My Year in Washington

[ BACK

INTRODUCTION

1998 was the second year of the 105th Congress, and thus an election year. It was ill marked by the Lewinsky affair, and I finish this report listening to the impeachment debate in the House. This did have an impact on the work not done. The fellowship began with a two week orientation session organized by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. It was a wonderful session organized to show all the Science and Engineering fellows how Washington works, somewhat. Following this I interviewed in six offices and through mutual selection arrived in Senator Alfonse M. D'Amato's personal office (R-NY), Chairman of the Banking Committee. I heard from the previous Fellow that it was a good office to work in, I'm from NY originally, and I thought it would be interesting to work in an office during an election year.

I summarize my experiences in Washington D.C. in a simple pie chart. When I arrived in early January 1998 my view of the work here had the world painted 35% black, 35% white and 30% gray. Now as I prepare to leave, the pie chart is 5% black, 5% white and 90% gray, and there are those who would argue vehemently about that 10%. One year in "that shining city by the swamp" as one science policy analyst calls it, is over.

 THE WORK

Working in a personal office, as opposed to a committee office, meant that I wouldn't be preparing for hearings or stay focused in a particular area. I worked as a Legislative Assistant, or LA, covering certain areas of interest for the senator. The ten or so LAs in the office have to cover every issue on the face of the earth, under the earth and under the sea, and in outer space, so the work is often disjoint. The LA's track all legislation in their domain, regulatory changes, respond to constituent requests, and of course track funding in these areas. My assigned areas were: Small Business, Consumer Affairs, Economic Development, Intellectual Property, and Research and Development (R&D, or science, consumed the least amount of my time over the year.)   I would meet with visiting constituents and lobbyists, respond to constituent mail and telephone calls, attend briefings and committee hearings relevant to these areas (as well as any that were of personal interest) meet and discuss issues with other LA's, and research background on any issues that were raised. I would also respond to "Dear Colleague" letters, most often from other senators, asking Senator D'Amato to sign on to bills, or help get funding for a program.

New bills or funding always involved forming coalitions among members to support the senator's position. We would also try to determine the positions of relevant interest groups to get varying views. Based on input from the assorted groups we would write position papers, or briefing papers, that could be used as the basis for floor statements by the Senator, as well as press releases.  In most cases the senator's basic philosophy was clear and well known to the long time staff, so that the senator was not asked about many bills. Early on, after I was told "...of course the senator supports a doubling of civilian R&D funding over ten years," I asked the legislative director, or LD, "When will the senator know he's in favor of this bill?" And the LD's reply, "When he votes for it."

Thinking on how often I was asking about bills, funding, etc.,  I can see how this is absolutely necessary. There would be no time whatsoever for anything else if the senator was briefed on each and every bill, resolution, or funding issue. There were almost three thousand bills this session, plus resolutions, appointments, committee work, meetings with constituents, fund raisers, and traveling back and forth between NY state and Washington D.C. weekly.

THE MANUFACTURING FIELD OFFICE PROGRAM

Early in the year I learned of the Manufacturing Field Office (MFO) program through a call from the NY state MFO director. It was started with a memorandum of understanding in late 1994, between the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). This program would provide assistance to small manufacturers in business matters, much as the Manufacturing Extension Program (MEP) of NIST provided technical assistance. This is a small program providing $250,000 annually to each of the seven centers, one in NY state. After three years the MEP staff determined that this program was no longer necessary and tried to defund it. However Congress in the report that accompanied the NIST appropriations bill, stated that funds should be allocated to this program.   Of course I heard from the MEP staff that they did not plan to fund the MFOs since the law didn't require it. The MFOs, which in NY state had helped scores of companies to keep 100's of jobs, could well disappear if not for these funds. Combining with members from the other states involved we wrote letters to the appropriate people, and had many conversations explaining why this was not in keeping with "the will of congress." The difficulties arose because the NIST MEP staff saw this as a special program benefiting only a few states that should be funded out of the general MEP funds, if the states receiving these funds wished it. Also, report language is not "law."

However Senator D'Amato was forceful in asking whether the MEP staff really wanted to thwart the "will of congress" as expressed in the report language? Finally, after six months, and just before the 1998 fiscal year ended (Sept. 30) the funds were released to the seven MFO's, albeit with matching funds required.   

