full committee for review and debate. The full committee introduces the finalized bill on the floor for vote.
Dr. Pomerantz was clear about the politics associated with appropriation bills. He maintains that the passing of appropriations bills is politically motivated. There are methods and unwritten rules for moving bills through Congress. "Passable" or less controversial/complicated bills are often ushered through at the beginning of a session while tougher bills might get through at the end, especially with the anticipation of adjournment and a little arm-twisting.
Stephanie Blanton
Professional Staff Member (Majority)
Committee on Rules
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: Overview and Major Issues of the House Committee on Rules
The Committee on Rules has been a part of the congressional process since the late 1700s. In 1789, it was created as a select committee, but in 1880 it became a standing committee. Throughout its existence, many things have changed regarding the structure and membership of this Committee. In 1858, the Speaker of the House was automatically a member of this Committee, but this changed in 1910. Today, the Committee consists of 13 members. This Committee handles bills and amendments on topics such as the armed services, intelligence and agriculture. The Committee on Rules is a very prestigious and powerful assignment. As a member of this Committee, one can belong to other congressional committees, but the Rules Committee must always be the top priority.
Ms. Stephanie Blanton provided a brief synopsis of the Committee’s work. Various strategies come into play when the Committee on Rules holds a session. Voice votes, debates, attendance, roll calls, and special orders all impact how fast a bill moves through the House, and its ultimate chances of success. At the beginning of each Congress new rules are created. These rules can range from scoring the budget impact of new legislation to the personal conduct of members. The Committee on Rules hears from members only; no lobbyists are allowed to address this Committee. What is heard one day during a meeting of the Committee on Rules, you are most likely to find brought to the House floor the next day.
One of the most important powers of the House Rules Committee is the ability to control how amendments to bills are considered, since the minority party’s view is generally proposed by amendments. Various rules exist that govern offering amendments including the open, structured, and closed rules. Most amendments are introduced under the open rule, whereby any member can offer an amendment. Under the structured rule, the Committee can dictate what amendments can be offered on the floor. Structured rule restrictions can be used to place time limits for presenting an amendment as well as the number of amendments that can be presented in that session. Typically a session is limited to three to five amendments. Under the closed rule, there actually are no rules, and the amendment is debated freely on the floor.
The Speaker of the House appoints the chair and committee members of the Committee on Rules. Rules are created and utilized to govern points of order -- the parliamentary reasons for objecting to an action by the House. The numbers typically fall in favor of the Chairman and Majority party, nine members to four. Therefore, the Majority always wins. The successful bills are generally supported or introduced by the chair of the committee with the ranking member of the minority in opposition of some content -- if not the entire bill. The Committee on Rules is the best example of why it is better to be a part of the majority party.
Mariia V. Zimmerman
Chief of Staff
Office of Representative Earl Blumenauer
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: Livable Communities
Ms. Mariia Zimmerman has been overseeing work on an initiative called Livable Communities, with a combined focus on making families safe, healthy, and economically secure through more enlightened urban and metropolitan planning and a focus on increasing the options for mass transit and multi-purpose zoning.
With an emphasis on public transit, including light rail and streetcars, and densely settled communities, Livable Communities seeks to make the Federal Government a better example to the country through better sitting regulations for the General Services Administration and the U.S. Postal Service, and opposition to the Defense Department’s actions to override environmental laws on military bases.
Foreseen demographic changes in the American population -- aging and smaller households -- make "Smart Growth"-type planning work necessary and cost-effective. Increasingly people prefer to be closer to amenities, with multi-model transportation options in additional to single occupant vehicles.
While this issue appears to be less visible at the federal level in the current Administration, it remains a bipartisan one with support in many states with Republican governors, notably Governor Jeb Bush in Florida, through his endorsement of growth control. One consequence of September 11th has been an increased need for community wide communication and disaster preparedness. This often involves working across both congressional committee and political jurisdictions.
William K. Suter
Clerk
U.S. Supreme CourtTopic: Overview of the U.S. Supreme Court
Mr. William Suter, a retired Army Judge Advocate General, has served as Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court for the past 12 years. His office fields inquiries from the public, works with lawyers who will conduct business at the Court, and receives the 8,000 petitions submitted to the Court on an annual basis -- making him ideally suited to brief us on the Court.
Created in 1789, the U.S. Supreme Court is the final arbiter of the law, charged with interpreting law and legislation in the context of the U.S. Constitution -- though the Court’s role in passing on the constitutionality of legislation was not nailed down until 1803 in Marbury v. Madison. Nine justices are appointed to the Court for a life term (on good behavior). They meet each Friday to discuss petitions submitted to the Court, currently about 150 cases per month. The "Rule of Four," or a positive vote by four of the nine justices, determines whether a case will be granted "certiorari," or heard by the Court. Only about ten percent of appeals are heard, falling into two main categories. The more complex cases involve important federal questions that will set legal precedent. Examples of such recent questions include whether a state can prohibit physician-assisted suicide (yes), whether a state can prohibit partial birth abortion (no), whether the President can use a line item veto (no), and whether a state can set term limits on service in the Senate or House of Representatives (no). More straightforward are the "circuit splits," which resolve different interpretations of the same law in different parts of the country. The Court also rules on disputes between states or between a state and the Federal Government.
Quite apart from its central role in U.S. Government, the Supreme Court is worth a visit for the building, which was constructed in the 1930s. The work of architect Cass Gilbert, the building is a masterpiece of classic Corinthian design with interesting features. One of the most unusual is the architect’s interior/exterior rule. For reasons unclear, the central court chamber is constructed of imported materials (mahogany, Italian and Spanish marble) and the external chambers and building are of domestic materials (American oak, Georgia and Vermont marble). The construction project came in well under budget, something the Court guides still take pride in.
During our visit to the actual Supreme Court Chamber, the docent explained that the Court meets October through April and hears oral arguments two consecutive weeks out of the month, on Mondays through Wednesdays, for about four hours a day. This translates to hearing arguments "for a half day and half a week, for half the month, and during half the year."
Frank C. Record
Senior Professional Staff Member (Majority)
Committee on International Relations
U.S. House of Representatives
Daniel M. Freeman
Counsel/Parliamentarian
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the House Committee on International Relations
Our discussion with Mr. Frank Record and Mr. Daniel Freeman was unformatted and wide-ranging. We learned about the broad jurisdiction of this Committee, which includes, inter alia: (1) relations of the United States with foreign nations generally; (2) export controls, including nonproliferation of nuclear technology and nuclear hardware; (3) intervention abroad and declarations of war; (4) protection of American citizens abroad and expatriation; and (5) United Nations organizations. On the last item, Mr. Record remarked that he had just returned from Paris where he and others from the Committee conducted a site visit of the UNESCO offices. The Committee would be asking the General Accounting Office to do an assessment and review of UNESCO as part of the process for the United States rejoining UNESCO.
The Committee was currently focused on the war effort in Iraq. Mr. Record and Mr. Freeman were busy reviewing the text of the supplemental budget request to pay for the war. Other highlighted issues of concern for the Committee included HIV/AIDS authorization, water rights in the Middle East, and international terrorism (as part of Homeland Security).
Another issue, which was discussed at length, was the Millennium Challenge Account. In February 2003, President Bush submitted his plan to Congress for the United States to increase its core assistance to developing countries by 50 percent over the next three years, resulting in a $5 billion annual increase over current levels by FY 2006. This increased assistance will go to the new Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) that funds initiatives to improve the economies and standards of living in qualified developing countries. The goal of the MCA is to reward sound policy decisions that support economic growth and reduce poverty. The MCA complements rather than replaces existing development assistance programs.
Donald R. Wolfensberger
Director, Congress Project
Woodrow Wilson International Center for ScholarsTopic: Congressional Reform
Mr. Donald Wolfensberger, Director of the newly established Congress Project at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, spent 28 years on the House Rules Committee. He explained to us how the House of Representatives and the Rules Committee have evolved since the inception of Congress.
The evolution of the House during the Republic Period parallels changes in the Senate, and the history of the powerful Rules Committee is a textbook example of how the new Congress gradually organized itself both to protect power bases and (probably just as importantly) get things done. The Rules Committee’s procedures paralleled the British Parliament, which inspired it. In 1818, Speaker Clay established the House Speaker's responsibilities and his overall role in policy setting. The Speaker also functioned as the chair of the Rules Committee. By 1899, several committees were split and new committees were formed including Ways and Means, Finance, and Appropriation Committees.
In 1889, Speaker Tom Reed (minority) from Maine adopted the Reed rules to permit majority rule in the House and railed against the minority who used delay tactics and a disappearing quorum strategy to obstruct the will of the majority. In 1903-1910, Speaker Joe Cannon, called "Czar Speaker," took power to the next level and removed members who did not agree with him. In 1909, the Speaker was thrown off the Rules Committee. In 1910, the Democratic majority replaced Cannon with Nicholas Longworth, called "King" for his policy of sharing power through caucuses. In 1961, Kennedy and Rayburn introduced a bill to enlarge the Rules Committee from 12 to 15 members, a bill that passed by a narrow margin. In 1970-1975, caucus established procedures for election of the chairman. In 1999, the House Rules Committee was codified and, in 2003, the rule on four-term limit on the speaker was repealed.
Mr. Wolfensberger went on to comment on the challenges faced by the Homeland Security Agency. A 50-member select committee, created in the House in 2003, was intended to be comprised of the chair and ranking member of each House committee with jurisdiction over some part of the new Homeland Security Department but, due to its high profile and wide jurisdiction, the Select Committee grew from the proposed 25 to the current roster of 50 members. Subcommittees on homeland security were also created in the House and in the Senate Appropriations Committees. A congressional reform to streamline the homeland security related committees failed because of turf battles. A proposal to establish a permanent Homeland Security Committee is planned for the 109th Congress.
Mr. Floyd DesChamps
Senior Professional Staff Member (Majority)
Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space
Committee on commerce, Science and Transportation
United States Senate
Ms. Jean Toal Eisen
Professional Staff Member (Minority)
Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
United States SenateTopic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) chairs the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. The Committee's Ranking Member is Senator Ernest "Fritz" Hollings (D-South Carolina). Given two such strong personalities, it’s little wonder that the joint message of majority and minority staffers, Mr. Floyd DesChamps and Ms. Jean Toal Eisen, is the importance of cooperation to getting anything done.
Mr. DesChamps observed that the power individual senators have to obstruct legislation mandates a bipartisan approach to science issues. Fortunately, he said, Senators McCain and Hollings generally agree on science research and development (R&D). Ms. Eisen, who is Mr. DesChamps minority counterpart, echoed his outlook.
The Committee has a broad jurisdiction, encompassing the National Science Foundation, science agencies of 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 R&D, earthquakes, weather, and nanotechnology. It includes "all matters relating to science and technology, oceans policy, transportation, communications, and consumer affairs," and includes such missions as the Coast Guard, highway safety, marine fisheries, inter-oceanic canals, interstate common carriers, and sports.
Science and technology tend to cross a lot of committee and agency boundaries, complicating the issues, Mr. DesChamps and Ms. Eisen said. And between the Senate and the House, there is a great difference in Committee resources. Ms. Eisen said, "The Senate has five people with full-time responsibilities for science, technology and space. In the House there are maybe 30 people for the majority alone." "And unfortunately," she said, "We don’t have any 'back-burner' issues."
The importance that Mr. DesChamps and Ms. Eisen place on cooperation is reflected in their work schedules. Because they need to consult regularly on work before the Committee, they said they try to work the same hours if possible, and try to take each other’s personal schedules into consideration. Trust, says Mr. DesChamps, is essential to the relationship -- "Your word must be absolute."
Timothy D. Brown
Assistant Counsel
Office of the Legislative Counsel
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: Overview of the House Office of the Legislative Counsel
This office of 35 attorneys assists the entire House in shaping and writing proposed legislation. The Office is nonpartisan, serving members in both parties and representing all sides of an issue. Communications with members and their staffs are protected by attorney-client privilege.
When staff members bring ideas or drafts to Legislative Counsel, they think they know what they want; but it is the attorney's job to make sure what the member wants is clearly expressed in the bill language, so it will be interpreted the same way by the Executive and Judicial Branches and by
people affected by the legislation. The attorneys must be familiar with language that has special meaning in the courts, such as science terminology. Mr. Brown noted that, occasionally, members leave the language deliberately ambiguous or want specific language that has been agreed to by others.At each stage, Legislative Counsel helps revise bills and fix problems. By law, the Office must prioritize its work based on the status of the legislation: (1) in conference, (2) on the floor, (3) in full committee, (4) in subcommittee, and (5) being introduced. The advent of computers and e-mail has raised expectations that bills can be turned around quickly on short deadlines and retain high quality.
Though only a small number of introduced bills actually pass, many provisions end up in other legislation in another form, so Legislative Counsel gives each bill equal attention.
Honorable Michael Michaud
U.S. House of Representatives
(D-Maine)
Topic: Issues Facing the State of Maine
The Honorable Michael Michaud, member of the U.S. House of Representatives from the Second District of Maine, spoke to us about his experience and political priorities. Before entering politics 22 years ago, Congressman Michaud was a mill worker at the Great Northern Paper Mill. In our meeting with him, Congressman Michaud highlighted issues of economic development, environmental protection, and prescription coverage that he championed in Maine and plans to keep addressing as a freshman congressman.
Congressman Michaud describes himself as a strong advocate for economic development and protection of natural resources. He is the former chair of the State Appropriations Committee in Maine and was involved in enhancing funding for science and technology development, including the Jackson Laboratory. While in Maine, he succeeded in passing legislation to establish environmental standards that helped clean up waterways such as the Penobscot River. In our meeting, he also described his concerns with the NAFTA treaty and the impact that this trade regulation has had in Maine -- over 23,000 jobs have been lost to cheaper labor in Canada.As State Senator, Congressman Michaud was the co-sponsor of legislation establishing the Maine Rx Program. This was the first state program to reduce the cost of prescription drugs for all state residents. He discussed similar legislation that he is sponsoring with other Members of Congress (America Rx). Congressman Michaud is serving his first term in Congress. He is a member of the Small Business Subcommittee, Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. Congressman Michaud was obviously excited by our trip to visit Maine’s science and technology infrastructure.
Christine Flanagan
Manager, Public Programs
U.S. Botanic GardenTopic: The U.S. Botanic Garden
It was a dark and stormy afternoon when we arrived at the U.S. Botanic Garden and we literally got in out of the pouring rain. Dr. Christine Flanagan took us on a tour of this marvelous facility. She gave us an overview of the history and special programs of the U.S. Botanic Garden. The Botanic Garden is a living plant museum that interprets the role of plants in supporting the Earth’s ecosystems and in enriching human life.
The U.S. Botanic Garden traces its beginning to 1816, when the constitution of the Columbian Institute for the Promotion of Arts and Sciences in Washington, D.C., proposed the creation of a botanic garden. The purpose of this botanic garden was to collect, grow, and distribute plants from this and other countries that might contribute to the welfare of the American People. Congress established the Institute’s garden as the official U.S. Botanic Garden in 1820 on the west side of the Capitol Grounds. This facility functioned until 1837. In 1842, the idea of a national botanical garden was re-established when the Wilkes Expedition to the South Seas brought to Washington, D.C. a collection of living plants from around the world. These were placed in a greenhouse behind the Old Patent Office Building and were later moved to the site previously occupied by the Columbian Institute’s garden. Some of the plants from the original collection are still in the garden. The U.S. Botanic Garden moved to its present location in 1933, and the Architect of the Capitol has served as its Acting Director since 1934. Under the direction of the Joint Committee on the Library, which by law is charged with control over the Garden, the Architect is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the Garden and for any construction, changes, or improvements.
The four primary parts of the U.S. Botanic Garden are the Conservatory, Bartholdi Park, The National Garden, and the Production Facility. The last is probably the only plant production facility in the country built by a transit facility, part of a land swap deal with the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s Metrorail System (Metro). The U.S. Botanic Garden maintains about 26,000 plants with about 4,000 on display in the Conservatory at any one time. The Conservatory opened in 1933 as an historic landmark in the Nation’s Capital, presenting four annual flower shows and displays of exotic plants. Bartholdi Park, named for the sculptor of its historic fountain, is a garden demonstration landscape, showcasing gardens suitable for an urban or suburban home site. The National Garden (started in 2001) is located on three acres west of the Conservatory. Finally, the Production Facility is the largest greenhouse complex supporting a public garden in the United States. Completed in 1994, it includes 85,000 square feet under glass divided into 34 greenhouse bays and 16 environmental zones.
Dr. Flanagan showed the Conservatory’s permanent collection of plants from subtropical, tropical, and arid regions. The facility had been closed for several years during the renovation and was reopened on December 1, 2001 just in time to serve as a temporary space for congressional offices during the 2002 anthrax affair. She described the recent and long overdue top to bottom renovation of the Conservatory and some of the heroic acts of gardening that were involved. The facility is now fully climate controlled by computers and sensors. The Conservatory is a truly wonderful space, and it is one of the gems on the Mall.
Honorable Christopher Van Hollen, Jr.
U.S. House of Representatives
(D-Maryland)Topic: Perspective of Congress from a New Congressman
We had the opportunity to meet very briefly with first-term Congressman Chris Van Hollen -- and just enough time for a photograph with him. Congressman Van Hollen represents the 8th District of Maryland and serves on the House Committee for Education and the Workforce, and the House Committee on Government Reform.
Angela Ewell-Madison
Director
Office of Congressional Affairs
Technology Administration
U.S. Department of CommerceTopic: Executive Branch Perspective of Working with Congress
Ms. Angela Ewell-Madison provided an overview on how the Department of Commerce works with Congress on legislative issues. Ms. Ewell-Madison’s office provides executive leadership, direction and coordination of all communications and relationships, both legislative and non-legislative, between the Technology Administration and the U.S. Congress. She conducts research on legislation that both directly and indirectly impacts the Technology Administration. Ms. Ewell-Madison stressed the importance of anticipating controversial issues and having good relations with Members of Congress and their staff. Often her office can provide early input to prevent legislation that the Department does not support or has goals that would be difficult to meet. Ms. Ewell-Madison’s presentation reinforced and further explained all the other topics presented during our Capitol Hill week, as viewed from the perspective of one Department within the Executive Branch.
Gloria L. Jarmon
Managing Director
Congressional Relations
United States General Accounting Office (GAO)
Jerry C. Skelly
Assistant Director
Congressional Relations
United States General Accounting Office (GAO)Topic: Overview of GAO, and Relationship and Interaction Between GAO and Congress
In 1921, under the Budget and Accounting Act, Congress created GAO as an independent, nonpartisan audit organization that would review the activities of the Executive Branch. It is specifically charged to investigate all matters related to the receipt, disbursement, and application of federal funds, as well as make recommendations to improve programs and provide greater efficiency of public funds, and issue legal opinions involving government revenues and expenditures.
GAO has 3,200 employees located at headquarters and 11 field offices. Two-thirds of the staff are in Washington D.C. Mr. David Walker, the 7th Comptroller General of the United States, heads the GAO and is one of only two political positions at GAO (the other being the Deputy Comptroller General). The Comptroller General serves a single 15-year term and can only be removed from office by impeachment or by a joint resolution of Congress. A congressional commission identifies candidates and the President selects a nominee that must be confirmed by the Senate.
The majority of GAO’s work (nearly three-quarters) comes from direct congressional requests. An additional 15 percent is work conducted under continual congressional mandates. GAO also has the legal authority to conduct research and development work on its own initiative. Self-initiating studies enable GAO to take a long-term view of potential emerging issues. Work is prioritized in three levels: (1) for congressional mandates, requests from senior leaders and Chairs and Ranking Minority Members of committees and subcommittees; (2) for requests from a member who is on a committee with jurisdiction of an issue; and (3) for requests from a member who is not on a committee with jurisdiction.
After reviewing an agency’s program, GAO will issue a report with recommendations for improvements. The agency must report to Congress on actions taken in response to these recommendations. GAO follows up each year on the status of open recommendations. In 2001, there was a 79 percent implementation rate, up from 69 percent in 1998.
The GAO product line includes testimony reports, blue cover reports, briefing reports, correspondence, Comptroller General decisions and bid-protest decisions, and special publications. A single-page summary is included in most products. The summary states why GAO did the review, what it found, and what it recommends.
The GAO website (www.gao.gov) includes additional information and a searchable database of GAO reports.
Katy French
Research Assistant (Majority)
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
United States Senate
Tracy Locklin
Education Counsel (Majority)
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
United States SenateTopic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
The Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions functions under direct supervision of the Chair and the Ranking Member who then contact the staff and work through their personal offices. The number of subcommittees and topics for subcommittees are chosen by the interest of the seniority membership of the Committee.
