Mid-Year Report to the IEEE-USA
Government Fellowship Committee

Joseph Czika, Ph.D.

August 2003

My U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee experience was everything I had hoped for- learning, contributing, traveling, and general excitement. As planned, my primary accounts on the Science Committee included the Columbia shuttle accident investigation and homeland security technology. Also as planned, there were a number of ad hoc assignments based on the fact that I had an iota of knowledge in an area or was the only body available to attend a meeting.

Working on a committee staff, as contrasted with a Representative's office staff, is a unique environment. While Congressional Members are on these committees, of course, the functions of the Member's staff are much different from those of the committee staff. The committee has three major functions: legislation (including the authorization bills), investigation, and oversight. All three functions are supported by Congressional hearings, which is the backbone of committee staff work.

A Congressional hearing is a labor-intensive activity for staff. Once the hearing theme is identified (itself not a trivial exercise and not devoid of politics), witness candidates are identified and vetted by phone or personal meeting. Then the hearing charter is written along with public announcement of the witnesses. Witness questions are written and sent to them with inevitable Q&A. Opening statements are prepared, often in coordination with Member staffs, for the committee and subcommittee chairpersons or the corresponding ranking Members. Lines of questions are developed for Members, also coordinated with their personal office staffs (sometimes a lot of interaction goes on here.) Staffers attend the hearing and take extensive and quotable notes. Press releases are written for the Members on the day of the hearing. Follow-up questions for the record are prepared and sent to the witnesses. Once their answers are received, often weeks to months later, the answers are assessed for completeness, new information, and candor. This assessment often forms the basis for questions on next year's hearings, when the cycle repeats.

Corporate memory is extremely important in committee work. All-source integration takes place using the following: Member's positions and former statements, witness organization's former statements, CBO reports, OMB reports, CRS reports, special interest positions, and press reports of every kind. In the background, there is the press of keeping current by networking an extensive set of exerts and acquaintances and, of course, reading everything relevant to the subject.

The Committee's legislative function includes the authorization bills. The President's proposed budget for items in the Committee's jurisdiction is reviewed. Often hearings are held to learn of the Administration's position and sometimes of opposition to it. Policy is often combined with the budget process. I participated in several hearings of this nature, for example: a. DOE funding for university nuclear reactors, b. incentives to retain and attract NASA employees, c. NASA FY-104 budget review, and d. DOE's plans for recompeting the contracts for managing the National Labs.

The investigation function of the Committee can be illustrated by my work on the Columbia accident investigation team. The Science Committee has jurisdiction over NASA issues. The shuttle accident occurred on 1 February 2003. The director of the Democratic Science Committee staff was on the Challenger investigation and knew what was going to be required for Columbia. We began work almost immediately. We started by compiling and reading all the press coverage. We then visited the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) in Houston to get a sense of the salient issues. The CAIB collected an extensive database of documents obtained from NASA and other sources. Once that document database was available at the CAIB's offices in Northern Virginia, we spent many days there reading the same documents that would form the basis of the CAIB's report. We were prepared to hit the pavement running when the report appeared. After the report was issued, we focused on informing the Committee Members of its contents and helped them frame positions and press statements. Then the focus changed to develop a series of hearings to address important issues, such as the future a human space flight, and other topics not specifically covered in the report. The shuttle accident is probably the biggest event for the Science Committee in this decade and I feel privileged to be part of it.

The committee oversight function can be illustrated by my work on homeland security technology. The Science Committee was instrumental in the 107th Congress enabling legislation that created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Science and Technology Directorate. So the Committee had a vested interest in how things were progressing after DHS was started on March 1. While the rest of DHS is mostly composed of entities transferred from nearly 22 other government departments, the S&T Directorate is compose of all new personnel. That slowed down the practical implementation of plans and spending. The S&T Directorate has nearly $1B in the FY2004 budget request. Most of the budget was new money, but some existing projects were transferred to it, including some DOE National Lab projects. A group of staffers traveled to Lawrence Livermore Lab to "kick the tires" of some of the projects transferred from DOE to DHS as specified in the legislation. Back in Washington, we met on numerous occasions with DHS personnel to discuss issues of public importance. It was a unique experience to see a new department get started and go through the growing pains.

One of my roles in homeland security was to monitor Congressional hearings in the Senate as well as the House Select Committee on Homeland Security and the Appropriations Committees. Another role was to help educate the staffers. Here, I set up a series of informal discussions with people knowledgeable with R&D processes in government and industry to order to give the permanent staffers the basis of understanding the merits of the new DHS S&T process under formation. Other projects included following the foreign student visa problem and cyber security.

Although the Fellow training provided by AAAS prepared me for what to not to be surprised by, I am moved to comment about the following: a. the Congressional Research Service reports are outstanding - the public should have access to these gems, b. there is little institutional coordination between the House and Senate - passing of bills is by direct interaction of the parties' leadership, c. very little information comes out of administration witnesses at hearings - Member decisions appear to lack an authoritative base of knowledge, d. committee authorization bills have little impact - the appropriators appear to exercise all the control.

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers - United States of America