THE TOURIST

Viewing the many monuments to our country's heroes makes one consider, and reconsider, why this country is important. Visiting Mt. Vernon, Monticello, the Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, and Roosevelt memorials, the White House, the Capitol, and the Vietnam Memorial, one is compelled to carefully consider the meaning of forming a new country, with a dramatically new and different form than any seen before. One of the first things I read during the orientation session was the US Constitution, with new eyes and for the first time since high school. Thinking of the Founding Fathers gathering to argue the merits of particular forms of government, as spelled out in the Constitution, following the Revolutionary War when kings and emperors ruled the world is now personally significant.   While politics dominate the local landscape one shouldn't forget that Washington D.C. also has on display some of the finest works of human creativity from around the world. The National Gallery and the Smithsonian Institution's free galleries are an international treasure with art from all times and continents.  During orientation one of the speakers recommended to us that we attend a session of the US Supreme Court. Witnessing the nine justices cross examine the lawyers arguing their cases was quite memorable.  Also, I now look back on my dissertation defense as a kind and gentle experience. 

THE PRESS

One of the first things I was told upon joining the staff was to not speak to the press. After witnessing their incessant and brainless coverage of the Lewinsky scandal this year, while almost ignoring many issues that have a major and direct influence on most American's lives, I pray I never see another "Monica Beach." For those of you who missed it, "Monica Beach" is a small stretch of Pennsylvania Avenue near the National Gallery and a courthouse where a dozen or so news trucks were parked 24 hours a day with their satellite antennas aimed into the sky while they awaited the latest leak from the Starr secret grand jury proceedings occurring across the lawn. I do not envy the Congressional press staff their frustrations.

 WHAT'S THE STORY

I would often receive phone calls from small business people asking for assorted assistance in dealing with the government. They would usually tell me a sad story and ask for the Senator's assistance. I would listen politely asking a few questions and tell them I would check on a few things and get back to them as soon as possible. Inevitably I would find after checking on their situation that it was never quite as they said. My estimate is that one hears the 30% of the story that backed the callers view and as you explore the issue further with ever more people on assorted edges you find a much more complex weave. Sometimes it seemed as though they selected 5% of the story.  

THE SHAMELESS

For those of you who think politicians are shameless self promoters acting in their own self interest, let me tell you something; they learn it from their constituents. There are many people who have no compunction about calling up the senators office and asking for the moon, the stars, and a bottle of champagne to celebrate with. I had calls from people asking for laws to be changed that would solely benefit their own small business, and thus their own pocketbook. I was shocked; I was naive.  Of course self interest does not always mean shamelessness. There was a call from a small town in upstate NY whose largest employer, a paper mill, was purchased by another company. Shortly thereafter they learned that the mill was to be closed generating an economic disaster for this town. The senator can't intervene in these private matters and we couldn't do anything for this town. Fortunately, overall the state's economy is doing well. 

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Intellectual property (IP) covers everything from music, films, plays, and books, to software products, designs, and technological patents. IP is a multi-hundred billion dollar a year industry with a large share of US exports. This year the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 was passed (Public Law 105-304, signed on 11/12/98). It puts the US in compliance with the World Intellectual Property Organization treaties concerning sound recordings and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works incorporated in a building. This was a case of consensus and the bill sailed through the legislative process.  Another IP bill, the United States Patent and Trademark Organization Act of 1997, Senate Bill 507, did not even get voted on.

However this bill consumed a great deal of my time during the year.  Shortly after arriving in the office I learned that I would be the go to guy on this bill. I read the entire bill, lobbyist literature both supportive and critical, met with IP lawyers, watched a videotape of a legal presentation on the issue, met with many congressional staff members, including those of the Judiciary Committee (which passed the bill in committee 17-1), many corporate lobbyists, and some small company people as well. Apparently I overdid it since word came back that I probably knew more about this bill than all but one or two Hill staff. This is not necessarily a good thing on the Hill. While patent reform has been strongly urged by many large corporations, and some small ones, as well as the Patent and Trademark Office itself, this bill was held up by a few senators worried about detrimental effects on the "small inventor." This bill would have reorganized the patent office as a private government owned corporation, allowed for early publication of patent applications, if the patentee agreed, guaranteed a minimum patent term of 17 years, provided Prior Domestic Commercial Use protection for those using a process that they hadn't bothered to patent but that someone else did after the fact, and reformed the judicial review of patent disputes, among other things. This bill, strongly pushed by Senator Hatch (Chairman of the Judiciary committee) until just before the session closed was stopped by some of his republican colleagues who were opposed to some of the provisions.