Ms. Katy French started working in Congress in September 2001, and has worked with the Committee since Senator Judd Gregg (R-New Hampshire) moved to the leadership position. Ms. French is an epidemiologist by training. Her focus areas are HIV/AIDS programs, medical liability, bioethics, right to life, Food and Drug Administration/pharmaceuticals, bioterrorism oversight, cancer, microorganisms (e.g., West Nile Virus), and vaccine compensation (e.g., small pox). Ms. French discussed the challenges with healthcare legislation, since it is split among different agencies including the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Ms. French also explained some of the more subtle considerations in introducing a bill in the Senate. She described a case where a Medicare prescription drug benefit bill was introduced directly on the Senate floor without going through Committee. With a bill introduced directly on the floor, it needs 60 votes to win under the Senate’s somewhat complex Rule 14. Sixty votes is a high hurdle to get over, and as a result the Prescription Drug Act was not passed. But, if it had gone through the Committee then had been introduced on the Senate floor, it could have won by the majority vote. Thus, it is important to get the Committee's blessing to quickly and successfully move a bill through the Senate.
Ms. French also talked about the conference process used to resolve discrepancies in bills passed by both the Senate and the House. When asked about work schedule, Ms. French said that typically her workday is a 12-hour day.
Mr. Tracy Locklin's primary focus is on education and student loan issues. He explained how the National Science Foundation (NSF) appropriation is affected by the fact that it reports to two different committees -- the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. He also discussed a small program at NSF that relates to Math-Science partnerships authorized under Department of Education. The program provides for an increase in the number of teachers in local schools and colleges.
Honorable Carl Levin
United States Senate
(D-Michigan)Topic: Discussion with the Senator and Photo Op
Senator Carl Levin, Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee met with us briefly and talked about CAFÉ (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards -- the proposal to mandate higher fuel efficiency for vehicles in corporate fleets. Senator Levin doesn't think mandated fuel efficiency standards will work. Instead it will just drive consumers to buy more imports, thus discriminating against United States' industry and decreasing highway safety due to consumers driving lighter cars.
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 CongressTopic: Science and Technology Issues in the Resources, Science, and Industry Division of the Congressional Research Service
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is the public policy research arm of the U.S. Congress. As a Legislative Branch agency within the Library of Congress, CRS works exclusively and directly for Members of Congress, their committees and staff on a confidential, nonpartisan basis.
Congress created the CRS in order to have its own source of nonpartisan, objective analysis and research on all legislative issues. Indeed, the sole mission of CRS is to serve the U.S. Congress. CRS has been carrying out this mission since 1914, when it was first established as the Legislative Reference Service. Renamed the Congressional Research Service by the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970, CRS is committed to providing the Congress, throughout the legislative process, comprehensive and reliable analysis, research and information services that are timely, objective, nonpartisan, and confidential, thereby contributing to an informed national legislature.
CRS is headed by a Director, who is appointed by the Librarian of Congress with the consent of the Joint Committee on the Library. The CRS staff (about 750) comprises nationally recognized experts in a range of issues and disciplines, including law, economics, foreign affairs, public administration, and information, social, political and natural sciences. The breadth and depth of this expertise enables CRS staff to come together quickly to provide integrated analyses of complex issues that span multiple legislative and program areas.
CRS analysts work directly with Congress on a daily basis to help the Congress identify, analyze, and formulate legislative proposals. They perform in-depth policy, legal, and procedural analyses; identify and assess policy alternatives and their implications; assist in framing legislative proposals; develop quantitative databases and analyses using the latest research tools and methodologies; identify and evaluate new research findings, data, and information sources; and deliver expert testimony before congressional committees. Their work takes the form of written analytical reports and confidential memoranda, educational seminars and workshops, and in person briefings and telephone consultations. CRS also provides the Congress with a wide range of specialized reference and information services.
CRS is organized into six interdisciplinary research divisions: American Law; Domestic Social Policy; Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade; Government and Finance; Information Research; and Resources, Science, and Industry. Within each division, the CRS staff is organized into smaller sections, which focus on specific areas of public policy.
Our speakers, Ms. Wendy Schacht and Mr. Len Kruger, work for the Resources, Science, and Industry Division. This Division covers an array of legislative issues involving natural resources and environmental management, science and technology, and industry and infrastructure. Resources work includes policy analysis on public lands and other natural resources issues; environment; agriculture, food, and fisheries; and energy and minerals. Science coverage includes policy analysis on civilian and military research and development issues, information and telecommunications, space, earth sciences, and general science and technology. Support on industry issues includes policy analysis on transportation and transportation infrastructure issues; industrial market structure and regulation; and sector-specific industry analysis.
William Bonvillian
Legislative Director
Office of Senator Joseph I. LiebermanTopic: Science and Technology at the Crossroads
Mr. William Bonvillian, who has held the post of Legislative Director for Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman for 14 years, opened his briefing on the emerging problems in science and technology policy with a piece of legislative strategy.
"Under the guise of 'incremental change'," he said, "you can do a lot of big things."
Mr. Bonvillian said that science and technology policy is critically important to the Nation because it is the key to economic growth, a fundamental tenet of Senator Lieberman's policy position. Transformation technologies can affect the whole curve of economic growth, said Mr. Bonvillian, pointing to such innovations as the continental railroad, electricity, and the telephone. Really big innovations that impact multiple fields cause a cascade of advances, driving innovation in many different areas. Information technology and the Internet are the obvious recent examples. "The key to your economic policy," says Mr. Bonvillian, "is your technology policy."
Having said that, Mr. Bonvillian observed, there are three important problems with the United States research and development (R&D) scene.
The first is the current trend in federal R&D funding. While life sciences funding is "way up," it's significantly down in the physical sciences and math. "This is bad, because the real innovations are probably going to be interdisciplinary," said Mr. Bonvillian, "You can’t have an R&D portfolio going two directions (up and down) at once."
Exacerbating this problem was a disturbing trend in the relationship between federal and private funding for R&D. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Federal Government funded more than 60 percent of the Nation’s R&D, much of it fundamental scientific research. Through the 1970s; however, funding slowly declined as a percentage of total R&D, while industrial funding rose, until by the late 1990s industry funded well over 60 percent of R&D, and the government well under 40 percent. The problem with that, said Mr. Bonvillian, is that industry concentrates largely on short-term, product-related development. The "R" side of R&D, historically backed by federal funds, is going down.
The "advocacy problem" is the second big issue for R&D, according to Mr. Bonvillian. Simply put, while the life sciences community -- especially medical research -- enjoys strong popular and political support, the physical sciences has never really developed a similar advocacy system. There are over four million people in the United States in the physical sciences, and thanks to the Internet they are at least potentially well networked, Mr. Bonvillian said, but they need to develop a coherent, grass-roots advocacy effort like the life-sciences community has if they want to see political support for increased federal budgets.
Finally, the United States has a growing problem in technology talent. Federal R&D spending tends to translate into science graduate education. As a result, while life-sciences graduates are up, physical science and engineering graduates are down or stagnant. Senator Lieberman successfully introduced the Tech Talent Bill in the last Congress to help encourage more native-grown scientists and engineers through a "bribe the middlemen" strategy of awarding competitive performance-based grants to institutions of higher learning that increase the number of math, science, technology and engineering graduates.
Peter Rooney
Staff Director (Majority)
Subcommittee on Research
Committee on Science
U.S. House of Representatives
Topic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the House Committee on Science
Dr. Peter Rooney, Staff Director for the Research Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, met with us to explore how the Committee functions and does its work.The House Science Committee has broad jurisdiction for all non-defense federal research that falls under the Committee’s jurisdiction including 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), U.S. Fire Administration, and U.S. Geological Survey. The Committee is responsible for overseeing research and development programs at all of these agencies. In doing so, it monitors the programs to ensure that federal tax dollars are being spent wisely and efficiently and that America's federal science and technology enterprise maintains its world preeminence.
In addition, the Committee tackles some of today's toughest issues and proposes ways in which research and development can solve some of our Nation's most pressing problems.
The Science Committee is divided into four subcommittees:
(1) Subcommittee on Energy -- the Energy Subcommittee is charged with overseeing research and development programs at DOE. Issues that the Subcommittee deals with range from alternative sources of energy, renewable energy, nuclear energy, and cutting-edge science performed at DOE's national labs.
(2) Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and Standards -- this Subcommittee's primary jurisdiction is EPA, NOAA, NIST, and technology programs at the Department of Commerce. Recent issues before the Committee include climate change research, establishing standards for voting machines, marine sciences and ensuring sound science in environmental regulations.
(3) Subcommittee on Research -- the Research Subcommittee monitors NSF. Matters before the Subcommittee include improving science and math education, enhancing the Nation's computer security, improving information technology research and development and research into natural disasters.
(4) Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics -- NASA is the primary concern of this Subcommittee, including space exploration and the International Space Station. In addition, the Subcommittee oversees civilian aviation research at FAA and the Department of Commerce.
The House Committee on Science has its roots in the intense reaction to the Soviet launch of Sputnik on October 4, 1957. Early in 1958, Speaker Sam Rayburn convened the House of Representatives, and the first order of the day was a resolution offered by Majority Leader John McCormack of Massachusetts. It read, "Resolved that there is hereby created a Select Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration..."
Issues that the Committee is focusing on this year include: the Columbia Shuttle tragedy, global climate change, and energy.
Victoria Proctor
Professional Staff Member (Majority)
Committee on Government Reform
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the House Committee on Government Reform
The House Government Reform Committee has the largest jurisdiction of any committee in Congress. It was created in 1904 to streamline congressional oversight of government activities. Its activities cover government organization and management, the Postal Service, the Civil Service, the Census, and oversight of the government of the District of Columbia. It can look at issues on an agency-by-agency basis, and also governmentwide. The Chairman of the Committee, Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, has great interest in serving on the Committee, as his district, Fairfax County, contains many civil servants, federal contractors, and contracting companies that do business with the Federal Government.
The two most controversial issues facing the Committee are related: Civil Service reform, and the method by which the "commercial functions" of government agencies are transferred to the private sector. Both the independent Volcker Commission and the General Accounting Office have identified the management of "human capital" as being a "high risk" issue for the Federal Government. A large percentage of federal employees are going to be eligible for retirement over the next few years, and there is a perception that the "convoluted hiring process" now in place impedes recruitment. There are also perceptions that the current systems of pay grades and civil service protections does not allow for rewarding exceptional performance or removing poor performers (or for providing incentives for performance improvement). Of course, government employees, while they acknowledge many shortcomings in the system, sometimes take issue that performance problems are as widespread as is alleged. Furthermore, there are questions about whether managers will be able to effectively and accurately judge performance and whether enough money will be appropriated to provide meaningful performance bonuses for high-performing employees.
Deciding whether to transfer "commercial functions" of government agencies to the private sector may be done either by policy (as in the case whereby NASA has entrusted most management of space shuttle operations to private contractors), or through a formalized process as described by OMB Circular A-76, that attempts to determine whether it is more effective for government employees or contractors to perform certain government work. In general the A-76 process is used only when there is a chance that government employees will be displaced by a transfer to the private sector. We engaged in a spirited discussion about the philosophy and effectiveness of transferring government functions to contractors.
Ms. Proctor noted that her career as a congressional staffer started in a clerical role, and she has worked her way to her current position of responsibility. She noted that the longer one stays in the job, the more one learns about the issues. As with the many of the other congressional staffers we met with, it appears that staffers are entrusted with more responsibility at a younger age (and with less experience) than is usual in the Executive Branch.
Ms. Proctor described the tensions involved in congressional oversight of Executive Branch activities. While such things seem to "run in waves," there is a tendency for each incoming Administration to more closely control information emanating from the Executive Branch. This can be most difficult when members of the same party control both Congress and the White House, as is currently the case. In such cases, the President, as the leader of his party, may expect that congressional members of his party follow the Administration’s lead. Furthermore, outside events, especially those related to national security, such as the September 11, 2001 attacks or the Iraq War, can further increase the reluctance of the Administration to be responsive to requests from the Committee.
James Turner
Chief Counsel (Minority)
Committee on Science
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the House Committee on Science
Mr. James Turner provided an overview of the House Science Committee. As one of 18 standing committees in the House of Representatives, the Science Committee has four subcommittees: (1) Energy, (2) Environment, Technology and Standards, (3) Research, and (4) Space and Aeronautics. Mr. Turner explained that both the House and the Senate Committees serve the same purpose, but the committees are aligned differently.
Mr. Turner explained that the House Committee on Science is composed of 10 to 18 staff members and focuses on legislation to accomplish its jurisdictional goals and legislative needs. Challenges faced by the Committee include building the necessary momentum to get a bill introduced and to keep it moving through the legislative process. He indicated that on many occasions, a bill would be initiated from draft material provided by the Administration. He spoke about the immense amount of research support needed in the legislative process. Often, the Congressional Research Service is utilized to resolve Committee member's questions or issues. These are provided back to the members or the committee through "Issue Briefs." The General Accounting Office also provides technical support to the committees. Often a bill will be passed back and forth several times between the committee and the subcommittee before being sent to the House floor.
In response to questions about how to successfully pass legislation, Mr. Turner indicated that one rule for success is maintaining good relations with colleagues and other committees, since often many committees are involved with the same legislation.
As an example of specific policy development, he pointed to the Committee's research on quality. He discussed the process that resulted in the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. Congress established this award in 1987 to recognize organizations that play a major role in energizing our Nation's economy, improving our Nation's competitiveness and quality of life.
Mr. Turner cautioned that half of the job is getting the bill through the House, while the other half is getting it through the Senate, and these are very different efforts. He stressed that for both members and committees, on both sides of the aisle, the objective is moving good ideas through the political process. Even the most perfect policy must still be analyzed for funding impact and potential tax consequences.
Mr. Turner closed with a discussion on the management of time, agendas, and schedules; and how some members spend half their time in their home state and half in Washington, DC. He also described how the Committee oversees the timely preparation of information, often requiring a specialist to help it into the language of the desired science and technology policy.
Juan Williams
Senior Correspondent
National Public RadioTopic: Congress, the Press/Media and Public Opinion
Mr. Juan Williams served as the White House correspondent for the Washington Post during the Reagan Administration. Mr. Williams opened by sharing an anecdote from that era on the Reagan response to public opinion polling that became a template for future Presidential action, now done on a regular basis throughout Washington, DC.
On a Friday evening, a public opinion poll was released that indicated that the public had little confidence in the President's ability to handle foreign affairs. The following Tuesday, the President was scheduled to give a speech to teachers. The topic of the speech was changed to foreign affairs. By Wednesday, the President had (previously unscheduled) meetings with diplomats on his schedule. At the end of one of the meetings, the President was "overheard" talking about new Middle East peace talks, but reporters were asked not to say anything yet. That weekend the White House placed the Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, and other high-ranking officials on the Sunday political talk shows. The message was that Ronald Reagan was handling foreign affairs "quietly," unlike his predecessor Jimmy Carter. This message was repeated continuously. One week later the poll was repeated and the percent of the public that had confidence in the President's ability to handle foreign affairs jumped by 30 to 40 percent. The White House had turned a negative into at least a neutral.This method of dealing with the press and the public represented a sea change in terms of the media market in Washington, DC. In the 1960s, reporters (primarily in print media) were trying to get into "back rooms" (go beyond the official statements) rather than acting as shills for those in power, as during World War II. At the time of the Civil Rights Movement, cynicism takes hold. An adversarial relationship develops between news reporters and government officials. In the early 1970s, reporters become stars. They start to appear on TV talk shows. This is partially attributable to the book, The Boys on the Bus, by Timothy Crouse that focused on the 1972 Presidential election. After Watergate, there were a lot of young people who wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein. The view that the government is incompetent persists through the Ford and Carter Administrations. The Reagan White House turned this around.
President Ronald Reagan had a tremendous ability to communicate, and he dealt directly with the public. CNN emerged in the Reagan era. Quick response to news was valued. In the Clinton era, there was a great deal of "spin." Today, every congressman, senator, lobbying group, etc. has its own media strategy.
The media used to serve as a news gatekeeper. Since the advent of the Internet this is no longer the case. The media strategy today is to try to set the agenda and have politicians respond. More attention is given to science and technology issues than in the past.
In the aftermath of September 11th, the relationship between the media and the President has been called into question. The war on terrorism was announced without the press. When Osama Bin Laden released tapes, there was pressure on the media not to provide him equal time. The White House limits contacts and information flow, and punishes disloyalty ("leaks").
Walter J. Oleszek
Specialist in American National Government
Congressional Research Service
Library of CongressTopic: Introduction to Congress and an Overview of the Legislative Process
Mr. Walter Oleszek discussed three main issues: (1) the role of the "message" in pursuing an agenda, (2) partisanship in Congress, and (3) the process of law creation.
September 11th has provided the Republicans and President Bush with a clear message -- homeland security. The Democrats have not focused on a unique message yet, which may make it more difficult to reach voters. Instead they are talking about several themes such as how we are dipping into the Social Security surplus to finance war and homeland security and the Enron scandal. Mr. Oleszek predicted that the November elections would be very close. We discussed re-districting, which favors the party already in place since they formulate and select the new district boundaries.
We then discussed who chooses the candidates in an election. Mr. Oleszek argued that it is not the voters who choose the candidate, but instead it is the candidate who chooses the voters. To run for office one must be willing to work hard, raise money, and forego privacy. Most citizens do not wish to do these things. Mr. Oleszek pointed out the positive side of negative campaign ads. They allow the public to learn things that a candidate will not disclose otherwise.
Mr. Oleszek believes that people, issues, and policies are all partisan. Needed discussion on issues rarely happens in the current, bitterly partisan, environment on Capitol Hill. Partisanship has intensified since the 1980s and by the 1990s, Congress decided to hold "Civility Retreats" where congressmen could meet in an informal setting to get acquainted on a personal level. This effort failed to improve relations in Congress and the retreats are no longer held. After September 11, 2001, Republicans and Democrats pulled together to confront terrorism. Again, this beginning of cooperation is fading away rapidly. Confrontation between the parties has intensified in part from the evolution of party structure. In the past, there were liberals in the Republican Party and conservatives in the Democratic Party. Recently, the ideology within each party has become more homogeneous. When there is a fundamental disagreement between the ideologies of the two parties, partisanship causes gridlock. Issues remain unresolved.
Mr. Oleszek pointed out the difficulty faced by third party candidates for Congress. Third parties (e.g., Independent, Green) do exist in the United States. However, they are not viable as effective parties in Congress. Since in some states, a third party candidate needs 10,000 signatures in every county to be on the ballot, it is an uphill battle to be elected if you are not a member of one of the two main parties.
We then discussed the process by which an idea becomes a law. There is a great deal of competition among ideas in Congress. In order to advance an idea, legislators resort to many strategies, in particular, titling a bill so it will attract or deter support; selecting the bill number to increase its visibility; and producing a draft with carefully selected text, which contains a lot of very general ideas and very few specifics in order to gain co-sponsorship.
When hearings on a bill are completed, a committee meets to mark-up the measure. At that time, the language of the draft measure is analyzed line-by-line or section-by-section, and then marked-up (i.e., changed or amended). At this stage, the text often will contain ambiguous phrases that will ensure the broadest support for the bill.
When the mark-up is completed, the committee will report out and introduce the bill. The procedures for passing legislation differ in the House and Senate. The House procedures are more structured than the Senate procedures. In the House, a measure is reported out of its committee of jurisdiction and placed on one of several legislative calendars, depending on the substance of the legislation. In the House, majority rule controls everything. For most legislation, the Rules Committee, composed of 9 Republicans and 4 Democrats, determines if and how a measure will be considered on the House floor. We discussed the various types of rules that control the general debate on the legislation and the various types of votes on the House floor -- voice, division, yea and nay, and recorded -- and the types of motions to recommit. Senate procedures are generally more flexible than those of the House. The Senate is a minority rule institution. Every senator has the power to stop a bill using the filibuster technique. The Senate Majority Leader decides the order in which bills come to the Senate floor. We discussed the typical ways to bring a measure to the Senate Floor for consideration -- "unanimous consent," "complex unanimous consent agreement" also called a "time agreement," and "motion to proceed to consideration." After a bill has passed both the House and the Senate, there are usually two versions of the same bill. Differences between the two versions of the legislation are reconciled by convening a "Conference Committee" or by amendments between the Houses. Any part of the bill can be changed during this process. If final agreement is reached by the conferees, the final bill is reported to the Conference Committee for a vote. The House and Senate each have one vote. If they do not agree, the bill is not passed and the legislative process begins again. If they do agree, the final bill is sent to the White House for signature or veto. The Conference Committee is often referred to as the third house of Congress because it has the power to completely rewrite a bill.
Committees and subcommittees serve several functions at the institutional and individual level. They conduct hearings that provide members with opportunities to learn more about a topic and provide members with a means to support legislation in their areas of interest. Members select carefully the committees on which they serve in order to maximize their probability of re-election and increase their sphere of influence. Not all committees are equally important. Each committee is unique in composition, number of members, style, and staff attached to it.
