This post is an update to my Congressional Visits Day post of 2015. Much of the text is the same, but
references to legislation specific to 2015 have been removed, links have been
updated, and a few new insights have been added.
 |
| The US Capitol, January 20, 2017, the night before the first Women's March. |
In almost every September since 2011, I have
attended the annual Geosciences Congressional Visits Day (Geo-CVD; http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/cvd/; http://www.geosociety.org/GSA/Science_Policy/gvd/GSA/Policy/CVD/home.aspx
) in Washington, DC. The purpose of Geo-CVD, begun in 2008, is to bring
scientists to Capitol Hill to emphasize to members of the US Congress, both in
the Senate and the House of Representatives, the importance of federal science
funding, specifically in the earth and space sciences. The US federal budget supports
basic geoscience programs and research directly in the work of various federal
departments and agencies (including but not limited to USGS, NASA, NOAA, NIST,
DOE) and in research grant programs to academia (the National Science
Foundation: NSF).
The participating geoscience societies include
several member societies of the American
Geoscience Institute (AGI) plus the American Meteorological Society (AMS).
Societies will post announcements for Geo-CVD on their website, Twitter, or sometimes by
e-mail. Geo-CVD is two days every September. An afternoon workshop is on Day
One; on Day Two are the constituent scientist visits to offices of Representatives,
Senators and staff of various committees. The workshop includes an overview of
the legislative process including budget and appropriations, overview of
science funding and specific legislation of interest to the geoscience
community, the Message and “Ask” for the visits, and the opportunity to meet
one’s constituent scientist team for the visits. Workshop speakers include
professional society policy staff, and current and past Congressional Science Fellows who give their advice, from the legislative staff perspective, on a successful
and productive constituent visit.
Some societies also offer a pre-CVD webinar for
participants. Besides background on legislative processes and what to expect of
the event, the webinar offers practical tips on what to bring for the visit.
Business attire is strongly recommended, which means, obviously, jacket and tie
for men, even though DC in September can still be steamy and warm. I smiled in
agreement as I read Ryan Haupt's Geo-CVD blog post description of the
sweaty humidity on our visits day in 2015: it was spot on. My Pennsylvania (PA)
delegation was also sweated through that year, but suit jackets nicely hide the
evidence. Women's business attire can be a suit with skirt or dress slacks, a
dress, or blouse with skirt or trousers: channel the style of newswomen or
commentators on Sunday morning news shows, debate wear of female presidential
candidates, or, to echo Ryan's West Wing reference, fictional press secretary CJ Cregg. The perennial recommendation to
wear comfortable shoes is no joke: "Did you know that the city planners,
when they sat down to design Washington, D.C., their intention was to build a
city that would intimidate and humble foreign heads of state?" said
fictional President Andrew Shepherd in The American President. The size and spacing of the Capitol and flanking Senate and
House office buildings is formidable, and, while meeting schedulers try avoid
multiple crossings of Capitol Hill in their appointment flow, it sometimes
can't be avoided. (Some women wear really comfortable footwear between
buildings and change into stiffer stylish business shoes before entering.)
One “must-bring” is business cards. They are the
currency of meetings, many times the first thing exchanged just after formal
greetings. I have noticed that a few Congressional staff members line the cards
up in front of him/her on the conference table to keep our names front and
center during our conversation. I have kept all the cards of staff members met
during all past Congressional Visits Days attended. While there is a lot of
turnover among Hill staff (the average age is 26), sometimes one will see the
same staff members year-to-year. For example, in 2015, the legislative aide we
met in a western Pennsylvania representative's office, was, as I knew from my
card collection, a former aide for PA Senator Patrick Toomey that spoke with our
PA Geo-CVD delegation the previous two years. Pointing out our previous
meetings was an icebreaker, and his familiarity with Geo-CVD was appreciated.
In both 2013 and 2014, we met with Senator Casey's Legislative Chief of Staff:
in 2014, he said something like "good to see you again, MaryAnn"
without taking my card first. Whether he actually remembered me (probably not),
or just checked his last year's notes and business cards right before the meeting,
I was flattered and impressed.
Another recommended "leave-behind" is
a one-page summary of one's own research or work, how it is impacted by federal
science programs, how it may be important to one's Congressional
district/state, what kind of expertise one may offer to the office, and your contact information. It should be understandable to non-scientists. For
several years, I used the Pennsylvania state geologic map postcards from the
Pennsylvania Geological Survey, gluing to the back a very brief typed synopsis
of my contact information, area of specialization, and past research. (One
year, a staff member said my previous year’s map card was on a bulletin board:
even if my information was hidden, geology of Pennsylvania was front and
center.) In 2015, I printed out the one-page
Pennsylvania Coal Distribution Map since most offices visited were in traditional PA coal mining
areas and then printed my information on the backside; I had more space to list
what agencies had funded or supported my graduate school, postdoc, and other
research. Our Pennsylvania group also visited the office of a West Virginia
Senator (one of our group was a West Virginia University alumnus and had done
consulting work in WV) so for that office I put my information on the back of a
WV coal distribution map. Dr. Matt Kohn of Boise State University describes in detail his development of a leave-behind for a non-CVD visit to his members of Congress in an August 2017 post of AGU's blog, The Bridge.
