An 2020 updated version of this post is at
http://carbonacea.blogspot.com/2020/01/geosciences-congressional-visits-day.html . Much of the 2020 text is the same this 2015 post, but references to legislation specific to 2015 have been removed, links have been updated, and a few new insights have been added.
The last week in September this year (2015), I attended the 8th annual
Geosciences Congressional Visits Day (Geo-CVD; http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/cvd/; www.geosociety.org/GSA/Science_Policy/gvd/gcvd/GSA/Policy/CVD/home.aspx)
in Washington, DC. The purpose of Geo-CVD 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 or sometimes by e-mail. Geo-CVD is two days every September. An
afternoon workshop is on Day One, and 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 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 this year: it was spot on.
My Pennsylvania (PA) delegation was also sweated through, 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 Craig. 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. (This year, some women wore really
comfortable footwear between buildings and changed 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
noticed this year that a few Congressional staff members would 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 attended five previous Congressional
Visits Days (2001, 2011-14) and have kept all the cards of staff members met.
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, this
year, 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 last 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, and what kind of
expertise one may offer to the office. For several years, I used the
Pennsylvania state geologic map postcards, 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.) This year, 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.
As mentioned above, the afternoon workshop importantly outlines
the unifying Message of the visits (quoted from our workshop material):
“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”.
Specific legislation of concern is also outlined in the workshop which
this year (2015) was the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 (H.R.1806) and the House Commerce-Justice-Science Committee appropriations bill (H.R.2578) that both include NSF funding levels. America COMPETES recommended levels of funding for several federal science
research agencies, while the appropriations bill sets the actual agency levels
for the coming fiscal year. In both, while overall NSF funding increased, the
funding level for the Geoscience Directorate decreased from previous years. The
bills also set a precedent by specifying funding levels for science
directorates, rather than the traditional practice of allowing the agency (NSF)
to make decisions on internal directorate allocations. The House version of
America COMPETES passed in May 2015, before our visit, but the Senate version
had not. Therefore, in our Senate visits, we urged reconsideration of NSF
directorate level funding limits in their proposed legislation, while in the
House visits, we emphasized the same in the case that the bill goes to
conference: “a conference committee made of House and Senate members works out any differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The resulting bill returns to the House and Senate for final approval.” *
Part of the reason for the decrease in geoscience funding was, as John
Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP), said during a special lecture at the 2015 GSA annual meeting in
Baltimore, is “Appropriation
bills to date reflect the apparent view of some in Congress that support for
Earth observations and geosciences equates to support for the President’s
climate change policies.”
Therefore, one of our objectives on Geo-CVD was to emphasize the range of
fields and job opportunities under the umbrella of geoscience. The variety
within our Pennsylvania team was an excellent example: industry (two petroleum
consulting geologists), academia (me and a Penn State meteorology graduate
student), and government (my 2006-08 postdoctoral fellowship with the US
Geological Survey: Chesapeake Bay impact crater post-impact thermal study and
relationship to current groundwater quality). A letter from a consortium of
academic institutions and professional societies, The Federal Investment in Geosciences Contributes to the Nation’s Economic Competitiveness,
to members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, also
focuses on the range of impacts, including jobs, STEM education, hazards,
energy, from geoscience research.
For the visits, scientists are organized in teams representing one
or two states, depending on how many from each state attend. For the five
Geo-CVD I have attended, the number of other PA attendees has varied from zero
to three, and the participants, besides me, have been different every year. 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 “leave-behind” folders with information on
the importance of geoscience, the highlight in 2015 being the AGI booklet, Geoscience for America’s Critical Needs. Besides our own research summaries, team members also added USGS fact
sheets and bookmarks 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. Our contact this year (2015) was the Policy Communications
Adviser of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG)** who had also
booked our Pennsylvania team’s Congressional appointments; I have previously
been with staff members of AGU (American Geophysical Union), AGI, and AMS. Frequently, the chaperone will
accompany the teams on their appointments, although this year, with more state
teams than policy staff and with two experienced CVD participants on our PA
team, we were unescorted. Chaperones help with directions to offices, schedule
maintenance, 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 geosciences 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
myself even 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 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. The first
meeting of the day may be less polished just 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. In our
West Virginia Senate office visit this year, we were asked our opinion on ideal
interval (in years) for America COMPETES reauthorizations. We each had a
different suggestion, but did refer the office to specific policy staff members
of AGU and AAPG**, our personal host societies this year, who could provide a consistent community response on that question.
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 with its 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 http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/sign-up-for-agu-science-policy-alerts/).
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.
There are other non-medical/non-health-science Congressional
Visits Days through out the year. A general and large
Science-Engineering-Technology CVD (SET-CVD) occurs every spring. Geoscience member
organizations for that event include AGI, 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 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://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), USGS postdoctoral fellowship (2006-08), and Foreign
Service Officer, US Department of State (1973-76).]