G. William Hoagland
Staff Director (Minority)
Committee on the Budget
United States SenateTopic: Federal Budget Development and Review Process in the Senate
Mr. William Hoagland has served with the Senate Committee on the Budget for 20 years. Prior to that, he worked at the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). He provided an overview of the appropriations and budget process. Prior to 1974, agencies submitted a budget request to Congress and dealt with their committees of jurisdiction. There was no coordination and the deficit or surplus that resulted in a year was a matter of chance. President Richard Nixon believed that the President was the only one who could perform a coordination function since he was the only one to see all the Appropriations bills. President Nixon impounded funds that had already been authorized and appropriated. This led to the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 that established the House and Senate Budget Committees and the non-partisan CBO.
The House and Senate Budget Committees prepare a Budget Resolution. It serves as a blueprint that sets broad parameters for spending and taxes in 22 "functions." The Budget Resolution proceeds to the floor with a rule that requires it to be voted on within 50 hours. Nothing can displace it. Once it passes the House and Senate and any discrepancies are resolved, the conference agreement is voted on. Once adopted, it is a concurrent resolution. It does not go to the President.
Mr. Hoagland then discussed this year's appropriations. It is his belief that the Senate will not be able to support the President's budget with respect to "Other Domestic Discretionary" funding and assure re-election.
Philip Webre
Senior Analyst
Microeconomic and Financial Studies Division
Congressional Budget OfficeTopic: Overview of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), and the Relationship and Interaction Between CBO and Congress
Dr. Philip Webre is a Senior Analyst in the Microeconomic and Financial Studies Division at the CBO. His current responsibilities include science and technology policy, federal computer and data communication policies, and federal support of business. Much of his recent work at the CBO has focused on how federal policies influence technology changes in private industry.
His presentation began with a discussion of budget projections, pointing out the radical changes associated with those projections. Last year it was projected that we would be dealing with a budget surplus. Given the downturn in the economy, coupled with the events of September 11th, the projected surpluses have decreased dramatically. He stressed that budget projections are not forecasts. Projections are extrapolations from current data with current laws in place. Forecasts are generated from economic models. In his discussions, he indicated the CBO is conservative in its analysis and this can lead to problems if the actual budget available is higher than the CBO expects. For example, Congress may initiate program cuts that are not actually necessary. Dr. Webre explained that better economic conditions and tax bracket creep have contributed to higher government receipts than originally projected.
The primary responsibilities and subtasks of the CBO were discussed.
Aiding Congress with the development of a budget plan. This work consists of: (1) economic forecasting and projection, (2) baseline budget projections, (3) analysis of the President's Budget, and (4) long-term budgetary pressures.
In this area, the CBO strives for consistent economic projections, based on data from outside economic experts.
Assisting Congress to stay within the budget plan. These activities involve: (1) cost estimate of proposed legislation, and (2) scorekeeping and sequestration reports.
Helping Congress to assess federal mandates. This includes both intergovernmental mandates and private sector mandates. The CBO reviews authorization legislation to identify unfunded mandates.
Helping Congress to formulate budget and economic policy. The following activities are part of this responsibility: (1) budget analysis, (2) economic and fiscal policy, (3) federal taxes, (4) health and human resources, (5) national security, and (6) microeconomic and financial studies.
Discussions on these topics focused primarily on the type of economic models used to support these analyses, how they are developed, and how the models were validated.
Kenneth Myers III
Legislative Assistant
Office of Senator Richard G. Lugar
United States SenateTopic: Nonproliferation Issues in the Senate
Mr. Kenneth Myers began his address to us by pointing out that since there are several congressional committees (Armed Services; Foreign Relations; Commerce, Science and Transportation; Appropriations; Intelligence; Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry; and Health, Education, Labor and Pensions) with jurisdiction over nonproliferation issues, it can be difficult to reach agreement on them. Mr. Myers explained that the United States' nonproliferation policy originated with the efforts of former Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) and Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN). When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Soviet nuclear weapons were in the hands of the Newly Independent States (NIS), whose leadership appeared unsure and unstable. In response to that threatening turn of events, Senators Nunn and Lugar persuaded Congress to create the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program to provide assistance for dismantling or safely storing the weapons in the Soviet nuclear arsenal.
Senators Nunn and Lugar recognized the need to adapt to political changes resulting from the end of the Cold War and the program has been expanded to include chemical and biological warfare agents. Some critics of the CTR program have tried to set conditions for the allocation of the money to the NIS, arguing that the CTR program is in reality a foreign aid program. Mr. Myers rejects this view and points out that the NIS does not have the resources to pay for an effective nonproliferation effort; therefore, it is in the United States' best interest to support the CTR program. Mr. Myers explained that the CTR program is not a handout. In return for the money contributed, we get information on and access to the former Soviet Union's (FSU) weapons institutes and scientists. Several financial and scientific audit mechanisms are in place to ensure that the money is being properly utilized and is not being diverted for other purposes.
The original CTR program was instituted at the Pentagon to assist in the destruction of the FSU's weapons of mass destruction. Other programs have grown from the original CTR effort, the largest being the Department of Energy's Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program. This program is designed to balance Russia's goal of utilizing plutonium for energy and the U.S. goal of removal of the proliferation threat. The Department of State has nonproliferation efforts through the Science Centers and the Bio-Engagement programs. These programs engage the FSU's weapons scientists and direct them towards peaceful, non-military research. Both programs provide direct funding to the scientists and institutes of interest. Other government agencies with nonproliferation programs include the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Departure of Agriculture. Additionally, there are several non-government agencies (i.e., Business Executives for National Security, the Civilian Research and Development Foundation, etc.) participating the in the nonproliferation effort. Mr. Myers estimates that the United States' government, through the various nonproliferation programs, is contributing approximately $1.7 billion dollars per year to the nonproliferation effort.
Mr. Myers said that the next step in the program is an initiative supported by Senator Lugar that seeks to encourage and assist United States' companies in purchasing FSU weapons institutes. Additionally, Senator Lugar wants to expand the nonproliferation effort to countries outside the FSU. The two countries of primary interest are India and Pakistan. However, providing assistance to these countries is complicated because both countries have violated the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty with their recent nuclear weapons tests.
Helen H. Hsing
Director
Office of Congressional Relations
General Accounting OfficeTopic: Overview of GAO, and the Relationship and Interaction Between the GAO and Congress
Ms. Helen Hsing, Managing Director of Congressional Relations for the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), gave us an overview of the agency and its relationship to Congress. Established in 1921 as a legislative agency, the GAO is the investigative arm of Congress. It supports the Congress and helps improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the Federal Government. Congress has since expanded the GAO's charter to include: (1) authority to audit the financial transactions of government corporations, (2) responsibility for establishing federal accounting standards and carrying out audits of internal controls and financial management, (3) authority to conduct program evaluations and analyses of a broad range of federal activities, and (4) authority to conduct audits of agencies' financial statements and annually audit consolidated United States' financial statements. Currently, the GAO examines the use of public funds, evaluates federal programs and activities, and provides analyses, options, recommendations, and other assistance to Congress. Congress uses these inputs to make effective oversight, policy and funding decisions. In order to accomplish these objectives, the GAO employs a highly-skilled work force trained in diverse disciplines including, accounting, law, engineering, public and business administration, economics, and the social and physical sciences.
While the general public views the GAO's name as synonymous with accounting, Ms. Hsing stressed that accounting is only a small fraction of the GAO's activities. The agency has continued to evolve from an accounting and voucher checking organization to one that evaluates federal program efficiency and economy. Examples of changes partially resulting from GAO recommendations include military base re-alignments and closures, and reevaluation of federal housing programs. More recently, GAO has been involved in providing more evaluations of federally-funded science and technology programs.
In the past, the GAO was known mainly for its oversight work, usually in conjunction with the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the House Government Reform Committee. Today, the GAO provides broader support to the Congress, including working with the Appropriations and Authorizing Committees. The GAO routinely reviews annual proposed budgets for federal agencies, and sometimes asks for overall budget analysis from the agency itself. The GAO will also go on-site to the agency and report back to the committee any issues pertaining to the functioning of that agency's programs.
The GAO's relationship to Congress is similar to a professional/client arrangement. Congressional protocols have been established, which lay out the general principles governing GAO's work for the Congress. Among other topics, the protocols discuss how GAO prioritizes its work. For example, congressional mandates, senior leader requests, and committee leader requests are all of the highest priority. Over 90 percent of the GAO's work is either requested or mandated by Congress, with another five to ten percent of projects initiated by the Comptroller General. The congressional committees have access to information on active GAO assignments via the House and Senate Intranet homepages; thereby, providing greater transparency for GAO's work.
Current GAO initiatives in science and technology include proposals to reprise a mechanism for providing unbiased scientific information to the government on a timely basis. More specifically, GAO is in the process of conducting a pilot to evaluate whether or not the Legislative Branch needs a capability to assess technology and technological issues. One recent example where immediate technical expertise was required was the anthrax crisis on Capitol Hill. In that case it was necessary to quickly evaluate various irradiation techniques for mail processing.
Another example requiring GAO expertise is the Enron crisis, where GAO has been asked to evaluate oversight in the accounting profession. The GAO is also undertaking a series of studies evaluating homeland security preparedness in light of September 11th, focusing on the level of appropriations required to fund necessary safety initiatives. Finally, the GAO serves as a leading organization in forming strategic alliances and partnerships with State Auditor Generals and with International Auditing Agencies.
Honorable William L. Jenkins
U.S. House of Representatives
(R-Tennessee)Topic: Issues Facing the State of Tennessee
The Honorable William Jenkins, member of the U.S. House of Representatives from the First District of Tennessee, spoke to us about his experience and political agenda. Before entering politics, Congressman Jenkins operated his family farm and practiced law in his hometown of Rogersville, Tennessee. Congressman Jenkins highlighted issues facing farmers today.
Congressman Jenkins also served as a Circuit Court Judge for Tennessee's Third Judicial District. A strong advocate for economic development and protection of our natural resources, he is a former Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Conservation and has served as a policy advisor on energy and legislative issues to former Tennessee Governor Lamar Alexander. Congressman Jenkins is serving his second term in Congress. He is a member of the Constitution Subcommittee, and the Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee, as well as the Specialty Crops and Foreign Agriculture Programs, and the General Farm Commodities and Risk Management Subcommittees of the House Agriculture Committee.
Honorable Ron Wyden
United States Senate
(D-Oregon)Topic: Science Issues, Including the Wyden-Allen Science and Technology Emergency Mobilization Act.
During the week, we had the opportunity to meet with Senator Ron Wyden, Democratic senior senator from Oregon, and chair of the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Senator Wyden also serves on the Budget Committee, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and the Special Committee on Aging.
Our meeting began with Mr. Jeff Michels, Senator Wyden's Deputy Chief of Staff. Senator Wyden was busy on the floor of the Senate debating campaign finance reform. Mr. Michels gave us an overview of life as a busy Senate staffer while we waited for Senator Wyden's return. Mr. Michels also briefed us about three of the biggest science issues he has dealt with for the Senator -- nuclear security issues at the Department of Energy; NASA's Space Station program and the associated cost overruns; and the Office of Science and Technology Policy's recent decision to cut two of the four Associate Director positions appointed by the President.
Senator Wyden joined our meeting after the campaign finance reform vote. In response to our inquiry regarding how he obtains scientific information on which to base his decisions, we found that Senator Wyden had an excellent grasp of the scientific issues. He also explained that as Chairman of a Subcommittee, he is empowered to hold hearings on any issue of interest or that he felt needed to be explored more comprehensively.
For example, in the aftermath of September 11th, after consulting with the Nation's top technology experts, and through testimony before the Subcommittee, Senator Wyden found that private sector companies eager to offer assistance were often thwarted by the government's inability to accept and implement their help. This frustration engendered Senator Wyden's "Netguard" proposal, which is essentially to create a "technology equivalent of the National Guard." This legislation, co-sponsored by Senator George Allen (R-VA), is entitled the Wyden-Allen Science and Technology Emergency Mobilization Act, and would offer science and technology experts and entrepreneurs a Federal Government portal through which to offer their expertise, equipment, and new technology ideas to prevent and respond to terror attacks and other disasters that cripple technology and communications systems. According to the Senator, top technology companies, such as, Microsoft, AOL Time Warner, and Oracle are all onboard. In case of another national emergency, government scientists and administrators could utilize Netguard's "virtual technology reserve" to ensure effective marshalling of private sector technology experts. The legislation would also include the creation of a national clearinghouse and test bed for innovative technologies relating to emergency prevention and response, most likely at the U.S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology. It also includes the establishment of a "communications interoperability" pilot program awarding several large grants to help fund pilot projects to enable communications systems used by fire, law enforcement, and emergency preparedness and response agencies to work together for cross-communication in disaster situations.
Finally, Senator Wyden left us with a challenge. He has been doing a lot of thinking about the Bayh-Dole Act, which is the 1980 law that created a uniform patent policy among federal funding agencies. The Act enables industry, nonprofit organizations and universities to retain title to inventions made under the federally funded research programs. All of the stakeholders -- universities, industry and taxpayers -- have expressed dismay with the current process of commercializing government technology. Senator Wyden is very interested in having a team analyze Bayh-Dole, top to bottom, and propose a series of thoughtful reforms to make the Act work for all constituencies. Many of us expressed interest in stepping up to the plate and meeting the Senator's challenge. We're looking forward to what follows next!
Alan M. Hantman
Architect of the CapitolTopic: The Role of the Architect of the Capitol
Mr. Alan Hantman, the Architect of the Capitol, took office on January 30, 1997, for a ten-year term. His office is responsible to the U.S. Congress for the maintenance, operation, development, and preservation of the U.S. Capitol Complex, which includes the Capitol, the congressional office buildings, the Library of Congress buildings, the U.S. Supreme Court building, the U.S. Botanic Gardens, the Capitol Power Plant, and other facilities.
One of the main topics of Mr. Hantman's presentation was the new Capitol Visitor's Center (CVC). The proposal for a CVC began to crystallize in the mid-1970s with the issuance of the Architect of the Capitol report entitled, Toward a Master Plan for the United States Capitol. In 1991, Congress authorized funding for conceptual planning and design of a visitor center. In 1995, the design report was issued. Changes in security needs, as underscored by the tragic murder of two Capitol police officers in 1998, and other safety and accessibility considerations required revisiting and revalidating the 1995 report at that point. The updated plan was presented on October 15, 1999, and the ceremonial groundbreaking occurred on June 20, 2000.
When completed, the CVC will contain 580,000 square feet on three levels, requiring a 196,000-square-foot excavation, or "footprint," on the East Front of the Capitol. (For purposes of comparison, the Capitol itself encompasses 775,000 square feet.) The project will include space for exhibits, visitor comfort, food service, two orientation theaters, an auditorium, gift shops, security, connections to existing buildings, service tunnels for underground vehicle access to the Capitol, loading docks, mechanical facilities, and storage. It will accommodate about 5,000 visitors at any given time, allowing about 1,500 people per hour to tour the central Capitol and another 700 per hour to visit the House and Senate galleries. The CVC will preserve and maximize public access to the Capitol while greatly enhancing the experience for the millions who walk its historic corridors and experience its monumental spaces every year.
Mr. Hantman also discussed the events of September 11, 2001. He expressed great personal relief that the Capitol was spared, and discussed permanent security changes necessitated by the events that day. He added that the visitor center project will not be hindered by the attacks, but instead is regarded as even more necessary.
On a happier note, he expressed pride in the completion of the renovation of the U.S. Botanic Gardens, which we were to visit later in the week. The project was completed in December 2001, largely replacing the 1930s era structure that nearly succumbed to deterioration.
John R. Carson
Director, Congressional Affairs
American Podiatric Medical AssociationTopic: The Role of Lobbyists in the Legislative Process
Dr. John Carson has had a distinguished career in education, and representing the interests of others on Capitol Hill. He represented the American Podiatric Medical Association for over 32 years and is well-grounded in the practices of lobbying. He refuted the image of lobbyists as used car dealers haunting the Congress and replaced it with a view of lobbyists as integral players in the legislative process. The American people should not expect each congressman and senator to be an expert in the myriad of issues before him or her. Interest groups, which typically employ lobbyists to work on their behalf, are one of the most effective ways in which Members of Congress and their staff hear the many perspectives of the people. To be an effective lobbyist, one must be able to come before the members and frame the issues in terms relevant to both one's client and the member's constituents.
Dr. Carson defined a lobbyist as a professional who seeks to influence the legislative process on behalf of his clients. Currently, there are approximately 17,000 lobbyists practicing in Washington, DC. It is Dr. Carson's opinion that his role is essential to informing the Members of Congress of the interests of his group. It is an effective way for members to become informed on issues. He explained that there are four types of lobbyists. First, there are lobbyists employed by membership organizations such as professional societies, the American Medical Association, the National Rifle Association, and various unions. Second are the non-member lobbyists, which may represent an entity like the Fortune 500 companies, major universities, or news and TV networks. A third type is independent lobbyists, which are for hire to represent a specific interest. These are frequently well-known people with a high profile like former Senator Robert Dole (R-KS), and well-known businessmen. These people are usually retained for a specific issue and focused effort. In modern times, a fourth category has emerged, which incorporates direct liaison from federal agencies and high-profile programs. Lobbying is a big activity in Washington, DC, like it is in most national capitols in the world. Lobbying can also extend to state and local governments. Lobbyists frequently serve on the board of governors of many organizations and meet with foreign delegations. Emerging nations are looking at our lobbying process as they move into our form of democracy. China and other nations are sending investigators to see how the process really works and how it can be integrated into their societies effectively.
Dr. Carson presented the four essential ingredients to successful lobbying. First, the lobbyist must have a good case to sell, which is in his client's interest and also in the public interest. The public benefits must be articulated and explained. Second, the lobbyist must be impeccably honest even if it points out the deficiencies of his own position. Any deceptions or disingenuous representations will be quickly found out in Washington, DC and will mark the end of that lobbyist's ability to gain credibility with the Members of Congress and their staff. Third, issues need a champion and mentor. Development of a champion of specific issues with concurrent win-win motives is essential. Supporters of an issue need to be well-informed and have congressional committee members who will ride herd on those issues. These people are developed by building trust and with reciprocal support. Yes, campaign contributions are a very effective means of support. In Dr. Carson's opinion, this is the true heart of the democratic process. Finding like-minded champions of your issue and supporting them to be re-elected is the goal. This allows lobbyists to conduct activities in their client's interest as well as in the public interest. The fourth ingredient is proper timing. Issues need to be developed in their time and champions prepared to advance when the timing is right. For example, back burner issues became urgent and critical after the September 11th attack, while other issues took a real back seat while Congress addressed the reprioritized business of the period.
Lobbyists must always spin how the constituents will benefit from the desired activity or legislation. Senators have a larger constituency and are more interested in displaying the bigger benefit than congressmen. Staffers are very, very important to moving one's issue forward. The most effective lobbyists develop long-term relationships, based upon honesty and reliability, with both the Members of Congress and the committee staff has oversight of the area of interest.
There is no attempt to conceal that campaign contributions are a big part of that support. It costs $10 to $15 million to run a senatorial campaign and likewise at least $1 million in the House. Special interest issues need to be supported by like-minded representatives over many terms. Thus, re-election of supporters is in the interest of the congressional member as well as the lobby organization. Money guides the system. Dr. Carson thinks that campaign finance reform will not solve the problem of money being needed to drive the system. Access to inform Members of Congress on issues is still needed. The donations are a matter of public record and the process works in a democratic way. The lobbyist's role and goal is to get the issues discussed with informed input for the benefit of their clients and the country at large.
Donald R. Wolfensberger
Director, Congress Project
Woodrow Wilson International Center for ScholarsTopic: History of Congress and Congressional Reform
Mr. Donald Wolfensberger's discussion focused primarily on congressional reform and the workings of congressional committees. Today's perception of Congress is one of an elected body that is responsive to special interests, but less committed to promoting deliberation of issues at the committee level.
The discussion emphasized ways to make the committee system work better. Currently, Congress is functionally in town three days of the week. During this short period of time, a congressman must set priorities among the issues he or she intends to address. The driving factor in defining these priorities is the congressman's re-election. Accordingly, the congressman emphasizes projects relevant to his or her respective district while relegating committee work to a lower priority. This, in turn, leads to low attendance at committee-level debates. According to Mr. Wolfensberger, the lack of substantial committee deliberation has led to a lack of significant policy changes.
The discussion then turned to the "Contract with America." This ten-point program was described as an attempt by the Republican Party to address a national agenda during a congressional election. By proposing national policy objectives, local political candidates could campaign on their role in achieving those objectives, focusing the debate and strengthening their campaigns.