As mentioned above, the afternoon pre-visit workshop
importantly outlines the unifying Message of the visits. Quoted below from our 2015
workshop material, this has been a perennial general ask:
“Strong and sustained federal investments in geoscience will:
-Support resilient
communities
-Strengthen our global
and economic competitiveness
-Enhance national
security
-Sustain a highly skilled
workforce
and from that "The Ask":
“Support strong federal investments in geoscience research and
education”.
The “Ask” is the essential general component of
a Congressional visit. I have unfortunately heard a few CVD participants claim
they did not like or would not do the “Ask” because they think it is boring, not
relevant, and would rather talk about issues, like climate change, or just
offer themselves as information sources. I personally think this is missing the
point of the visits: no matter what one’s issue of interest, most
science-related legislation, to achieve desired goals, requires budgeted and
appropriated funds for program implementation.
Each year in the pre-visit workshop, specific
legislation of concern is also outlined. These are usually bills that have only
passed one house or have not come out of committee and need a bit of advocacy
to encourage action. CVD participants are also encouraged to research the
Committees, caucuses and interests of the Senators and Representatives to be
visited. This background knowledge allows one to be flexible and spontaneous
depending on the flow of the conversation during a Congressional office visit.
In a non-CVD visit in spring 2019 to a conservative Senator’s office, the level
of enthusiasm of the staffer we met with seemed to be very low; she was taking
few notes. The Senator was not on any science-related committees, but was on
the Foreign Relations committee. The staffer’s interest, and notetaking,
noticeably improved when I pointed out the national security role of nuclear test
monitoring by DOE’s Los Alamos National Lab with NATO partners which were able
to detect and locate 2017 North Korean subterranean bomb tests, within minutes
of detonation.
Part of the reason for a
decrease in geoscience funding during parts of the last several years was, as
John Holdren, director of the Obama White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP), said during a special lecture at the 2015 GSA annual meeting in Baltimore, “Appropriation bills to date reflect
the apparent view of some in Congress that support for Earth observations and
geosciences equates to support for” only “climate change policies.” Therefore, another objective of Geo-CVD is to emphasize the
range of fields and job opportunities under the umbrella of geoscience, and how
geoscientists contribute to communities. I have found flooding, earthquakes,
and other hazards, and water issues in general are topics of interest to many
constituencies.
For the visits, scientists are organized in
teams representing one or two states, depending on how many from each state
attend. For the eight Geo-CVD plus three other Congressional Visits events I
have attended to this date, the number of other PA attendees has varied from
zero to three, and the participants, besides me, have been different all but
one time. The afternoon workshop allows team members to meet each other and
their policy staff chaperone, get to know each other’s specialties, plan who
will be the lead speaker in each office, and practice or discuss what each
person might say or focus on. The teams are also given group “leave-behind”
folders with information on the importance of geoscience. Besides our own research summaries, team members also sometimes
add federal agency fact sheets or bookmarks (such as from USGS or NASA) and
professional society information.
The role of the chaperones, which are policy
staff of the participating professional geoscience societies, is both subtle
and critical to success of the visits. I have previously been with staff
members of AGU (American Geophysical Union), GSA (Geological Society of America), AGI, AAPG (American Association
of Petroleum Geologists) and AMS. The chaperone also books the specific office
visits. Frequently, the chaperone will accompany the teams on their appointments,
although some years if there are more state teams than policy staff, teams may
be unescorted if there are experienced CVD constituents. Chaperones help with
directions to offices, keeping on schedule, and sometimes gentle guidance of
the conversation to make sure nothing gets left out. In my first CVD in April
2001 (SET-CVD), I erroneously structured my delivery to lead up to the “Ask”,
pointing out first how geoscience research is important to Pennsylvania. In
these meetings, which may be no longer than 15 minutes, there are no
time-signal lights, as in a conference presentation, and time can fly. I was
the only scientist in this meeting with a staff member of then-Senator Santorum
and my AGI policy staff chaperone. As I was feeling even myself getting a
little bored with my own delivery and anxious on time, my chaperone stepped in
and masterfully guided the discussion to the “Ask” and point of our visit. The
structure of the visit, as emphasized each year in the Geo-CVD workshop, should
put the purpose (Message and Ask) first and up front, like the opening of a
newspaper article (who, what, when, where, why) and not like an introductory
paragraph of an essay or many science articles where one sets the scene first,
leading up to the thesis statement or “punch line”. And with a group of
scientists visiting an office, the team lead must get the visit’s
purpose/message/ask out first, efficiently mention their own research (impact
on state/district and how the relevant federal funding is important), and quickly
pass the conversation on to other team members so everyone gets to speak. However,
each team member must take responsibility to keep their delivery short: in one
recent House office visit, one of our 4-member team (no chaperone) rambled on
for 25 minutes so that no one else had a chance to talk! It is also natural for
the first meeting of the day to be less polished because the team is developing
a rhythm and feel for time and content.