Another issue addressed by Mr. Wolfensberger related to science and technology matters in the congressional committees. When it comes to these matters, Members of Congress do not take the time to be informed about science and technology issues unless they become high-profile items, such as stem cell or genetic research. In addition, the growth in the number of science and technology issues inhibits Congress' ability to appropriately address them. Due to this inadequate preparation, Members of Congress are unable to make judicious decisions in the areas of science and technology. Further aggravating the situation are the turf wars between congressional committees that work against a consolidated effort or coordination on issues related to research and development. Mr. Wolfensberger suggested two alternatives that might be of assistance to make Congress more informed about science and technology issues. One alternative is the use of fellows with the requisite backgrounds who can provide Members of Congress with the needed insights into the issues. Another is a type of "reverse fellowship" where a Member of Congress would become familiar with the issues by getting involved with a specific scientific or research organization.
Mr. Wolfensberger also commented about the degree of partisanship that develops during the legislative process. He indicated that the situation in the 104th Congress deteriorated to the point that hearings were held on the topic of civility.
A final comment by Mr. Wolfensberger involved the use of technology to open up Congress. It was his opinion that the use of television to bring Congress to every citizen's home has made Congress more accessible to the Nation. However, this benefit is counterbalanced by the effect it plays on inhibiting deliberations. Television has made the Members of Congress self-conscious of their national presence and, consequently, less willing to be participants in heated deliberations.
Matt Bailey
Congressional Liaison
Office of Congressional Affairs
Technology Administration
U.S. Department of CommerceTopic: The Role of Agency Congressional Affairs Offices
Mr. Matt Bailey, a Congressional Liaison in the Office of the Under Secretary for Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC), provided us with insights about the role of congressional affairs offices in the Executive Branch -- including some of the practical challenges facing those who serve as a liaison with the Legislative Branch.
Ensuring that congressional members and committees are satisfied and that the road is paved for favorable Capitol Hill consideration of Technology Administration's (TA) legislative initiatives is the top task in serving as a liaison between the Congress and TA. Keeping track of and researching legislation that could have provisions that affect TA is another major task of agency congressional specialists, who also serve as translators -- weeding through the "lingo" that Congress uses in its daily business. Depending on the experience of top department officials, that part of the job can be more or less demanding. With the very substantial Capitol Hill backgrounds of current DOC and TA officials, Mr. Bailey reported that he now devotes much less time to this aspect of the congressional affairs job.
Strategizing -- especially anticipating what Congress is going to do or how key members and committees are likely to approach a situation -- is always a major requirement of the job, regardless of who occupies the agency and department offices. There is little secret about how that job gets done best -- it requires strong, reliable contacts with congressional staff so that agencies can take advantage of opportunities or quell a potential problem before it becomes full-blown. Agency congressional liaisons also serve as diplomats -- helping to iron out difficulties and differences between Capitol Hill and the agency -- and as advisors to agency and department officials.
The specific assignments and conditions of a congressional affairs specialist change as an Administration changes and as power in Congress shifts, but the basic job remains the same -- and the specialist's personal opinions and preferences take a back seat to his or her responsibilities as an Executive Branch employee.
Making sure that agency staff understands the need to involve congressional affairs offices in all contacts with Capitol Hill is an impossible task; especially when there is great value in having congressional staff and Members of Congress more fully understand the agency's actions and needs. Considering that there are 535 congressional offices on Capitol Hill, along with local offices for each member and dozens of committees and even more subcommittees, it simply is not possible, nor realistic to ensure that this policy is practiced uniformly. Agencies frequently issue formal memoranda in an effort to improve central coordination of congressional interactions, but congressional affairs offices recognize that these policy directives are not always effective. Serving in the "diplomat" role, agency congressional affairs offices can explain why their involvement can advance, not obstruct, the goals of the agency. At a minimum, knowledge about individual agency employee-Capitol Hill staff contacts can help agency officials to be better prepared when they deal with Congress on those or other matters.
Not all agencies within a department have congressional liaison offices, and having such decentralized operations can create its own problems in coordination. But, it also can yield dividends when a department has a clear need to mount an initiative with Congress.
While scientific and engineering associations have been focusing more attention on Congress, Mr. Bailey explained the challenges such groups have in making a difference. First, and perhaps most difficult, they need to compete for Capitol Hill staffers' attention. That is made more complicated by the reality that congressional staffs have limited time and most do not feel comfortable with technical topics since they are neither scientists nor engineers. Focusing on how an issue relates to a particular member's district and constituents can help reduce those barriers and raise the interest of Capitol Hill staff.
William Bonvillian
Legislative Director and Chief Council
Office of Senator Joseph I. Lieberman
United States SenateTopic: Science at a Crossroads
Mr. William Bonvillian discussed the role that science plays in today's economy. The role of scientific innovation appears to be a key factor in increasing the rate of growth in today's economy. Mr. Bonvillian finds that there are three key crossroads that must be traversed if science is to continue to enjoy the strong economic influence it has over the past decade. First, the life sciences have managed to build a strong political advocacy in securing federal support, and the physical sciences must do the same. Secondly, the trend in the declining numbers of scientists and engineers must be reversed if this country is to remain at the forefront of scientific advances. Finally, the "stovepipe" organization within the scientific community, a model that has survived since World War II, must be changed to one with interdisciplinary and interagency cooperation. These traditional organizational structures maintained information flow within a particular technical area, but inhibited information exchange between those areas. Throughout the 1990s, this country enjoyed the longest period of economic growth in history. The Gross Domestic Product grew by an annual rate of 7.3 percent while productivity grew by about the same measure. Most agree that the Internet played a significant role in this growth pattern. In addition to the success of the Internet, other contributing scientific innovations include biotechnology and genomics, nanotechnology, optical communications and photonics, and large-scale super-computing systems.
While it is clear that traditional economic factors like capital and labor are still important, most economists today feel that they are less important to strong economic growth than scientific innovation. The continued success of science as an economic driver depends on whether or not the physical sciences can duplicate the advocacy already enjoyed by the life sciences and whether the declining trend in new scientists and engineers can be reversed.
Honorable Susan A. Davis
U.S. House of Representatives
(D-California)Topic: Issues Concerning the 49th District of California
We met with the Honorable Susan A. Davis to solicit her input on sites of interest in San Diego -- the location of our one-week field trip.
Congresswoman Davis is a member of several congressional committees in the House of Representatives, including Armed Services; Education and the Workforce; and Veterans' Affairs. The congresswoman was giving a talk when we arrived; however, Ms. Donna H. Smith, her Legislative Assistant, met with us for a few minutes and described some of the highlights of the San Diego area. Ms. Smith also provided us some additional contacts for research and technical activities during our visit.
Congresswoman Davis arrived and spoke with us briefly. She was very gracious, asked us to "spend money while in San Diego," and agreed to pose with us for a photograph.
Francis J. Lorson
Chief Deputy Clerk
U.S. Supreme CourtTopic: Overview of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Relationship and Interaction between the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress
Mr. Francis Lorson began his presentation with a brief summary of some of the cases presented to the Supreme Court over the previous three days. These cases covered topics such as drug testing in public schools and age discrimination standards. He remarked that some cases have lasted for years with the longest active case on record being filed in 1923. This case involves water rights and has been modified several times. Mr. Lorson explained that the Supreme Court gets its jurisdiction from Article 3 of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court may accept only cases that pose a federal question. Therefore, the Supreme Court will not consider any issues that arise under state constitutions unless they raise a federal question. In civil cases, the Supreme Court has 90 days to review a lower court ruling. In a recent development, the Supreme Court decided that for criminal cases a decision would be rendered before the Court recesses from the two-week session of oral arguments during which the case was presented.
Mr. Lorson briefly talked about the Supreme Court's role in the 2000 Presidential election. He explained that the petition to hear the case was accepted by e-mail (a first) on the day after Thanksgiving. In a very rare move, the Supreme Court was issuing opinions before the oral arguments were concluded. Former Governor Bush's petition for a "Stay of Judgment" was accepted on Saturday afternoon and the briefings were expedited. By Tuesday evening, the Supreme Court had released their opinion. Mr. Lorson's office was given five minutes to review the opinion. Needless to say, this was a very challenging time for everyone involved with the Supreme Court.
Mr. Lorson explained that there is a two-step process for a Judicial Review. First, the petition is filed with a "Prayer" to take the case. Mr. Lorson's office will: (1) determine in what order the petition will be filed, (2) determine what conditions the Supreme Court will use for the petition, (3) wait for lower courts to weigh in, and (4) present the questions. Second, a "Brief in Opposition" is filed. Mr. Lorson explained that an indigent person may file at no cost, but is still subject to the same time limitations as all other applicants. A second round of briefs are presented after the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case.
The Supreme Court and its associated law offices, run very efficiently. There were 6,618 cases filed last year and there is currently no backlog. Out of these cases, 86 received oral opinions from the Supreme Court and 77 received signed opinions. In 1998, Congress abolished mandatory appeals to the Supreme Court; thus dropping the number of cases heard and signed opinions issued. However, there was still a net increase in the total number of cases filed with a 1,000 case increase over the last couple of years. Generally, the Supreme Court can grant or deny a review, but Congress can mandate that the Supreme Court review certain cases. An example of this was the anti-trust action against Microsoft that was appealed directly to the Supreme Court.
Mr. Lorson went on to discuss the issue of the death penalty and the Supreme Court. He noted that seven years ago, the number of death penalty cases brought to the Supreme Court was becoming overwhelming. As a result, the Supreme Court was not able to monitor all the cases around the country that might be appealed to it and was sometimes not aware that an appeal was imminent. In response, the Supreme Court has assigned one attorney to monitor all death penalty cases. When a death sentence is to be carried out, the attorney alerts the Court to prepare for protesters and last minute phone calls seeking a stay of execution. Thus, the Supreme Court is prepared to render an opinion quickly. Four votes are needed to accept a death penalty case for oral argument. Five votes are needed to stay an execution. If a Justice is traveling, they are sought out for the important vote. Mr. Lorson relayed the story of when Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's vote was needed, but she was traveling. The Clerk's Office was able to track her down and she made her vote on a pay phone at the foot of the Sphinx in Giza, Egypt. Mr. Lorson reiterated that the Supreme Court is in session 364 days a year. Each Justice is assigned Circuits covering several states. If a case arises from a state, the case is referred to the Justice responsible for the Circuit containing that state.
Wendy H. Schacht
Specialist in Science and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service
Library of CongressGlen J. McLoughlin
Head, Science and Technology Policy Section
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service
Library of CongressTopic: Issues Relating to the Science and Technology Within the Resources, Science, and Industry Division of the Congressional Research Service
Few Americans outside of Washington, DC know about the Congressional Research Service (CRS) -- and not all that many in the Nation's capital would imagine the broad range of research activities under way in this sub-agency of its much more popular parent, the Library of Congress. One of three sister research-type agencies of the Congress -- along with the General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office -- the CRS is a non-partisan organization that Members of Congress and congressional staffers rely upon for policy information in a balanced context. Considering the nature of many of the requests, CRS performs a delicate balancing act each and every day.
With a staff of about 700 -- including 15 seasoned experts in the science and technology areas -- CRS analyzes, appraises, and evaluates legislation in every stage of the process -- as it makes it way from introduction to committee and floor actions, and passage. Actually, the research organization often is involved even before proposals are introduced since it frequently is called upon to assist members in drafting legislation. CRS identifies and tracks policy initiatives being proposed by members and the Executive Branch, and it provides historical perspective on those initiatives. CRS staff often provides hearing support to committees and members, assisting by providing background research and summaries to be used in chartering the hearings. This research arm of the Library of Congress also does legal analyses, helps to answer constituent inquiries, and trains members and office staff in the legislative process.
Although its reports are popular items on Capitol Hill, CRS' reports normally are not available to the public. Somewhat surprisingly, they are not printed through the Government Printing Office and their external distribution is very tightly controlled. The policy traces back to congressional concerns that moneyed interests would have too much influence on the reports produced.
CRS work products come about in several ways -- typically at the request of a Member of Congress or committee -- and are considered to be the property of the requestor. There are a few varieties of product as well. "Issue Briefs" follow legislation through the process. "Short Reports" are typically no more than six pages in length on particular topics. "Long Reports" are much more voluminous -- and the CRS usually seeks permission from the original requestor to distribute the report more generally to Congress in light of the resources required to produce the document. Typically, more confidential memoranda supplement these reports.
The research group does some anticipatory work based on the staff's experience and the trends they see emerging in terms of topics likely to attract congressional interest. Most of the document review is in-house, but there is also some external peer review for correctness. Most CRS reports are produced in days, hours, or weeks rather than months, necessitating the primarily internal reviews. The CRS is exempt from the Freedom of Information Act.
Partisanship is naturally a major concern for CRS, making its management and activities difficult. Both sides of the aisle, and both Chambers of Congress, have partisan preferences and tendencies that challenge the research organization's vow of non-partisanship.
A stunning metric of its popularity is the number of requests the CRS receives each year -- between 900,000 and one million. That forces the CRS to scale back the scope of requests, and to take advantage of reports produced previously for other Members of Congress or committees. CRS professes to exercise total equity in accepting requests. It will do "directed writing" -- publications which take a particular point of view -- but on any side of an issue. CRS experts frequently interact with Executive Branch officials to ensure that they are up to speed on key issues. Reflecting a general problem facing the Federal Government, the average age of CRS staff is inching up steadily, and the research group is interested in recruiting seasoned experts in a wide range of policy areas, including science and technology.
Another surprise from this behind-the-scenes agency -- it receives some sizeable chunks of funding from foundations that support its efforts in light of the CRS mission of educating Congress.
Jean Toal Eisen
Senior Professional Staff Member (Majority)
Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States SenateFloyd DesChamps
Senior Professional Staff Member (Minority)
Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States SenateTopic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
We met with Ms. Jean Toal Eisen and Mr. Floyd DesChamps of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Ms. Eisen is the Senior Democratic Professional Staff Member for the Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space ("STS" Subcommittee). Mr. DesChamps is the Senior Republican Professional Staff Member for the Subcommittee, and a ComSci alumnus. Senators Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) and John McCain (R-AZ) are the Chair and Ranking Member, respectively, of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR) and George Allen (R-VA) are the Chair and Ranking Member, respectively of the STS Subcommittee. Ms. Eisen and Mr. DesChamps presented a bi-partisan overview of the Committee's science agenda for the current Congress.
Ms. Eisen explained that the STS Subcommittee has jurisdiction over most federal research and development (R&D) agencies, as well as more broadly over federal science, engineering, and technology research and development and policy. Agencies within STS's jurisdiction include, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the U.S. Fire Administration. Issues include federal R&D funding, the Internet, earthquake research programs, encryption technology, international science and technology (S&T), and nanotechnology. The discussion began with an overview of the major issues confronting the Subcommittee.
Over the past year, the Subcommittee (led by Senators Bill Frist (R-TN) and John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV)) has been looking at the federal research and development portfolio and how we maintain balance in terms of our funding priorities. This discussion built on the comments that we received from Mr. William Bonvillian from Senator Joseph I. Lieberman's (D-CT) office concerning the need to ensure that as funding for the biological sciences rapidly increases, so must funding for the physical and information technology sciences. Without such assurances, science, technology and our overall economy will suffer. For example, mapping the human genome would have been impossible without the super-computers necessary to do it.
Other important issues confronting the Subcommittee include Netguard (discussed in detail by Senator Wyden), which deals with how scientists and technologists fit into our homeland security plans; cybersecurity, which deals with ensuring the adequacy of our R&D and human resource development investment in protecting our critical information technology (IT) infrastructures, including cyberspace; and IT R&D, which deals with ensuring the adequacy of our R&D investment in IT. The Subcommittee will be introducing legislation during this Congress on all of these issues.
The Subcommittee will also provide NASA authorization legislation during this Congress with the International Space Station standing out as the dominant congressional concern. The Space Station made national news last fall when an independent panel estimated that its cost overruns had already exceeded three times its original $8 million price tag. Senator McCain has generally voted in support of the Space Station, whereas Senator Hollings has generally voted in opposition. Nonetheless, Ms. Eisen and Mr. DesChamps made clear that the Committee is supportive of completing the Space Station, but is equally as supportive of ensuring good fiscal management. A recent price cap proposal represented two to three years of congressional effort; however, the legislative language is tied to an "assembly complete" concept, and the issue is now complicated by NASA's commitment to the "core complete" definition. Essentially, the Committee is concerned that indecision by NASA will lead to further cost overruns. NASA must determine the base program going forward -- which elements are in the design, and which are not.
Our discussion moved on to the related topic of NASA's Space Launch Initiative (SLI). SLI is touted as the key to opening the space frontier for continued scientific exploration and economic expansion -- by making space flight safe and affordable for both the government and private industry. While the Committee is supportive of SLI and its $4.8 billion planned investment to build a new spacecraft -- the second-generation reusable launch system, people are beginning to ask questions and a healthy skepticism is creeping in.
We also had a robust discussion on the issue of NASA and "privatization." The argument is often made that the Federal Government should privatize the Space Station, for example, to offset these mammoth costs being incurred by the government. But the definition of "privatization" is not always clear. Are we merely talking about commercialization (i.e., allowing industry to do research in space for a fee), or are we suggesting that the government put a "FOR SALE" sign on the Space Station, selling it outright and leasing back whatever rights the government needs to utilize. A major consideration in this regard is ensuring that the government's sunk costs are protected and that it receives substantial value for its assets, guarding against the potential of simply giving taxpayer assets to a private company allowing that company to reap profits by charging taxpayers for what the government has already paid for.
Our discussion moved on to an explanation of where Congress gets the scientific and technological information on which it must rely in its decision-making processes. Senate staff gets a wealth of information from companies, citizen groups, federal agencies and non-profits. Another important source of excellent trustworthy advice is the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Though the NAS' reporting process is notoriously slow, it is useful in situations where Congress has a complicated science question and a long lead-time. Until 1995, Congress received scientific and technical information from the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). OTA, which served Congress between 1972 and 1995 by providing in-depth reports and policy options regarding the consequences of science and technology, was eliminated as part of congressional reductions in the FY 1996 Appropriations Bill. Though some in Congress debate OTA's effectiveness, most agree that having technical expertise within the Legislative Branch was a good idea. Though there is presently a pilot technology assessment project underway within the General Accounting Office (GAO), the bottom line is that GAO does not have this kind of expertise.
We ended our meeting with a discussion of various issues including Senator Wyden's "charge" to us regarding modification of the Bayh-Dole Act, as well as whether government should fund or assist private sector S&T in the context of NIST's Advanced Technology and Manufacturing Extension Partnership Programs.
Timothy Stewart
Legislative Director (Majority)
Committee on Resources
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the House Committee on Resources
We met with the staff of the House Committee on Resources to explore how the Committee functions and does their work effectively. Mr. John Rayfield, a specialist on coastal and ocean programs, and Mr. Carl Gustofson, a Sea Grant Fellow, joined Mr. Timothy Stewart, Majority Legislative Director of the Committee. Congressman James V. Hansen, Republican from the 1st District in Utah, is the Committee Chairman. It is appropriate that Congressman Hansen is the chair of this Committee because 80 percent of the land in Utah is public land, primarily National Forest. The Committee has broad jurisdiction. They returned 357 Bills this year that affects many Departments including Interior, Commerce, and Defense. The Committee has five sub-committees: (1) Energy and Mineral Resources, (2) Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans, (3) Forests and Forest Health, (4) National Parks, Recreation and Public Lands, and (5) Water and Power. The Committee members tend to be western Republicans and eastern Democrats, which result in a clash of philosophies, leading to rather contentious discussions. Chairman Hansen wants to reduce the vitriol that has built up over the years. He has made some progress, as measured by the reduced screaming at the budget mark-up sessions, which had become very common in the past. An example of the difficult issues this Committee has to handle is vastly differing opinions with regard to wilderness areas, where both spiritual and pragmatic interests come into play. Territory issues for Native Americans also get very complex when fishing rights and protection of migratory species collide.
Mr. Stewart was asked how much scientific input Committee members received in areas such as climate change, endangered species, and other complex issues. He responded that staff is relied upon heavily to assist in evaluating these issues in a sensitive and representative way. The Committee is made up of a teacher, a banker, an attorney, a real estate broker, a farmer, and others. The members are very committed to doing what is right and they are well aware that incomplete science leads to poor decisions. They try to obtain expert opinions to be as informed as possible.
Mr. Stewart went on to describe the very complex tribal and Native American issues the Committee must deal with. These issues span multiple treaties and other laws covering land rights, tribal gaming, overlapping jurisdictional issues and other topics. He touched quickly on the fisheries and endangered species issues under consideration by the Committee to give us an appreciation of the wide range of issues considered by the members. We were very much impressed with the difficulty and breadth of issues dealt with by the Committee.
Holly H. Shimizu
Executive Director
U.S. Botanic GardensTopic: History and Initiatives of the U.S. Botanic Gardens
The final meeting during our Capitol Hill Orientation was with Ms. Holly H. Shimizu, Executive Director of the U.S. Botanic Gardens (USBG). She gave a tour and overview of the history and special programs of the U.S. Botanic Gardens. The Botanic Gardens is a living plant museum that interprets the role of plants in supporting Earth's ecosystems and in enriching human life. Established by Congress in 1820, the U.S. Botanic Gardens is one of the oldest botanic gardens in North America. Since 1934, it has been administered through the Office of the Architect of the Capitol.
The USBG traces it's beginning to 1816, when the constitution of the Columbian Institute for the Promotion of Arts and Sciences in Washington, DC, proposed the creation of a botanic garden. The purpose of this botanic garden was to collect, grow, and distribute plants from this and other countries that might contribute to the welfare of the American People. Congress established the Institute's garden as the official U.S. Botanic Gardens in 1820 on the west side of the Capitol Grounds. This facility functioned until 1837. In 1842, the idea of a national botanical garden was re-established, when the Wilkes Expedition to the South Seas brought to Washington, DC a collection of living plants from around the world. These were placed in a greenhouse behind the Old Patent Office Building and were later moved to the site previously occupied by the Columbian Institute's garden. Some of the plants from the original collection are still in the garden. The USBG moved to its present location in 1933, and the Architect of the Capitol has served as its Acting Director since 1934. Under the direction of the Joint Committee on the Library, which by law, is charged with control over the Garden, the Architect is responsible for the maintenance and operation of the Garden and for any construction, changes, or improvements.
There are four primary areas of the USBG: (1) the Conservatory, (2) Bartholdi Park, (3) The National Garden, and (4) the Production Facility. The Conservatory opened in 1933 as a historic landmark in the Nation's Capital, presenting four annual flower shows and displays of exotic plants. Bartholdi Park, named for the sculptor of its historic fountain, is a garden demonstration landscape, showcasing gardens suitable for an urban or suburban home site. The National Garden, which began development in 1998, is located on three acres of lawn adjacent to the Conservatory. Finally, the Production Facility is the largest greenhouse complex supporting a public garden in the United States. Completed in 1994, it includes 85,000 square feet under glass divided into 34 greenhouse bays and 16 environmental zones.
Ms. Shimizu showed the Conservatory's permanent collections of plants from subtropical, tropical, and arid regions. She explained that the Conservatory has recently undergone an extensive renovation, but is now open to the public. The Conservatory served as a temporary congressional headquarters after September 11th, while the congressional offices were tested for anthrax, until December. The USBG and the National Fund jointly sponsor public programs for the USBG, which is authorized through Public Law 100-458. Public services of the USBG include a plant information hotline, an educational outreach program, and growing of plants for the beautification of Capitol Hill. Under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, the USBG is a designated rescue center and repository for plants seized in illegal trade activities.
Judith Schneider
Specialist in American National Government
Congressional Research Service
Library of CongressTopic: Introduction to Congress and an Overview of the Legislative Process
As she has for many years, Ms. Judith Schneider kicked off our congressional orientation week with "Everything You Needed to Know About Congress and its Processes, But Didn't Know Enough to Ask." In two hours, we received a review of what we learned in a year of civics class. Ms. Schneider explained how government functions with a frank, occasionally "not for attribution" primer on how things really work. Subsequent speakers, later in the week, reinforced much of the information she provided to us (e.g., organization of Congress and its institutions, legislative procedures, committee processes and floor action).
The Congress' most important role is not to pass legislation but to make it difficult to pass poor legislation. Every year, as many as 10,000 bills are brought to the floor. It is the rare minority, which make their way through committee and are passed by both houses and signed into law by the President. The genius of our Founding Fathers is that they were able to design a legislative system to enable only the most important bills to become law and to filter out the rest. This system was established as part of the "checks and balances" to prevent any one of the three institutions (legislative, executive, and judicial) from becoming dominant.
The three keys to working with Congress are: (1) policy, (2) politics, and (3) procedures. Policy is probably the component with which most of us were familiar. While each of these issues may be challenging, policy is relatively easy, compared to the other two keys.
The politics of Congress is complex and dynamic. One example of politics is the practice of hearings. While the public and the Executive Branch assume investigative hearings are convened to gather new information, in fact, they are highly scripted events designed to prompt public interest and sway opinion.
The most mind-boggling of these keys is procedure. How bills move in committee and are brought to the floor play an incredibly important part in which laws are passed. Those adept at working the procedures are successful at establishing the legislative agenda and the results.
Considering the almost Byzantine structure and process of Congress, it is a wonder that any laws are passed at all. Nonetheless, the system works: it has survived, adapted to society's changing needs, and most importantly, has preserved the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the Nation's citizens.
Honorable Ted Stevens
United States Senate
(R-Alaska)Topic: Current Issues Facing the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Environmental Issues in the State of Alaska
Senator Ted Stevens provided us with interesting insights into his dual roles as Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee and as a Senator from one of our youngest states. The Senator began with an overview of the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Senate Appropriations Committee has 13 subcommittees. The Appropriations Committee is responsible for all the expenses of the United States except entitlements. Once the budget resolution is passed and sets the parameters for spending, the real work of the Committee begins. The Senator is the Chair of both the full committee and the Defense Appropriations Committee. Individual subcommittees work on specific portions of the budget. Both the full House and the full Senate must agree on a budget before it is sent to the President for signing.
During our conversation with Senator Stevens, we received some interesting information about the 49th State. Alaska covers 20 percent of the land area of the United States. The racial composition of Alaska's 800,000 citizens is very diverse. About 170,000 of the residents are Native Americans, 150,000 are Black, 150,000 are Asian and the rest are White. Much of the State is federally controlled. Alaska has over half of all federal lands, 75 percent of all wildlife refuges and 80 percent of wilderness areas. The Senator believes that that the United States should allow oil and natural gas drilling near the boundaries of federally protected lands since our reliance on Arab oil supplies will only increase over the next ten years.
Senator Stevens' comments about the challenges faced by newer states were very interesting. First, these states need to find out about federal programs that are in affect before they can try and take advantage of the ones for which they or their citizens are eligible. Second, even after programs have been identified it has been difficult to gain access to programs that were initiated before Alaska became a state.
Francis J. Lorson Chief Deputy Clerk
U.S. Supreme CourtTopic: Introduction to the U.S. Supreme Court
The Chief Deputy Clerk of the United States Supreme Court, Mr. Frank Lorson, presented details of the operation of the Court, touching on the jurisdiction of the Court, how the Court receives and processes cases, how decisions are reached and written, how the individual chambers operate and how the Court deals with death penalty decisions.
The Supreme Court is the only court established by the Constitution of the United States. Its appellate jurisdiction is determined by Congress and currently includes appeals from the highest state court of each state and the federal appellate courts. When an appeal is made from a decision by a state court, there must be a federal constitutional issue to be resolved. The Supreme Court cannot review state law questions. Appeals must be filed within 90 days of the appealed decision or the case cannot be accepted. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over disputes between states.
Cases are appealed to the Court by the filing of a Writ of Certiorari, a "prayer" to the Court setting forth important issues and pointing out why the Court should review the appealed decision. More than 50 percent of the Writs filed are pro se, and many are informal "pauper's petitions," which are frequently pro se or filed by court appointed attorneys. When Writs meet all formal requirements, they are placed on the docket and circulated to the nine justices. Each week, the Chief Justice lists those he thinks should be discussed, and then passes the list to the other eight Justices who can add cases to the list. From this "discuss list," the Justices decide which cases to hear. Grant or denial of a Writ of Certiorari is based on whether or not the judgment in question is in conflict with another court or prior opinion, or whether the case is of paramount importance. Last year, out of about 5,600 Writs placed on the docket or carried over from the previous year, fewer than 90 were accepted to be heard by the Court. "Certiorari denied" is not an uncommon phrase in the workings of the Supreme Court.
Following a grant of Certiorari, a number of submissions are made to the Court. The attorneys for both parties may file a joint appendix pointing out items and issues to which both parties wish to draw the Justices' collective attention. The petitioner will file a brief pointing out to the Justices why they should reverse the decision of the lower court. This may be accompanied by briefs from interested parties. The respondent then files a brief pointing out to the Justices why the original decision was correct in the first place and should be affirmed. And last in this back and forth process, the petitioner files a reply brief responding to the respondent's brief -- the petitioner gets the last word.
When the involved parties have fired all the briefs at each other that they are allowed to, the case goes to oral argument. During oral arguments the attorneys ostensibly are given 30 minutes to present their case to the Justices and answer any questions the Justices might have. The reality is that the Justices are given 30 minutes to grill the attorneys. Often the questioning is aimed at trying to determine the scope of the issues involved; that is, just how broad is the area that would be affected by the Court's decision. Prior to hearing the oral arguments, the Justices have read the briefs and supporting materials, and their clerks have briefed them on points that may not have been raised in the briefs -- they are familiar with the issues, and may have formed at least a preliminary opinion. Opinions at this stage are, however, malleable and are sometimes swayed by the oral arguments.
A preliminary vote is taken after the oral arguments, and a justice is assigned to author the opinion. Assignment is made by the Chief Justice if he is in the majority; if he is not, the assignment is made by the senior majority Justice. Once written, the opinion is circulated among all the Justices, along with any dissenting and supporting opinions. During this time, much dickering and discussion occurs and occasionally, a justice will change sides. Eventually, a final vote is taken and the opinion is handed down. This can be as soon as six to eight weeks after oral arguments, or as long as the term, which runs from October to June or July.
The Court can be flexible when issues of great import or immediacy arise. The Florida election case came to the Court because of U.S. Constitutional questions. The period allowed for filing briefs was greatly shortened and the briefs were allowed to be filed by e-mail for the first time. The Court also permitted audiotaping of the arguments, and made the tapes available to the public within minutes of the conclusion of the arguments.
The Justices maintain individual chambers, which are effectively like separate law firms. They run their own chambers according to their own wont. While the Justices may have individual approaches to running their chambers and to the law, they always remain civil with each other, beginning each session or meeting with a round of handshaking.
One crucial task of the Supreme Court is the review of death penalty decisions and appeals. The Supreme Court tracks all scheduled executions, and is ready to act quickly if a Writ of Habeas Corpus is filed. Writs of Habeas Corpus go to the original court first, and then to the state supreme court, but at every stage, copies of the papers are forwarded to the Supreme Court Clerk's office. A decision by the state supreme court is sent to the Supreme Court Clerk's office by e-mail and the Justices are then apprised of the issues. Granting Certiorari in a death penalty case requires only four votes, whereas a stay of execution requires five votes. Because death penalty decisions usually require immediate action, and do not conveniently wait for the Supreme Court to be in session, the Justices are always accessible. For one death penalty case, Justice O'Connor was reached by calling a pay phone at the foot of the Sphinx; for another, Justice Scalia was contacted on a plane en route to Hawaii. Clearly, the job of Supreme Court Justice is one that can never be left behind.
Helen H. Hsing Director
Office of Congressional Relations
General Accounting OfficeTopic: Overview of GAO, and Relationship and Interaction Between the GAO and Congress
Ms. Helen Hsing, Director of Congressional Relations for the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), gave an overview of the agency and its relationship to and interaction with Congress.
GAO, an agency within the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government, provides audit and evaluation services to Congress. Congress established GAO through the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. The Act gave GAO broad authority to investigate all matters relating to the receipt, disbursement, and use of public funds by the Federal Government. Over the years, as the size and scope of government grew, Congress gave GAO new responsibilities and duties. Until the 1960's, GAO was primarily an accounting oriented agency hiring mostly accountants. Its functions were primarily performing financial accounting and auditing work. In the 1970's, the GAO was reshaped by focusing more on program reviews and evaluations. Employees with multidisciplinary skills were hired during that time. Today, the agency that once checked government vouchers has become a multidisciplinary professional service organization equipped to handle Congress's audit and evaluation assignments.
GAO's work is organized into 32 issue areas and is grouped into 5 divisions and 10 field offices. These divisions are (1) Resources, Community, and Economic Development; (2) Health, Education, and Human Services; (3) General Government; (4) Accounting and Information Management; and (5) National Security and International Affairs. As part of the Legislative Branch, GAO is required by law to respond to congressional mandates and committee requests. GAO helps Congress oversee federal programs and operations to assure accountability to the American public. The agency's core values can be captured in three words: accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Ms. Hsing explained how GAO prioritizes its work. Most requests to GAO come from congressional committee chairpersons, ranking minority members, and committee members from both parties. Congressionally mandated studies and requests from senior leaders of the Congress, and committee leaders have priority. At any given time, GAO is involved in about 1,000 studies. GAO is asked to testify before Congress on average about 260 times every year.
During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, GAO was under severe budget pressures, resulting in a 25 percent reduction in its budget. The agency currently has in excess of 3,200 employees. Mr. David M. Walker, the Comptroller General, serves a 15-year term. Congress intended that the Comptroller General be insulated from prevailing political pressures and be able to operate independently. The only way to remove the Comptroller General is by impeachment.
Amy Heerink Legislative Director, Information Technology Working Group, and Counsel to Representative Tom Davis (R-Virginia) United States House of Representatives
Topic: Discussion of E-Government Issues
In our discussions, Ms. Heerink made it clear that the Federal Government has not adequately addressed e-government issues. The subcommittee dealing with e-government issues is new and is now attempting to get a clear sense of direction and jurisdiction. There is currently no formal mission for the subcommittee. There is an information technology (IT) group, which focuses on technology industry issues, such as, encryption, privacy, federal chief information officers (CIO), security and information sharing across agencies. This IT group was formed by a grass roots organization, and it provides Site Feedbackand works closely with the subcommittee. One of the ideas being explored by the subcommittee is the removal of the CIO from the jurisdiction of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and its relocation in the Executive Office of the President. This is an effort to bring CIO issues to the forefront and standardize the role of the CIO across all federal agencies. This effort is important because the subcommittee believes that OMB has failed to exercise its IT responsibilities over the agencies. Additionally, the subcommittee feels that the CIO has to be someone who works across agencies. In order for the CIO to be successful, the subcommittee feels that Executive Branch support is essential. It also feels that there is a need for a centralized source of IT funding and procurement. To that end, the subcommittee is now looking at New Mexico, Kentucky, North Carolina, and South Dakota as the model for the Federal Government. Those four states are the leaders in e-government issues.
The Cyber Security Bill was introduced in April 2001. Ms. Heerink gave no details about the bill but it is believed to be one that addresses the privacy issue.
The United States Senate and the House of Representatives do not have a CIO, but they do have committees that set the standards and rules of operation.
Elizabeth A. Prostic
Professional Staff Member (Majority)
Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States SenateRobert Fisher
Research Assistant (Majority)
Communications Subcommittee
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
United States SenateTopic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Ms. Elizabeth Prostic and Mr. Robert Fisher briefed us on issues the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation will be addressing this term. As might be gathered from its name, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation is responsible for a wide array of matters. The Committee's jurisdiction includes the Coast Guard, coastal zone management, fisheries, marine navigation and safety, communications, highway safety and interstate commerce, and space sciences, to name just a few. The legislation this Committee sponsors typically has bi-partisan support due to the scientific nature of the issues.
Ms. Prostic, who is a Professional Staff Member for the Science, Technology and Space Subcommittee, described the day-to-day workings of the Subcommittee and the issues she faces in drafting and ushering legislation through the Committee and Congress. Senator George Allen (R-Virginia), who recently replaced Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas), currently chairs the Subcommittee. With jurisdiction over the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National Institute of Standards, and the National Science Foundation, the Subcommittee oversees NASA space flight activities, the operations and modernization of the National Weather Service, and a significant portion of federal research and development funding.
Mr. Fisher, a Staff Research Assistant for the Communications Subcommittee, provided some insight into the current issues before the Subcommittee, which is responsible for legislation related to the telecommunications industry, satellite communications, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and spectrum allocation. Currently, the Subcommittee is involved with issues arising from technological advancements in a number of important areas, including broadband communication. Examples include issues of spectrum allocation and FCC spectrum auctions, digital television, and enhanced 911 service.
Philip Webre
Senior Analyst
Microeconomic and Financial Studies Division
Congressional Budget OfficeTopic: Overview of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO); Relationship and Interaction Between CBO and Congress
"In the absence of significant legislative changes and assuming that the economy follows the path described in this report, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that the total surplus will reach $281 billion in 2001. Such surpluses are projected to rise in the future, approaching $889 billion in 2011 and accumulating to $5.6 trillion over the 2002-2011 period."
These words provide some profound insight into the daunting nature of the CBO's mission: essentially to evaluate the impact of legislation, federal policies, programs, new initiatives, and the ebb and flow of the economy on the availability of funds for the federal budget. Their task is made even more difficult as the timelines for their projections increase. The CBO's own estimates on the uncertainty of their budget surplus projections show that, notwithstanding their best estimate given above, by the 2006, the surplus could be as high as $1.1 trillion or as low as -$50 billion. Moreover, the CBO stresses that these estimates do not take into account the impact of future legislation that is heavily driven by a political environment that in turn is beyond analysis or even wild speculation.
Yet, in spite of these problems, the CBO is the analytic arm relied on by Senators and Congressman of both parties to bring a dose of "if you pass this, this'll happen" reality to the world of legislative politics. In order to function in this often-frenetic environment, CBO analysts and managers remain above the political fray and maintain their scientific and technical integrity. Any compromise of this integrity would render CBO's work suspect and of little value to Congress and the best interests of the Nation.
Dr. Philip Webre is an outstanding example of the CBO's staff. His current responsibilities include assessing the budgetary and economic impacts of science and technology policy, federal computer and data communications policies, and federal support of business and industry. Much of his recent work at CBO has focused on how federal policies affect technological change in the private sector, both in funding commercially relevant research and development, and through regulation and taxation. As part of this work, he has analyzed major government initiatives to promote high-technology industries.
Matt Bailey
Congressional Specialist
Office of Congressional Affairs
Technology Administration
U.S. Department of CommerceTopic: Executive Branch Perspective of Working with Congress
Mr. Matt Bailey came to the Department of Commerce as a political appointee of the Clinton Administration to the office of Secretary Daley. After a few years in the Secretary's office, Mr. Bailey was selected for a competitive civil service position in the Office of Congressional Affairs, and became a Congressional Specialist. He sees his main functions as maintaining a liaison between the Congress and the Department of Commerce, making contacts, and building relationships with Hill staffers. He says, "We don't lobby Congress, but what we do can look very similar."
In the Department of Commerce, as in other agencies, a central legislative office works on advancing the President's agenda for that agency. Each bureau's legislative office works on the interests of that bureau. Congressional specialists field requests from Members of Congress and committees, review and comment on legislation affecting the agency, ensure that members and staffers have information about the agency's activities and plans, and bring intelligence from the Hill to the agency. There is no budget line item for congressional affairs, so activities such as inviting members or staffers to attend reviews or events are funded out of the individual program budgets.
The Congressional Affairs Office deals primarily with the authorizing and appropriations committees for Commerce in both the House and the Senate. Authorizing committees have jurisdiction over the agencies and determine what the program content should be. However, authorizing legislation has no "teeth" unless an appropriations bill is passed, since the authorizing committee does not control the purse strings. The appropriations committees decide how much money can be spent, and on which programs. Authorizing and appropriating functions on the Hill were separated after World War II, and the negotiation process has become a significant power struggle.
Asked how a new congressional specialist would go about learning the job, Mr. Bailey said that establishing relationships is the first priority. The new specialist would set up meetings with staffers on appropriations and authorizing committees, both houses, both parties, to make introductions and discuss the agency's programs. It's also important to attend Hill functions and receptions to make contacts informally, and to invite staffers to visit agency facilities, attend meetings and go on fact-finding trips. Congressional specialists act as interpreters between the agency and the Hill, for example, explaining concepts in general terms or providing real world examples that help congressional staff understand how the agency works. Relationships with staffers can be almost more important than with the members, since staffers do so much of the real work of a committee. Staffers have huge responsibilities. Consequently, it pays to work hard on relationships.
Thomas E. Mann
Senior Fellow
The Brookings InstitutionTopic: Congress, the Press, and the Public
As the W. Averell Harriman Senior Fellow in American Governance, Dr. Thomas Mann specializes in such issues as campaign finance reform, transitions from campaigning to governing, and the future of Internet voting. According to Dr. Mann, Congress is facing extraordinary pressures in the wake of the most extraordinary presidential election in a century. In his view, President Bush has demonstrated a breathtaking reach in policy direction and Republicans have been empowered to implement a pent up agenda. Yet Congress, as a powerful institution with an equally balanced Senate, must decide how to deal with such an ambitious approach. Dr. Mann dispelled as out-of-date the belief that our party system is weak. He sees evidence in the last 20 years of increased party unity at the grass roots level, greater party intensity, and voter patterns distinguished by the issues. He also sees the greater importance of money in the political process, particularly soft money. This has led to the concept of a permanent campaign where the boundaries between campaigning and governing have disappeared -- a situation he suggests is "inimical to a deliberative democracy." The role of our representatives in Congress has grown more specialized. Unfortunately, according to Dr. Mann, this evolution of representatives toward specialization is at odds with the role as envisioned by our founding. Their vision of representatives is one of broad understanding of the public needs and desires for the future.