The Congressional office visits are usually with
legislative staff members, rather than the elected official, although in a few
of my past House office visits, the Representative has been present. The
Legislative Correspondents or Aides may or may not be the staff member covering
science or energy, but they are the information gatherers who are conduits and
synthesizers of data on issues for the Representative/Senator. Some may just
say thank you at the end of the meeting, but others may have specific questions
on exactly how much funding or what specific action the team is requesting,
especially during visits that take place in the late winter when the next
fiscal year’s budget is being formulated.
An important purpose of any CVD is to offer
oneself as an information resource to the Congressional office. Over the last
35 years, the number of scientists serving as Congressional office or committee
staff has grown, with increasing numbers of Congressional Science Fellows,
former Fellows who continue in legislative positions, and the occasional
engineer/scientist who has segued into a legislative staff career. However, the
number is still small, and having a state or district scientist as a direct
resource, or who can refer the office to another scientist with the necessary
expertise, is a valuable asset.
These face-to-face Capitol Hill visits should be
the start of an ongoing dialogue on
the importance of federal science support. Congressional staff is very busy,
have many topics or issues to cover, and have visits with many other
constituents and groups, so it is essential not to let the topic of the
importance of science to the National interest fade. Any CVD visit should be
followed up with a letter (e-mail is preferred over snail mail letters with
their onerous physical security screening) thanking the office for the visit,
iterating "the Ask", the offer to be a resource, and other points
discussed.
While it is recommended that one continue
contact with their Congressional offices, one does not have to do it each year
in person during Geo-CVD or other science CVDs. Continued dialogue (or any
outreach to members of Congress) can include written correspondence or in-state
district visits. Such communication can mention appreciation for relevant
sponsored legislation or voting positions, or a request for particular
consideration of new science legislation or issues of concern. I have not been
as frequent with that as I should, but a great resource for keeping up with
science-related legislation, funding levels, and talking points are
professional society public policy webpages (see the list at the bottom) or
policy news alert services (such as https://www.agu.org/Share-and-Advocate/Share/Policymakers/Track-science-issues). Sometimes a society may also have letter templates for a
specific issue that one can use as a base and then amend to make it more
personal. (It is important in any letter to have the point right in the first
paragraph; my own experience is that staff may not read past the first
paragraph in figuring out how to reply.)
There are other
non-medical/non-health-science Congressional Visits Days throughout the year. A
general and large Science-Engineering-Technology CVD (SET-CVD) occurs every spring. Geoscience member organizations for that
event usually include AGU and GSA, and one would contact one of those
organizations if interested in participating. A few earth science societies,
such as AGU, also sponsor their own CVDs for invited participants that focus on
issues of specific interest to their members, in addition to federal support
for science agencies and STEM education.
For other stories on
Congressional Visits Day experiences:
http://thebridge.agu.org/2015/11/02/visiting-my-legislators-was-a-bit-like-the-west-wing/ (Geo-CVD, posted November 2015 by AGU)
https://geosociety.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/mingling-geoscience-with-public-policy-on-capitol-hill/ (Geo-CVD, posted October 2015 by GSA)
http://community.geosociety.org/blogs/kasey-white/2016/05/11/a-student-take-on-congressonal-visits ((Geo-CVD, posted 2015 by GSA)
http://community.geosociety.org/blogs/kasey-white/2016/05/11/a-student-take-on-congressonal-visits ((Geo-CVD, posted 2015 by GSA)
http://tsop.org/newsletters/1999_2002.pdf (My summary of 2001 SET-CVD on pages 187-189 of this 320-page pdf
of the 1999-2002 newsletters of The Society for Organic Petrology (TSOP- an AGI member society, AAPG affiliated society))
Earth Science Policy
websites:
Congressional websites:
[Besides participation in various science CVDs,
Maryann’s science policy or government experience includes GSA Geology and
Public Policy Committee (1986-88; 2018-21), USGS postdoctoral fellowship
(2006-08), and Foreign Service Officer, US Department of State (1973-76).]
No comments:
Post a Comment