While fielding questions, Dr. Mann spoke at length about the current debate on campaign finance reform and the problems that have been generated with the way political funds are raised and distributed. He contrasted political advertising in the United States with approaches used by other countries and traced some of the history of the voting process that has brought the campaign financing issue to a head. He believes there is a connection between the current situation and voter apathy and suggests that engagement could be improved by party efforts to build a stronger connection, to consider voter motivation, and to improve voter education. Dr. Mann suggests that the country is a long way from using the Internet for voting and that this may be just as well. He concluded with his view on polls, how they are being misused, and how they could be useful tools for understanding public values.
James P. Beirne
Deputy Chief Counsel (Majority)
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States SenateBryan Hannegan
Staff Scientist (Majority)
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States SenateMark Rey
Professional Staff Member (Majority)
Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
United States SenateTopic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. James Beirne, Deputy Chief Counsel for the Majority, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, briefed us on issues the Committee will be addressing this term. He was joined by Bryan Hannegan, Staff Scientist for the Committee; Bob Simon, a Congressional Science Fellow detailed to the Committee, and Mark Rey of the Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee.
The Committee is responsible for natural resources on public lands. They focus on the jurisdiction of settling public lands and the formation of land parcels. They also maintain jurisdiction over the U.S. territories, such as Guam and Puerto Rico and tribal lands, which are held in trust for the tribes by the Federal Government (tribal sovereignty applies only to the states, and not to the Federal Government). National parks and trails, public land management and use for such things as grazing, and forests which are in the public domain also come under the purview of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Public land trades of any size require congressional legislation, which is handled by this Committee in the Senate. The Bureau of Land Reclamation falls under their jurisdiction.
As the Senate committee responsible for energy, they will be involved in a wide array of issues including commercial nuclear power and how to handle nuclear waste, electric power marketing (of intense interest now because of the controversy surrounding the pricing of electricity in California), and the wholesale costs of electric power transmission. A forthcoming energy bill will be influenced by new technology. The focus of legislation will shift from climate change issues to overcoming energy shortages: developing coal and renewable energy resources, as well as bringing new natural gas pipelines into service and increasing the stability of the delivery grid.
The Natural Resources and Energy Committee differs from most committees. While Democrats and Republicans may approach resolution of energy issues differently (Democrats leaning toward federal assistance and Republicans leaning towards production), conflicts related to natural resource and energy issues traditionally have developed more along regional lines rather than partisan lines. Decisions on development and utilization of natural resources and energy are perceived to affect western and rural areas, which is why this Committee historically has attracted participation of Senators from the South and West.
Glen J. McLoughlin
Head, Science and Technology Policy Section
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service
Library of CongressRichard Rowberg
Senior Specialist in Science and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service
Library of CongressTopic: Issues Relating to the Science and Technology Within the Resources, Science, and Industry Division of the Congressional Research Service
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) of the Library of Congress is an organization created solely to serve Congress. CRS is one of three agencies established to support Congress along with the General Accounting Office and Congressional Budget Office. When Congress deliberates on a bill or requires information to assist in decision making, members will often call on CRS to answer questions, commission a study, or write a report. The establishment of CRS was based in part on Congressman Robert LaFollett's thoughts in the 1920's when he said that "Congress should have an objective fair place to turn to for truthful information." The CRS can turn down no request for support and their research must leave out political opinion. The results of their work are held strictly confidential.
Mr. Glen McLoughlin and Mr. Richard Rowberg work in the Resources, Science and Industry Division of the CRS. They often anticipate requests from Congress on science and technology issues that have current legislation pending. Because it is difficult to integrate complex science concepts into policy, there are often no clear answers limiting their response to members. However, their response can be important as legislators use the information to convince other members to vote one way or another.
Mr. McLoughlin and Mr. Rowberg say that their biggest problem is sorting through the various viewpoints. They say access to information is not a problem, especially now with all that is available on the Internet. However, achieving a balanced view of a complex issue is often challenging. A small budget and infrastructure, the high volume of requests, the easy access to large amounts of information, and a strict internal review process, keep CRS on their toes. Building informal contacts within industry and academia, and attending meetings and conferences is an important part of building their resources.
Making CRS reports available to the public while keeping the requestor's names confidential is a delicate task involving an understanding of the culture of Congress as well as the public's right to know. After all, taxpayers pay the salaries of CRS employees, as well as the Congressmen who are paid to represent their constituents.
Honorable Anibal Acevedo-Vila
Resident Commissioner
Representing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: Role of Resident Commissioner and Current Issues Concerning the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
On Thursday, March 22, 2001, we met with the Honorable Anibal Acevedo-Vila, the Resident Commissioner representing the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the House of Representatives of the U.S. Congress. He shared with us the following information.
From 1898-1952, the United States President appointed the Governor of Puerto Rico. In 1952, Puerto Rico was empowered to enact its own Constitution with an elected governor and legislature. The Puerto Rican political environment accommodates three parties -- a party favoring statehood, a party supporting continued commonwealth, and a party supporting independence. The Commonwealth Party holds the majority at about 49 percent; the Statehood Party is next at about 47 percent; and the smallest is the Independence Party at less than 4 percent.
Resident Commissioner Acevedo-Vila has a four-year term (elected in November 2000), representing the whole of Puerto Rico. He does not have a vote in the House sessions, but does vote in the committees. Since he does not have a floor vote, he depends on the power of persuasion to gain his objectives. Several times a year, he is called upon to visit the several Puerto Rican communities in the United States such as New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago.
Resident Commissioner Acevedo-Vila sees the following as Puerto Rico's most important issues: (1) economic development; (2) Navy weapons testing on Vieques; (3) inclusion in state programs; and (4) statehood status.
Unemployment in Puerto Rico is between 10 and 11 percent. Business was greatly impacted in 1993 by congressional decision to tax U.S. companies doing business in Puerto Rico. The impact has been the loss of thousands of jobs. Resident Commissioner Acevedo-Vila is introducing a bill to re-incentivize businesses. He wants to both increase business and attract new business to Puerto Rico. Further, Puerto Rico has no natural resources, just human capital. He believes Puerto Rico could be the "Technology Bridge" between the United States and Latin America, exploiting Puerto Rican bilingual abilities and experience with technology firms.
The U.S. Navy has a weapons test range on the Island of Vieques, Puerto Rico. Resident Commissioner Acevedo-Vila said all of Puerto Ricans want this testing permanently stopped. They feel the bombing is environmentally damaging and dangerous to the 10,000 people living there. The residents of Vieques have a high rate of cancer and cardiovascular problems that they argue is related to the bombing. Moreover, these residents want to develop Vieques commercially in order to reduce unemployment. This is impossible while the Navy continues to use a portion of the Island as a weapons test site.
Puerto Rico's status is always an issue for the Puerto Ricans. Resident Commissioner Acevedo-Vila is in favor of keeping the status quo, i.e., commonwealth status, because he believes it is the best of the three options. As a commonwealth, Puerto Rico preserves its culture and its residents are U.S. citizens. They have no federal income tax. As a state, they would be expected to advance English as the primary language, and to assimilate the English culture. Presently schools, radio, and TV are in Spanish. They would also forfeit their Olympic Team. As an independent nation, Puerto Ricans would lose the U.S. citizenship. Only a small percentage of the Island's population favor independence.
Resident Commissioner Acevedo-Vila concluded his presentation with a discussion of what we should see and do while we are in Puerto Rico. Also, he briefly described the infrastructure we would find there. He said the telecommunications and electric power were good, but the water utility needed significant improvement.
Eric Webster
Professional Staff Member (Majority)
Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards
Committee on Science
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the House Committee on Science
Mr. Eric Webster, a self-described student of process, has a B.S. degree in history and an M.S. degree in European Studies. He was the Legislative Director for Congressman Wayne Gilchrest from 1993 to 1997.
Mr. Webster indicated that the Science Committee, under the new chairman Congressman Sherwood Boehlert (R-New York), would be very active in promoting science within the Science Committee. Congressman Boehlert, whose main agenda focuses on energy, education, and the environment, wants to work with federal agencies and other committees to increase cooperation in moving scientific efforts forward.
The Committee's interest in energy emphasizes renewable energy sources, conservation efforts and increasing supplies of traditional fuels. The Committee is strongly committed to math and science education through appropriate testing and accountability, particularly in seeking ways to improve teaching and reinvigorate interest in this area. The policy implication in the emphasis on education is to promote future increase in technically proficient American workforce, which will obviate the need for foreign expertise imports to meet the industrial demands for such expertise.
One of the main priorities under the Congressman Boehlert's chairmanship is the environment. The Committee's jurisdiction includes the Environmental Protection Agency (risk analysis, pesticides) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (oceans research and climate changes). The Committee promotes science within the agencies as it relates to making policy decisions, for instance, on the appropriate levels of carbon dioxide and arsenic levels in the environment, and mining policy. Of special interest, the Committee is currently trying to determine the state of climate change research and how well such research efforts are coordinated.
Mr. Webster noted that some of the Committee members are scientists themselves. One subcommittee chairman, Congressman Vernon J. Ehlers (R-Michigan), is a physicist. The Science Committee, through AAAS fellows, attempts to better understand issues relevant to biotechnology including genetically modified organisms (GMO), plants and animals, and spotlights issues to make science relevant to policy.
Funding for research and development continues to be an overall concern. The budget for the National Institutes of Health has significantly increased, but may be to the detriment of other areas of basic research. The budget for the National Science Foundation is noted to be okay. The budget for NOAA was not much of an increase, but was noted as higher than the baseline (working off baseline of last year). There was a concern that the budget was going toward earmarks and not enough going toward sciences. The loss of good scientists in the Federal Government due to filling of the managerial slots by such experts, and creating more competition with the private sector to retain experts in the field was noted as a policy concern. Mr. Webster noted that people need to champion issues to promote favorable appropriation, legislation and/or oversight.
Donald Crane
Washington Office
Western Governor's AssociationTopic: Role of Lobbyists in the Legislative Process
The Western Governors' Association (WGA) is a nonpartisan, independent organization of governors from 18 western states, two Pacific territories and one commonwealth that attempts to identify and address important policy issues in public management, economic growth, natural resources and the environment. The Western Governors understand that many federal and state issues cross their state lines and borders. The Governors select issues based on public/regional interest and importance. Once the Governors have reached a consensus on the priority issues, the WGA helps the Governors develop a strategy and then advocate on behalf of those interests at state and national levels.
Mr. Donald Crane stated that his job as a lobbyist is frequently done in face-to-face meetings with lawmakers and their staffs. He defined lobbying as "an explicit attempt to influence legislation. Lobbying is a presentation of fact and an information exchange between parties. It is the largest information exchange in the world when Congress is in session." Mr. Crane believes that one must always provide full disclosure when lobbying. When a lobbyist educates a staffer on an issue, both sides of the argument must be shared in order to gain credibility. Mr. Crane stated his belief that lobbying is not venal, but a very important part of the process that helps produce the all-important end product -- legislation. In addition to lobbying, he said that it is important to participate in the legislative hearing process. By attending the hearings, Mr. Crane can report back on any significant issues raised in the hearings that may affect the Governors.
Michael Strachn
Deputy Chief of Staff (Majority)
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of RepresentativesMiki White
Investigative Counsel (Majority)
Oversight, Investigations, and Emergency Management Subcommittee
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Mr. Michael Strachn opened the meeting by describing the jurisdiction for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the difference between the Appropriation Committee and the Authorization Committee. He noted that the Committee is the biggest in the history with a total of 75 members wherein 34 are Democrats. He went on to explain some of their other activities and then turned the meeting over to Ms. Miki White.
Ms. White discussed some of the activities undertaken by the six subcommittees and some of the bills facing the Congress (highway, pipeline safety, environmental streamlining, rail safety, and water resources).
One can expect crisis management under the Aviation Subcommittee rather than legislation. For example, in early May, there was a Northwest Airlines strike that affected the public. There were merger controversies wherein the consolidating would affect the fate or the future of the public. In addition, there are problems of congestion in airways and airports, which require attention. The Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Don Young (R-Alaska), prefers for the airlines to voluntarily solve their problems. Conversations were encouraged between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Secretary of Transportation, Norman Mineta.
The Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee passed two bills authorizing funds for equipment for drug interdiction.
The Economic Development, Public Buildings and Energy Management Subcommittee reauthorized to improve the economic development in distressed urban and rural areas including the Delta Region (Mississippi Delta), the Appalachian Region, and the Denali Region (Alaska). In addition, the Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the public buildings on Capitol grounds dealing with naming, purchasing, leasing, and using the buildings for events such as concerts on July 4th.
The Highway and Transit Subcommittee oversees regulations pertaining to the transportation of hazardous materials and the safety of pipeline transportation. It also oversees federal-aid highway programs, federal transit programs, and motor carrier and highway safety regulations.
The Railroads Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the rail infrastructure, which includes the improvement of tracks to carry heavy cars, and rail safety to prevent occurrences of accidents and derailments.
The Water Resources and the Environment Subcommittee's oversight includes programs of the Army Corps of Engineers; the Clean Water Act; the Oil Pollution Act; the Ocean Dumping Act; wetlands protection and enhancement; and Superfund hazardous substance programs.
G. William Hoagland
Majority Staff Director
Committee on the Budget
United States SenateTopic: Federal Budget Development and Review Process in the Senate
Mr. G. William Hoagland has been the Majority Staff Director for the Senate Committee on the Budget since 1986. He provided an overview of the federal budget and review process in the U.S. Senate. The federal budget process was restructured through the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. An independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) was created by the Act with the additions of the House and Senate Budget Committees. The Committees are in charge of the process by which the Congress sets its own targets for the federal budget, including the overall levels of revenues and spending, the surplus or deficit that results, and the distribution of federal spending by broad, functional categories of discretionary and mandatory spending. The broad categories then serve as a blueprint for the appropriating committees as they determine funding levels for the Federal Government.
The budget committees use the budget projections formulated by the CBO to develop their annual budget resolutions and directives to other committees. For revenues and entitlement programs, such as Social Security or Medicare, the baseline projections generally assume that current laws will continue without change. For discretionary spending, which is controlled by annual appropriation bills, CBO bases its projections on the most recent appropriations and the statutory limits on future appropriations. For fiscal years 1998 through 2002, the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 set limits on discretionary spending, extending the limits first put in place by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.
The President's budget arrives by the first Monday in February. The House and the Senate Budget Committees each consider amendments and hold markups of the President's bill in broad fiscal functional categories or aggregate areas, and reports out the concurrent resolution on the budget for the next fiscal year by April 15th. The amendments are considered and the Committee votes to pass the budget resolution. The budget resolution conference report includes 302(a) spending allocations and reconciliation instructions. One of the mechanisms Congress uses to implement the constraints on revenue and spending is called the reconciliation process. The reconciliation is much like a bill and goes to the Senate floor. This process cannot be filibustered and the Senate must vote within 50 hours after beginning the deliberations. Congress completes action on a reconciliation bill or resolution by June 15th of each year. Once the Congress adopts the annual budget resolution, the budget committees take the lead in enforcing its provisions. To help them, CBO supplies estimates of the budgetary impact of bills reported by the different committees and up-to-date tabulations (referred to as scorekeeping) of the status of congressional actions on legislation that affect the budget.
The current Senate Budget Committee is comprised of 22 members having 11 Republicans and 11 Democrats. The budget adopted last fiscal year divided a 1.94 trillion dollar pie into the broad categories. This fiscal year, 600 billion dollars of the 1.9 trillion dollars will be appropriated to the 13 subcommittees of the Appropriations Committees.
Alan Slobodin
Senior Counsel for Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: Biomedical Issues Facing the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
Mr. Alan Slobodin clarified that the jurisdiction of the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce is strictly oversight and not legislation.
Biomedical research and development are currently the major focuses of the Subcommittee. Biotechnology issues in the 107th Congress involve oversight of human cloning and stem cell research. There is strong public opposition to human cloning and stem cell research for therapeutic purposes.
A hearing on human cloning is scheduled for March 29, 2001. Hearings attempt to provide a balanced view from all sides of an issue. Many experts in the science field will testify at the hearing. Also included will be legal and ethical experts, and representatives from international and religious groups. The hearing will address cloning research as it relates to a successful birth of a healthy baby and a separate application of the cloning technology (i.e., stem cell research) in the therapeutic arena.
Members of the Subcommittee espouse extreme views on both ends of the spectrum. No member is in favor of full cloning of humans. There are sectors that oppose cloning, but want to protect research on human cells. There is a sector that opposes research on moral and philosophical grounds. They believe that embryos are life and should not be used for research. Other sectors taking a position against human cloning say the research is conducted without accountability and regulation. The technology is deemed to be too young to be tried on humans. Nevertheless, some scientists have been trying to apply cloning technology for human replication after the successful attempts with animals, such as Dolly the sheep.
Ted Daniel
Director
U.S. Capitol Guide Service
(April 11, 2001)While many of us have been to the Capitol for various reasons, few of us have taken a Capitol tour with the Director of the U.S. Capitol Guide Service, Mr. Ted Daniel. We immediately found out what we were missing as we were all amazed by the artwork that adorns the 180-foot Capitol dome. An Italian artist, Constantino Brumidi, who is referred to as the Michelangelo of the Capitol, painted the dome. He used a painting technique called fresco when he painted the 360-degree dome. Fresco painting is the immediate application of mineral colors (diluted in water) to fresh mortar that has just been placed upon a wall -- in this case, the Capitol dome.
We learned that the bronze Statue of Freedom, by Thomas Crawford, that sits atop the Capitol dome is the largest statue in Washington, D.C. The statue stands 19 feet 6 inches tall and weighs approximately 15,000 pounds.
Other highlights of our tour included the old Senate Chamber where the Senate met from 1810 until 1859. When the Senate moved to its current location, the U.S. Supreme Court occupied the room (from 1860 to 1935). The old Senate Chamber houses a unique portrait of George Washington painted by Rembrandt Peale. The painting hangs in the middle of the chamber behind an original chamber desk used by previous Vice Presidents.
The National Statuary Hall was a meeting place for the U.S. House of Representatives from 1807 until 1857. In 1864, Congress invited each state to provide statues of two worthy state citizens for prominent display in the hall. Each state responded and the hall was quickly filled. The statues that do not fit in the hall are on display throughout the Capitol. Virginia sent statues of George Washington and Robert E. Lee. Maryland sent statues of John Hanson and Charles Carroll.
The Tomb, located under the Rotunda, is another interesting site because it was supposed to be the final resting place of George Washington. However, George Washington's family elected to keep his remains at Mount Vernon in Virginia, despite a congressional request to transfer the body. The Tomb remains empty to this day.
Michael G. Turnbull
Assistant Architect of the Capitol
(April 11, 2001)Following our tour of the U.S. Capitol, we met with Mr. Michael G. Turnbull, the Assistant Architect of the Capitol.
Mr. Turnbull began by talking about the tenth Architect of the Capitol, Mr. Alan M. Hantman. He explained that Mr. Hantman is the first Architect of the Capitol to be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate confirmed Mr. Hantman on January 30, 1997. Mr. Hantman is scheduled to serve a 10-year term and is eligible to be appointed again for another 10-year term.
The Office of the Architect of the Capitol is responsible for the maintenance, operation, development, and preservation of the Capitol complex. This complex includes (among other structures) the Capitol, the congressional office buildings, the Capitol Police headquarters, the Library of Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Botanic Garden, 100 acres at Fort Meade (used for storage), and the Capitol Power Plant. The Office of the Architect employs more than 1,800 individuals to carry out its duties.
One of the most ambitious programs that the Office of the Architect is currently undertaking is the building of a Capitol Visitors' Center. The Visitors' Center, which is scheduled to open in 2005, will be located underground on the East Front of the Capitol. Families and tourists visiting the Capitol will find a friendlier atmosphere with increased security measures. When completed, the Visitors' Center will contain 588,000 square feet on three levels that will include a cafeteria, two orientation theaters, a snack bar, a gift shop, and auditoriums. It will be able to accommodate 5,000 visitors at any one time. The total project value is estimated at $265 million.
We especially appreciated Mr. Turnbull's candid comments on how difficult, but rewarding, it is to work in the Office of the Architect of the Capitol as they try to solve the complex issues of an aging infrastructure using modern technology.
Judith Schneider
Specialist in American National Government
Congressional Research Service
Library of CongressTopic: Introduction to Congress and an Overview of the Legislative Process
Ms. Judith Schneider opened our Capitol Hill Orientation week with an introduction to Congress, the legislative process, congressional organization, the committee system, and floor procedures. She explained how Congress really works. Her method for eliciting group participation was thought provoking and served to demonstrate how much we do not know about our legislative process. Throughout the week, we obtained first hand experience of some of the things Ms. Schneider talked about and now understand why she said that our government operates like no other institution in the world.
Ms. Schneider explained how laws are made through a combination of three key considerations: policy, politics, and procedures. Failing to understand the role of each, can defeat an otherwise winning initiative to make or change a law. She underscored the three key considerations with a fourth -- patience. She explained that the founders of our government set up a complex system of checks and balances in anticipation of any one branch of government's attempt to overreach its authority, thus preserving our democracy. Those who talked to us throughout the week acknowledged and acquiesced to the frustration in the process that Ms. Schneider had explained.
She gave examples of how the process itself provides public guidance. She gave examples of groups that responded to proposals in bills. She stated that thousands of bills are introduced with very few resulting in law. She noted that Senators and Members of Congress avail themselves of the practice of introducing bills for many purposes with little expectation or intent that their bill will result in law. As we went through the week, we understood more about what she was trying to get across to us. By the end of the week, we appreciated her keen insight into the process.
Ms. Schneider explained the seniority and committee systems. She also explained that hearings are not intended to gather information; hearings are intended to provoke public interest in a subject. She explained that information is gathered in advance of hearings, through written questions and responses. Most bills never make it into law since there is a concentrated effort to prevent making bad law. The test of time and patience is applied to policy, politics, and procedure with the intent that only the best proposals will survive the process and become law.
Tom Oscherwitz
Counsel
Office of U.S. Senator Dianne FeinsteinTopic: Technology Issues Facing the Senate Judiciary Committee, Business E-Commerce in the State of California, and the Science Agenda of Senator Feinstein
Mr. Oscherwitz provided information and insights related to Senator Dianne Feinstein's (D-California) work on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and on California's unique challenges and opportunities in the areas of science and technology. Current hot issues include bankruptcy (4 million filings per year), increasing the minimum wage, anti-trust concerns (e.g., the Time Warner/AOL merger and the Microsoft case), H1B Visas (which allow firms to hire foreign technical experts), the "digital divide," tort reform (limiting the number of years a manufacturer can be held liable for a product), small business reform, consumer privacy for Internet commerce and health, and Internet taxation.
Mr. Oscherwitz noted that, in many ways, California is representative of the entire United States. For example, the state includes both rich and poor communities, both mountainous and desert regions, and both agricultural and coastal ecosystems. He stimulated excitement for our upcoming field trip to San Francisco by listing a number of California facilities doing cutting-edge research and sites that reflect various science and technology issues.
Because Mr. Oscherwitz worked in the House of Representatives before joining Senator Feinstein's staff, he was able to compare and contrast the two bodies. On the House side, the majority party has a lot of power, and that power is especially manifest in the committee chairs. While the staffs of the various House committees have considerable expertise/experience, the personal office staff of the individual representatives generally focuses less on matters requiring technical expertise. On the Senate side, individual senators have much more power. The Senate has more staff and the staff generally has more technical expertise.
Lynn C. Woolsey
U.S. House of Representatives
(D-California)Topic: Current Issues Concerning California's Sixth District
Congresswoman Woolsey is presently serving her fourth term in the House of Representatives, representing the Sixth Congressional District of California. This District is located north of the Golden Gate Bridge and includes Marin County and most of Sonoma County.
Diverse groups of technological, agricultural, and scenic sites are located within California's Sixth District. The District includes companies such as Hewlett Packard and Netscape, as well as spin-offs from these companies. The Telecom Valley is the location of high-end fiber optic companies such as Nokia and Digital Village. The Sonoma Valley wineries present numerous technological and agricultural challenges, including technology necessary to efficiently manufacture quality wine and science necessary to overcome diseases known to prey on the vineyards. West Marin and Sonoma Counties are also the homes for various dairy and fishing industries. The Muir Woods National Forest, the Golden Gate Natural Park, and the Point Reyes National Seashore are examples of the natural beauty present within Congresswoman Woolsey's home district.
Congresswoman Woolsey is a member of both the Committee on Education and the Workforce, and the Committee on Science. She is a champion of numerous causes such as the importance of basic science, the H1B Visa program allowing foreign workers to work in the United States, and the improvement of the educational system, including outreach focused on assisting girls interested in high-tech careers. Congresswoman Woolsey noted, in particular, concern regarding the lack of recognition our Nation provides for its teachers.
John C. Crowley
Special Assistant to the President and Director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Washington Office
Topic: The Role of Lobbyists in the Legislative Process
Since 1995, Mr. John Crowley has served as a member of the Steering Committee of the Science Coalition. He is also a member of the Association of American Universities (AAU) Council on Federal Relations and the Council on Government Affairs of the National Association of the State Universities and land grant Colleges. Before joining AAU, from 1986 to 1991, he was Vice President of the Association. Mr. Crowley explained that October and July are the months in which congressional visits are generally held. Students and faculty are allowed one hour in front of their congressperson to discuss physical science and technology issues. Mr. Crowley's mission has been to find opportunities to bring Members of Congress to the MIT Campus. He accomplishes this by asking congressional staffers to attend two-day seminars on specific topics that are of issue for their specific Congressman or woman. It was easy to understand why Mr. Crowley received the "Exceptional Achievement in Science and Government Cooperation" award.
Helen H. Hsing
Director
Congressional Relations
General Accounting OfficeTopic: Overview of GAO, and Relationship and Interaction Between the GAO and Congress
Ms. Helen Hsing, Director of Congressional Relations for the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO), gave an overview of the agency and its relationship to and interaction with Congress.
GAO, an agency within the Legislative Branch of the Federal Government, provides audit and evaluation services to Congress. Congress established GAO through the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921. The Act gave GAO broad authority to investigate all matters relating to the receipt, disbursement, and use of public funds by the Federal Government. Over the years, as the size and scope of government grew, Congress gave GAO new responsibilities and duties. Until the 1960's, GAO was primarily an accounting oriented agency hiring mostly accountants. Its functions were primarily performing financial accounting and auditing work. In the 1970's, the GAO was reshaped by focusing more on program reviews and evaluations. Employees with multidisciplinary skills were hired during that time. Today, the agency that once checked government vouchers has become a multidisciplinary professional service organization equipped to handle Congress's audit and evaluation assignments.
GAO's work is organized into 32 issue areas and is grouped into 5 divisions and 10 field offices. These divisions are (1) Resources, Community, and Economic Development; (2) Health, Education, and Human Services; (3) General Government; (4) Accounting and Information Management; and (5) National Security and International Affairs. As part of the Legislative Branch, GAO is required by law to respond to congressional mandates and committee requests. GAO helps Congress oversee federal programs and operations to assure accountability to the American public. The agency's core values can be captured in three words: accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Ms. Hsing explained how GAO prioritizes its work. Most requests to GAO come from congressional committee chairpersons, ranking minority members, and committee members from both parties. Congressionally mandated studies and requests from senior leaders of the Congress, and committee leaders have priority. At any given time, GAO is involved in about 1,000 studies. GAO is asked to testify before Congress on average about 260 times every year.
During fiscal years 1996 and 1997, GAO was under severe budget pressures, resulting in a 25 percent reduction in its budget. The agency currently has in excess of 3,200 employees. Mr. David M. Walker is the newly appointed Comptroller General. The Comptroller General serves a 15-year term. Congress intended that the Comptroller General be insulated from prevailing political pressures and be able to operate independently. The only way to remove the Comptroller General is by impeachment.
Kevin Krufky
Research Assistant (Majority)
Communications Subcommittee
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
U.S. SenateElizabeth A. Prostic
Professional Staff Member (Majority)
Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation
U.S. SenateTopic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation
In the afternoon of the second day of our Capitol Hill orientation, we heard from Mr. Kevin Krufky and Ms. Elizabeth Prostic. Both are staff assistants working for Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) on the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Mr. Krufky works on the Communications Subcommittee and Ms. Prostic works on the Science, Technology, and Space Subcommittee. Mr. Krufky talked about issues his subcommittee is addressing including security, encryption, and privacy. Ms. Prostic explained her subcommittee's work and described constituent bases with which the subcommittee works, including think tanks, schools, and agencies. They both emphasized customer focus and service.
In addition to providing an overview of committee operations and major issues, they explained their work performing research, preparing write-ups, and assisting in customer relations. Mr. Krufky and Ms. Prostic answered our questions directly and explained their responsibilities. They provided insight into how Senator McCain addresses issues, provides guidance, and works with his staff and assistants. They both impressed us with their knowledge and enthusiasm.
Francis J. Lorson
Chief Deputy Clerk
U.S. Supreme CourtTopic: Overview of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Relationship and Interaction Between the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress
Mr. Frank Lorson provided a fascinating overview of the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, procedural guidelines of the Court, and typical operating procedures of the Court. The U.S. Supreme Court is the only court mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Article III both establishes the Court and gives Congress the authority to set up inferior courts. Within the United States, there is a dual court system -- the federal court system and the state court systems. The federal court system is used to resolve issues dealing with federal/Constitutional questions. Thus, the Supreme Court has the authority of Constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court also has original jurisdiction in cases arising from controversies between states or between states and the Federal Government. The Court has no authority to issue advisory opinions. There must be an actual case or controversy. Last year, the Court had a caseload docket of over 8,000 cases. Of these, plenary review with the grant of oral argument was issued in less than 100 cases.
In 1988, the new Judiciary Act abolished appeals to the Supreme Court as a matter of right. With few exceptions, appellants must seek review by petitioning for writ of certiorari. A petition for writ of certiorari is granted with judicial discretion for only compelling reasons. Such compelling reasons can include: issuance of conflicting decisions by inferior courts and issuance of decisions conflicting with prior decisions of the Supreme Court with respect to federal questions. The Supreme Court rules set forth the procedural requirements for the petitioner and the respondent. The rules also allow for petitions by those of modest means, e.g., inmates confined in institutions who are not represented by counsel. If such petitions are granted, the Court will appoint an attorney who is expert in the area to brief and argue the case.
The nine Justices of the Supreme Court are generalists and thus individually review the brief for each case, considering the arguments presented regarding the reason(s) why the Court should accept the case. The Chief Justice circulates a list of cases felt worthy of consideration, which can be supplemented by other Justices. Once at least four Justices vote to grant a petition, the procedural guidelines set forth the requirements for Court filings and oral argument. The Chief Justice initiates the deliberative process, beginning with a synopsis of the case. If the Chief Justice is in the majority, the Chief Justice can then assign drafting of the opinion. If the Chief Justice is in the minority, the senior Justice in the majority assigns the drafting of the opinion. The ultimate resolution of the case can thus be determined by the crucial step of assignment of the opinion.
The opinion draft is circulated to each Justice, as well as any dissenting opinions. While preliminary votes are taken on the content of the draft opinion, the Justices are free to change their minds up until the moment at which the opinion is announced. Accordingly, several times a year, the dissenting opinion can actually evolve into the majority opinion. The Justice offering the majority opinion goes on the bench to announce the opinion. In addition, when the dissenting opinion is strong, the dissent can also be announced.
Law clerks are responsible for performing research, preparing bench memoranda, and preparing draft opinions. As noted by Mr. Lorson, such drafts are substantially modified prior to ultimate issuance. Occasionally, parties do settle and withdraw their petitions.
Mr. Lorson described the complexities of death penalty cases, including the important role of the Clerk's office in monitoring the status of these cases and alerting the Justices when these cases require their consideration.
Mr. Lorson described the hard-fought process whereby the Supreme Court obtained the magnificent building in which it is presently housed. The Court first met in the New York City Merchants Exchange Building prior to its move to Independence Hall and City Hall in Philadelphia. When the Capitol moved to Washington, D.C., the Court was provided ever-changing space in the Capitol Building. Through the unfailing efforts of Chief Justice William Howard Taft, approval was eventually authorized for the construction of the present Supreme Court Building. Mr. Lorson's overview was concluded with a tour of the Building.
G. William Hoagland
Majority Staff Director
Committee on the Budget
U.S. SenateTopic: Federal Budget Development and Review Process in the Senate
Mr. Hoagland spoke with us about the Senate Budget Committee (SBC) and the congressional budget process. The SBC was created only 25 years ago because Congress did not have a functioning system to deal with budget and fiscal policy issues. The SBC was created at the same time as the House Budget Committee and the Congressional Budget Office. Also established at that time was the new procedure of having the President submit his budget to Congress each February.
At the time of the meeting, Mr. Hoagland's Committee had nearly finished developing the Concurrent Budget Resolution for FY 2001, which he explained serves as a blueprint for the appropriating committees as they determine funding levels for the Federal Government. He also took time to discuss some important issues in congressional budgeting, including the 1997 Budget Enforcement Act, which set overall caps on discretionary spending and biennial budgeting as a strategy to improve the budgeting process.
Honorable Vernon J. Ehlers
U.S. House of Representatives
(R-Michigan)Michael Lach
Education/Science Fellow
Office of Representative Vernon J. Ehlers
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: The National Science Policy Study
Congressman Ehlers was elected in 1994 as the representative from the Third District of Michigan. As Vice-Chairman of the House Science Committee, Congressman Ehlers oversaw a rewrite of the Nation's science policy. He recently joined the Education and Workforce Committee, where he intends to coordinate his efforts with the Science Committee to improve math and science education. Most of our discussion with Congressman Ehlers focused on educational issues. He started by noting that the standard "3 R's" for education end with an "s" for science.
Recruiting, training, and keeping excellent teachers are critical educational issues. It is becoming more difficult to recruit women into teaching because, increasingly, they have other employment options. Only limited on-going training is offered to teachers. And salaries are not competitive, making it difficult to retain teachers.
Congressman Ehlers noted that, unlike many other countries, the United States does not have a federal education system. The Constitution provides no federal jurisdiction over education and the Federal Government only contributes about 7 percent of the $300 billion spent on education each year in the United States. Congressman Ehlers argues that the Federal Government should be investing more in research on how to make schools more effective, how to develop better curricula and courses, and on the process of learning.
When asked about H1B Visas, Congressman Ehlers said he views the issue as an indication that we are failing to produce our own technical workforce. In the larger context, he noted that we couldn't help other countries by continuing to take their best students and technical experts.
In response to a question about the "digital divide," Congressman Ehlers expressed the view that disparities are more a function of culture than economics. He noted, for example, that currently very little material on the Internet is directed at African Americans. Citing the rapid increase in Internet use by senior citizens, Congressman Ehlers said he expects that the digital divide will disappear in a few years.
James Turner
Counsel (Minority)
Committee on Science
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the House Committee on Science
Having worked on Capitol Hill for many years, Mr. Turner was able to provide many insights into how committees work and how bills develop, evolve, and either get passed or rejected. It is interesting to note that there are only three Ph.D. scientists and six engineers in Congress, and that few of them serve on the Committee on Science. The big science issues this year include: (1) NSF authorization (members are generally sympathetic to budget increases because most have university constituencies in their districts); (2) science education; (3) computer security; and (4) the National Institute of Standards and Technology (including the Advanced Technology Program).
The House has already passed the Information Technology Bill ($4-5 billion over 5 years), as well as bills related to fires, earthquakes, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Counterpart bills in the Senate are all pending. Mr. Turner noted that a lot of bills related to science are pending in the Senate because of Senator McCain's absence during the presidential primary.
In response to questions about process, Mr. Turner explained that in introducing a bill, a member provides the bill to the House Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian then directs the bill to a committee, from which it is then directed to a subcommittee. Getting a bill passed requires that it be transmitted from the subcommittee back to the committee, and then to the House floor for a vote. A parallel bill must also be introduced and passed in the Senate. If bills passed by the House and Senate are different, the two versions go to a formal House/Senate conference. Mr. Turner also noted that if a bill fails to pass, a common strategy is to attach it as an amendment to another bill.
When asked about the different roles of majority and minority committee staff, Mr. Turner noted that with 48-49 percent of members in the House being Democrats, the Republicans hold a very small majority. Nevertheless, the majority staff must assume all administrative responsibilities, such as scheduling rooms, travel, etc. Minority staff in the House represents only about 30 percent of the total.
Robert W. Goodlatte
U.S. House of Representatives
(R-Virginia)Topic: Congress and the Information Age Including Current Encryption Policy
We were honored to meet the Co-Chair of the Congressional Internet Caucus and the Chair for House Republican on the technology working group. Congressman Goodlatte explained that he serves on the Republican Cyber Security Team, which sets standards for government and business to eliminate the expanding cyber threat. For the work that Congressman Goodlatte has done, he has been awarded by the Business Software Alliance, the Top Cyber Champion because of a perfect score on the Industry Council scorecard. Congressman Goodlatte has proven his determination on issues by introducing the following legislation: Food Stamp Abuse; Tele Marketing Fraud Prevention; Anti Hacker Legislation; Anti Counterfeiting Consumer Protection Act; and the Security and Freedom Through Encryption Act of 1999.
Robert J. Dole
Verner, Liipfert, Bernhand, McPherson and HandTopic: An Assessment of the 106th Congress From the Perspective of a Former Member
We met with Robert J. Dole, former U.S. Senator (R-Kansas) and Senate Majority Leader. It was a rare experience to meet such a distinguished man with such a rich and diverse historical background in government. We asked questions and talked freely about what Senator Dole is doing now that he has left the U.S. Senate. Senator Dole explained that he is raising funds (approximately 86 million) for a World War II war memorial. The ground breaking is expected to be this November. When asked about congressional issues, Senator Dole spoke candidly about how not much is happening in Congress since it's an election year, and the idea of a biennial budget. Senator Dole left us with some words of wisdom -- "People decry the view of Government as not good." He also reiterated that our government is the best in the world and we should keep up the good work as government employees.
James P. Beirne Deputy Chief Counsel (Majority)
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
U.S. SenateTopic: Overview and Major Issues Facing the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Mr. James Beirne, Deputy Chief Counsel for the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources provided us with an overview of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. Several professional staff members from the Committee also participated in the discussion. They were Ms. Colleen Deegan, Counsel for Energy Research, Development, Production and Regulation Subcommittee; Dr. Bryan Hannegan, Congressional Science Fellow; Mr. Bill Eby and Mr. Mark Rey, Forests and Public Land Management Subcommittee; and Mr. Howard Useem, Water and Power Subcommittee.
The scope of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources includes a broad range of oversight, legislative, and executive matters relating to energy and natural resources issues. The jurisdiction of the committee extends to all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects: (1) coal production, distribution, and utilization; (2) energy policy; (3) energy regulation and conservation; (4) energy related aspects of deepwater ports; (5) energy research and development; (6) extraction of minerals from oceans and outer continental shelf lands; (7) hydroelectric power, irrigation, and reclamation; (8) mining education and research; (9) mining, mineral lands, mining claims, and conservation; (10) national parks, recreation areas, wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, historical sites, military parks and battlefields, and on the public domain, preservation of prehistoric ruins and objects of interests; (11) naval petroleum reserves in Alaska; (12) nonmilitary development of nuclear energy; (13) oil and gas production and distribution; (14) public lands and forests, including farming and grazing, and mineral extraction thereon; (15) solar energy systems; and (16) territorial possessions of the United States, including trusteeships.
The Committee has four subcommittees: the Subcommittee on Energy Research, Development, Production and Regulation; the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management; the Subcommittee on National Parks, Historic Preservation, and Recreation; and the Subcommittee on Water and Power.
Mr. Beirne gave us an overview of the Committee and explained the background of the Committee. Issues to be dealt with by the Committee have evolved over time. For example, the Committee also picked up nuclear energy, which was part of the environmental regulations related area. In the area of energy research and development, electric cars and the partnership for next generation vehicles are examples of topics dealt with by this Committee. There will also be a hearing on oil and gas development strategies. Also, there will be a hearing on the issue relating to recent gasoline price increases.
Oversight and legislative responsibility for public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Forest Service are in the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management. Mr. Rey mentioned that the Subcommittee was having oversight hearings on recreational use of national forests. The Subcommittee members expressed concern about the heavy emphasis on recreational use of the national forest system as opposed to the Forest Service's overarching mission of multiple uses of national forests. The Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management is addressing issues such as the land management planning rule, road and roadless areas, and the National Forest Management Act rewrite. Other topics such as renewable energy, hydroelectric power as well as coal waste were also discussed.
David H. Moore Deputy Assistant Director
Microeconomic and Financial Studies Division
Congressional Budget OfficeTopic: Overview of the CBO, and Relationship and Interaction Between CBO and Congress
Mr. David Moore described the composition and purpose of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which was established in 1975 to provide independent, non-partisan analysis to Congress and help Congress stay within the budget plan.
The focus of Mr. Moore's discussion was auctions performed since 1991 by the Federal Communications Commission for radio spectrum licenses. These licenses have been issued based on a number of different criteria including proposed use, efficiency, fairness, and revenues. In 1992, the CBO performed its first study on the methodology used in assigning the licenses. Subsequently, for many years, the spectrum auction was included in the Deficit Reduction Report.
In 1997, the CBO was asked to examine auctions in the context of what had traditionally been done and how the assignment of future additional licenses should be performed. The CBO identified problems resulting from past auctions, namely the provision of larger discounts to set-aside bidders, which had generally been deemed illegal, and the conflict between excessive public and inadequate private allocations.
The CBO is involved in the planning process for spectrum usage and the transitional process as networks are switched over from analog to digital usage. Its cost estimates are reflected in the Balanced Budget Act.
Michael Rodemeyer
Legislative Director (Minority)
Committee on Science
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: What It Takes To Get Congress To Understand Why Science Matters
With his extensive experience with the Committee on Science and his recent experience in the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Mr. Rodemeyer is in a key position to understand how science issues can be raised effectively on Capitol Hill. Mr. Rodemeyer noted that most members of Congress have a background in either business or law -- very few are trained in science, engineering or technology. A major responsibility for both the personal and committee staff on Capitol Hill is the filtering of information presented for consideration by Members of Congress.
Information emanates from a number of sources. Committee staffs call hearings. Lobbyists provide information to support their views. The Congressional Research Service can be tasked to provide objective, non-partisan information on specific topics. Mr. Rodemeyer noted that the 104th Congress abolished a former resource, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). OTA has been replaced to a large extent by ideological think tanks. He said that lobbying in the science area is done mostly by academics and contractors (e.g., companies contracted to build the Space Station).
The Committee on Science serves as a focal point for science issues in the House of Representatives. While it does not have jurisdiction over defense, agriculture and health, the Committee does cover all other areas related to science, engineering and technology.
Haynes B. Johnson
Knight Chair, Journalism
University of MarylandTopic: Congress, the Press, and Public Opinion
On March 17th, we opened the last day of our Capitol Hill orientation week having breakfast with Mr. Haynes Johnson, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, author and television commentator. We spent an informative hour listening to Mr. Johnson. He answered many questions on a range of subjects relating to Congress, the press and public opinion. We were impressed with his insightful comments and views of world affairs, often based on personal experiences. He reminded us that we needed to consider all sides of complex issues. He also reminded us that too often, there are no solutions.
Mr. Johnson expressed concern that a large part of middle America does not vote, particularly the 18 to 25 year olds. He cited the small turnout for primary voting, leaving open the opportunity for special interests to turn out in larger numbers to press their agendas. In response to a question about a strong third party showing, he noted the potential for a substantial challenge by a third party that could capture the support of an independent minded public.
Mr. Johnson spoke of world turbulence and used the Balkan situation to explain the complexity. He discussed his experiences during travel to Pakistan, India, and Kashmir. We listened intently as he addressed the potential of China and Russia. He explained cooperation taking place in the European community.
Having authored The Bay of Pigs and The Landing, his views of Fidel Castro as a local hero and the potential of Cuba as a future democracy were very interesting. He underscored his observations with personal experiences in response to a wide range of subjects.
Jerry Bonham
Director
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
International Trade Administration
U.S. Department of CommerceTopic: Executive Branch Perspective of Working with Congress
Mr. Jerry Bonham spoke to us on his experiences of 18 years on Capitol Hill and his 10 years with the Senate Appropriations Committee. He provided insight into the working relationship between the Executive Branch and Congress.
Mr. Bonham gave us an in-depth description on how the House International Relations Trade Subcommittee enacts export laws. He also described efforts by the Commerce Committee to champion airplane noise reduction and to supply information for inquiries on trade statistics to Congress and the general public.
Jeremy Grant
Legislative Assistant
Office of U.S. Senator Charles S. RobbTopic: Current Science and Technology Issues/Science Agenda of Senator Robb
Mr. Jeremy Grant provided an overview of Senator Charles S. Robb's (D-Virginia) staff, committee assignments, and major issues under consideration within the committees. Mr. Grant has been a member of Senator Robb's staff since 1997, when he began in an entry-level policy position.
Senator Robb has a staff of approximately 20-25 in Washington, D.C., and approximately the same number dispersed in offices regionally distributed throughout the State of Virginia. The Washington, D.C. staff is primarily concerned with constituent service and policy issues, while the remaining staff in the regional offices is primarily concerned with case work as well as non-policy, non-legislatively oriented issues. Senator Robb's legislative staff includes a director and assistants, as well as entry-level correspondents who manage correspondence with the constituents.
Senator Robb serves on four committees -- the Armed Services Committee (where he is the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Readiness); the Finance Committee; the Select Committee on Intelligence; and the Joint Economic Committee (where he is the ranking member). A typical day for Senator Robb includes committee meetings in the mornings and constituent meetings and votes in the afternoons.
Mr. Grant elaborated on some of the major issues with which Senator Robb is focusing his efforts. These include: (1) basic research, including increased investment in research and development; (2) educational issues, including H1B Visa grants to meet short-term needs and enhancement of the educational system to address long-term needs; (3) telecommunications; (4) telemarketing issues, particularly the prevention of telemarketing companies from blocking the caller ID function; (5) cyber-education issues, focusing on the integration of computers in schools as well as the need to train users on how to integrate computer capabilities into curricula; and (6) transportation enhancements, including the support for highway improvements.
William Bonvillian
Legislative Director/Chief Counsel
Office of U.S. Senator Joseph I. LiebermanTopic: Current Science and Technology Issues/Science Agenda of Senator Lieberman
Mr. Bonvillian focused his meeting with us on research and development issues. He began his discussion by paraphrasing the economist Robert Solow, who has asserted that technology and innovation are a bigger factor in today's economic growth than capital and labor. He explained his concern that there appears to be a declining interest in the physical sciences with a boom of interest and investment in the life sciences. While investment by both the public and private sectors in life sciences is important, Mr. Bonvillian stated that continued under investment in the physical sciences will have ramifications on the broader United States science and technology infrastructure because advances in the physical sciences enable further advances in other fields. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Connecticut) is concerned about this imbalance in the United States research portfolio and is working to educate Capitol Hill on this issue.
Shirley L. Ruhe
President
SLR Budget and Legislative ConsultantsTopic: The Congressional Budget Process
On April 5, 2000, Ms. Shirley Ruhe spoke to us about the congressional budget process. Following a week of Capitol Hill orientation, Ms. Ruhe's presentation was an informative recapitulation. She focused on the budget activities of the House of Representatives. Her presentation was tempered by her personal experience having, for more than one budget cycle, managed a professional staff of 25 to produce a $1.4 trillion congressional budget resolution voted on by the House of Representatives.
She took time to provide background to the current budget process, explaining steps leading to the 1974 Budget Act and a number of modifications to the Act since its passage. Her introduction underscored the fact that the Act put in place a process consisting of rules, auditable steps and a timetable for action. For the first time in congressional budget development, there existed score keeping and enforcement procedures for tracking budget bills against an overall plan. The process still remains slow and often frustrating in striving for equity. We came to a better appreciation of what we heard early in our Capitol Hill orientation about the proper mix of policy, politics and procedure needed to reach a final compromise.
Ms. Ruhe used graphics to effectively highlight the discretionary portion of the budget where the focus of give and take occurs. A closer look at the non-defense discretionary spending for FY 2000 included other categories, such as education and training, transportation, space and science, veteran's benefits, natural resources and environment, health research and public health, justice and general government and income security. After looking at budget allotments relative to the total available, we had a better appreciation for the formidable task of developing an acceptable budget.
Judith Schneider
Specialist in American National Government
Congressional Research Service
Library of CongressTopic: Introduction to Congress and an Overview of the Legislative Process
Imparting impartial insight into congressional procedures, policy and politics, Ms. Judith Schneider, a specialist in American National Government from the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, provided the framework for our Capitol Hill Orientation. Ms. Schneider's presentation was a condensed version of that presented to freshman members of both Houses upon their arrival in Washington, DC. Her in-depth presentation covered the procedures of how a bill becomes law, including, but not limited to, member introduction of a bill, referral to committee, committee action, subcommittee review, mark-up, committee action to report a bill, publication of a written report, scheduling floor action and debate.
Further, Ms. Schneider discussed strategies for communicating with Congress, including the employment of the most critical element, patience. By her description of the details of the congressional system set up by the founding fathers to provide a check and balance, Ms. Schneider challenged us to become better educated voters by intently observing the system during our week on Capitol Hill.
Norman J. Ornstein
Resident Scholar
American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy ResearchTopic: Current Issues and the Future of Congress
Dr. Norman Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research spoke to us about the future of Congress. Dr. Ornstein focused on the 106th Congress that took office in January 1999.
This Congress represents the smallest net shift in political make-up, compared to any previous Congress. The Republican leadership, right up to election eve, expected to gain 20 to 40 seats in the House and five seats in the Senate -- an almost veto-proof majority. The actual results were so wildly different from expectations that, although the Republicans retained the majority (for the first time in the 20th Century), the leadership took the brunt of the blame. Speaker Gingrich was forced to resign.
The Republicans had one main task in 1998 -- to pass about a dozen appropriations bills. By the end of the term, they had not acted on a single one. As the possibility of another government shut-down loomed closer, they capitulated and gave the President everything he wanted. This failure to hold the line on the Democrats' spending plans angered the conservative base and led to the disaster at the voting booths. The "conventional" wisdom that the impeachment was to blame was false; Dr. Ornstein laid the failure to offer any single thing to distinguish the Republicans from the Democrats on the party leadership.
Dr. Ornstein contends that governing majorities originate in the political center of the spectrum and expects that any legislation passed by the 106th will be the result of a large number of "moderate" politicians agreeing to work together -- for example, to "fix" social security or Medicare. But, Dr. Ornstein also believes that the power behind the new speaker, Dennis Hastert, is Tom DeLay -- and that will prevent the liberals from working effectively with him. The continuation of such a dead-lock could result in a staggering shift in the political make-up of the national government in 2000, when almost every seat is "in play" including the Presidency. If the "center" fails, the more extreme ends will certainly move farther apart.
Dr. Ornstein stated that for Al Gore to have a reasonable chance at the Presidency, he would have to enhance his relationship with the left. Dr. Ornstein thinks that Vice President Gore, like President Clinton, has left the liberals angry with vague promises of future action, while harping on themes that sound more like conservatives on the campaign.
Richard F. Bechtel
Director
Washington Office
Western Governors' AssociationTopic: Role of Lobbyists in the Legislative Process
Mr. Bechtel described the Western Governors' Association (WGA), the way it works as a lobbying organization, and some of the issues it deals with.
The WGA is a nonpartisan association of the Governors of 18 western states, two territories, and one commonwealth headquartered in Denver, Colorado. The WGA works by consensus on issues that particularly affect their states. It is funded by members' dues. Mr. Bechtel described the way the association operates as working with the players in a particular issue, getting people -- governors, legislators, people from federal and state agencies -- to work together over a long period of time to come to agreement. Issues of current importance that were mentioned included use of public lands, endangered species protection, clean water, and the use of state taxes on extracted mineral resources for the improvement of lands and recreation.
Mr. Bechtel also talked about the Western Governors' University. The Western Governors' University is a new venture in distance education with a business office in Salt Lake City, Utah, and an academic office in Denver, Colorado. It offers courses and degree programs via the Internet; most of the courses are offered by one of the state universities in the participating states. Mr. Bechtel told us the reasons for the initiative are twofold: providing access to higher education to students in remote areas, and reducing the cost of higher education from that of current institutions. The initiative is too new to know how well it actually works. It appears to be competing directly with the states' own universities and community colleges, although it may attract as students some people who would not otherwise enroll.
J. Marc Wheat
Counsel
Committee on Commerce
U.S. House of RepresentativesTopic: Biotechnology Issues Facing the 106th Congress
The House Commerce Committee has a staff of 80. The Committee has jurisdiction over the budgets of many federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the Food and Drug Administration, the Department of Commerce, and the Department of Energy.
We had proposed as a topic for discussion "Current Biotechnology Issues Facing the 106th Congress." Instead of making a specific presentation, Mr. Wheat chose to take questions from us. We touched on a wide range of issues including some highly controversial subjects such as stem cell research, organ transplants, genetically modified organisms, drug abuse, patients' bill of rights, and privacy. The discussion was lively and brought out the diverse opinions on these topics.
Barbara A. Wolanin
Curator
The Architect of the CapitolDr. Barbara A. Wolanin, Curator for the Architect of the Capitol, arranged for us to receive a personalized tour of the Capitol building. While speaking with us, she emphasized the contributions of Constantino Brumidi and how his influence flows throughout the interior of the Capitol building.
Brumidi, an Italian artist, was referred to as the Michelangelo of the Capitol. One of the painting techniques Brumidi used throughout the Capitol was fresco, painting on moist plaster using colors which are mixed with water or limewater. His works include murals, lunettes, portraits, panels and borders. The Brumidi corridors, located on the first floor of the Senate side of the Capitol, are hallways with vaulted ceilings that are beautifully decorated from floor to ceiling. The frieze, located in the Rotunda of the Capitol, is a 360-degree painting depicting the beginning of the history of America with Columbus and ending with the gold rush in California. The Apotheosis of Washington, located in the canopy above the eye of the inner dome, includes George Washington, 13 maidens and others figures rising to the heavens. Although the conservation of Brumidi's works began in 1985, the project is still continuing because of the amount of time and detail required to remove layers of grime and later overpaint to restore each scene to its original colors.
We were able to view the book on the life and work of Constantino Brumidi prepared by Dr. Wolanin with contributions from other experts. The book includes most of the artist's works located throughout the world. The impromptu discussion with Dr. Wolanin increased our appreciation for the art within the Capitol. Many of us were also unaware of the laborious efforts required to conserve the artworks.
Eric Paff
Office of the Curator
The Architect of the CapitolTopic: Tour of the U.S. Capitol
A personalized tour was provided by the Curator's Office within the Office of the Architect of the Capitol. Mr. Eric Paff, a writer and editor in the Curator's Office, took us on a detailed tour of some of the more historic areas. We visited the Tomb, the Crypt, the National Statutory Hall, the Old Supreme Court Chamber, the Old Senate Chamber and the Rotunda. Mr. Paff highlighted the Rotunda and Inner Dome and the magnificent artworks within them.
The Tomb: the original site where George Washington was to be laid to rest is at the center of the Capitol building. The Tomb is located directly beneath the Rotunda and the Crypt. Congress requested that the family of Washington transfer his remains from Mount Vernon to the Capitol, but after years of planning decided against it. Barred by an iron gate, the Tomb holds the bier draped in black fabric that was built for Abraham Lincoln. The bier is used for all that have lain in state in the Rotunda of the Capitol.
The Crypt: located on the first floor of the Capitol directly above the Tomb. The Crypt with its mighty columns supports the Rotunda floor. The history of the Capitol complex is also exhibited within the walls of the Crypt as are photographs from the design contest to build the Capitol. Scaled down models have been erected to show visitors the original Capitol building and many of the entries.
The National Statuary Hall (The Old Hall of the House): located on the second floor of the Capitol, was where the House met originally in the early 19th Century. The room was rebuilt after the fire of 1814. The semicircle hall has marble columns and a curved ceiling. Because of the shape of the room, the acoustics were unusual. It was said that if one stood in the correct spot, one could hear what was being said on the other side of the room, even if it was a whisper. Once the House moved, the Hall was used for a variety of affairs, among them an open market. Toward the end of the century, Congress elected to place two statues from every state in the Hall representing an historical or noteworthy event. Since that time, the Hall has been known as the National Statuary Hall. Almost all of the states have sent two statues for placement in the Hall. Because of the size of the room, all of the statues cannot be placed there and are dispersed throughout the Capitol.
The Old Supreme Court Chamber: located on the ground floor of the Capitol, it is in the same location as the original chamber for the Senate. The Chamber was refurbished for the Supreme Court Justices during the construction of the Old Senate Chamber. The Chamber is a single story room with vaulted ceilings and ancient columns. Before the expansion of the Capitol on the East Front, the Chamber had windows that could be opened to the outdoors. Within the Chamber is a statue of Justice without a blindfold and was said not to have needed a blindfold because the room was too dark (the only complaint of the Justices). The Chamber housed the Supreme Court until 1860 when the Justices moved to the Old Senate Chamber directly above. After their move upstairs, the Chamber was converted to the Law Library for the Court. It was used as the Court's Law Library until 1935 when the Supreme Court moved to its own building. The Chamber then functioned as the Congressional Law Library. In 1950, it was divided into four rooms for a committee and finally was converted into a storage area. The restoration of the Chamber to its original state was completed for the Bicentennial using a floor plan from the 19th Century. The Old Supreme Court Chamber functions as a museum open to the public.
The Old Senate Chamber: located on the second floor of the Capitol, was originally completed for the Senate in 1810. Four years later, British troops set the Chamber ablaze and it was reconstructed from 1815 until 1819. The second Chamber is a two-story room modeled after the semicircle theaters of Greece with eight columns and a raised platform in the middle for the Vice President, who presides over the Senate. The room is majestic in nature with canopies draped around the dias. Most of the articles within the room are replications, but the desk of the Vice President, the gilded eagle and the shield are original items. A portrait of George Washington, painted from life by Rembrandt Peale, hangs in the center of the Chamber behind the desk of the Vice President. It is perhaps one of the most important pieces of art within the Capitol and is priceless in value. The Chamber was also constructed with windows, skylights and four fireplace mantels. The original public gallery was located behind the dias and proved to be too small for all of the visitors. A second gallery was constructed after the fire. Eventually, both galleries were dismantled and the current balcony was added to accommodate the additional visitors. The Senate moved in 1959 to the new wing and the Chamber was used for meetings. Currently, the Chamber is used as a museum for visitors, but functions periodically for joint committee meetings and special conferences or events.
The Rotunda: is the center of the Capitol on the second floor. It was the last area of the Capitol to be constructed and connects the House and Senate wings. Replicated after the Pantheon in Rome, the circular rotunda is entered through bronze doors and is surrounded by sandstone walls. There are eight paintings on the walls of the Rotunda each identifying an event in American history. The Rotunda opens to the inner dome and the Apotheosis of Washington painted by Constantino Brumidi.
The Rotunda Frieze: designed by Constantino Brumidi, the frieze is located at the base of the inner dome and begins 58 feet above the floor. It depicts the history of America from the landing of Columbus to the Wright Brothers' first flight. During the painting of the frieze, Brumidi slipped from the scaffolding and almost fell. He had to hold onto the rung of a ladder for 15 minutes before someone rescued him. Brumidi sketched and painted most of the frieze but died before completing the last eight scenes. His assistant, Filippo Costaggini, finished Brumidi's work but was short 31 feet to complete the frieze from the original design. After attempts by various artists for design approval, Congress accepted the works of Allyn Cox and the final three scenes to fill the gap were painted of the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and the First Flight.
The Dome: is one of the most recognizable landmarks in Washington, DC. It resides above the Rotunda of the Capitol building with the Statue of Freedom atop. The original dome was constructed of wood and copper. After the expansion of the Capitol, the existing dome was removed and a new dome erected that was made of cast iron. The Dome weighs more than eight million pounds and is currently being renovated.
Helen H. Hsing
Director
Office of Congressional Relations
General Accounting Office (GAO)Topic: The General Accounting Office's Relationship/Interaction with Congress
Ms. Helen Hsing addressed many of the current issues at the GAO, which is an agency under change. The newly appointed Comptroller General, David M. Walker, was a partner and global managing director of Arthur Andersen LLP's human capital services practice and a member of the Arthur Andersen Financial Advisors Board. The Comptroller General's term spans 15 years. In establishing a term of such duration, the Congress intended that the Comptroller General be insulated, to some extent, from prevailing political pressures and be able to operate with a greater measure of independence.
Through the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 (31 USC 702), the Congress established the GAO in the Legislative Branch with the broad role of investigating "all matters relating to the receipt, disbursement, and use of public money." Over the years, the Congress has expanded GAO's original charter and added new responsibilities and duties. Until the 1960's, GAO performed primarily financial accounting and auditing work. Facing demands for studies directed to management and program results, GAO began a program in the latter 1960's to expand and enlarge its professional base from a staff composed primarily of persons with backgrounds in financial accounting and auditing to a staff with multi-disciplinary skills. As part of the Legislative Branch, the GAO is required by law to respond to legislative mandates and committee requests. GAO also has authority to initiate work for research and development purposes. GAO currently is organized into four program divisions and one technical support division. Within those divisions, GAO work is organized and performed by issue areas, each of which have responsibility for conducting work involving certain Executive Branch agencies and issues. GAO strives to meet the Congress' needs and, at the same time, exercise the independence it needs to guarantee that all its work conforms to its core values -- accountability, integrity, and reliability.
A typical GAO study will start with a congressional request. The GAO staff will conduct a "kick-off" meeting with the agency officials to discuss the work GAO plans to conduct at the agency. GAO evaluators will generally: gather information through data collection and interviews; analyze the data; and produce a briefing or written product. Auditing standards require that GAO conduct an exit conference with the appropriate agency officials at the end of the assignment to: (1) validate the factual accuracy of the data gathered, and (2) obtain their views on any conclusions and recommendations. GAO allows agencies up to 30 days, depending on the timing needs and complexity of issues involved, to comment on any written products.
Mark Buse
Majority Staff Director
Committee on Commerce, Science, and