Senator D'Amato had also met with large corporate representatives, as well as small inventors about this bill, and had a hold on it for many months. A hold is an informal way to prevent bills from coming to the floor when senators intend to stop them.   Effectively it is a threat of a filibuster which stops the Senate dead. In the Senate, unlike the House, one senator can basically bring the senate to a halt. For example, on the last day of the session as the Senate was preparing to vote on the omnibus appropriations bill to close out the year, as senators were impatient to leave to campaign for re-election, one senator halted progress by blocking a UC. A unanimous consent is the way almost everything gets done in the Senate. This UC was the standard request to dispense with the reading of the bill, since the rules require all bills to be read.   However the Senate can do anything, including getting around its own rules by UC. One senator objected to a provision in the bill and so he insisted on the reading of the bill. Of course since the bill was 6000 pages long, nothing much was going to happen until that senator had his issue addressed. In the meanwhile -for five hours- senate clerks took turns reading the bill. 

I don't know how Senator D'Amato would have voted on the patent reform bill since it never did make it to the floor.

 L'AFFAIRE LEWINSKY

The Monday after the story broke, we were having the first staff meeting of the year. All the LAs were there as well as some administrative staff. We were all joking about it and discussing how long Pres. Clinton had left as President before he was booted out, or resigned from office. Only one person had a different view. He said that in a few weeks Pres. Clinton would come out smelling like a rose.  And of course he was the political sage. I came to greatly respect his political judgment.

As much as we all may regret it or approve of it, or perhaps despise it, or just wish it were gone from our collective consciousness, L'Affaire Lewinsky ruled the airwaves. This is the year that the film, "Wag the Dog" came out, and now with the impeachment eve bombing attack on Iraq, there are many angry republicans thinking reality is art, or art is reality. It isn't pretty.

This was the curse of 1998. Nothing much happened as far as legislation goes this year because of the scandal and the election it was sure to influence, positively for the republicans. The plan was to basically do nothing unless it was clearly to the republican's advantage and take advantage of the publics revulsion with the whole mess at the polls in November. Well Pres. Clinton has shown once again that Pres. Reagan, the teflon president, is positively sticky in comparison to the Star Trek era non-stick coating Pres. Clinton wears.

Since the republicans didn't really want to do much with the scandal brewing, there was no problem addressing the tobacco bill for four weeks during the summer while appropriations bills awaited debate and passage. This led to the late passage of an omnibus bill holding many appropriations bills, instead of consideration of each individual bill as is normally the case. It also meant that I covered many bills, almost none of which ever reached the floor. 

BRIEFINGS AND HEARINGS

Working in Washington D.C. provides great opportunities to hear about all types of issues and technology advances. Between the think tanks, universities, research institutes and lobbying organizations, all appetites can be whetted. Also, many groups organize briefings (with lunch even!) up on Capitol Hill. I attended briefings on the countries economic health given by Chairman Greenspan and Secretary Rubin, on the Asian Economic crisis, Endocrine disrupters, The New Economics for the National Parks (by raising user fees), the health of the oceans, the importance of the optical sciences, India and Pakistan A-bomb tests, patent reform, digital copyright act, genetic engineering, the National Laboratories and Technology Transfer, micro-electro-mechanical systems (MEMS), how to increase data bandwidth to the home (xDSL), etc.

While briefings were quite informative, there were another group of meetings that merit mention; Congressional Hearings. These were called by committees or sub-committees on topical issues of the day.  So for example the Asian economic crisis, India and Pakistan A-Bomb tests, Theater Air Defense and its problems (THAD anti-missile system), biological and chemical terrorism, information warfare, Microsoft's monopoly (Bill Gates himself), identity theft, increasing the number of H1-B visas for highly skilled workers, educational reform, etc. Hearings tended to be less informative and more slanted to my eye. Also, I've heard from many staff that the point of them is to get publicity and attract attention to the issue, and the member who is raising it.

 THE FAMOUS

Capitol Hill often hosts the famous who are lobbying for their issues. Senator D'Amato hosted the US Luge team, John Travolta (lobbying against religious persecution of scientologists), Sarah Ferguson, or Fergie who along with the senator is strongly supportive of breast cancer research, and Chairman Alan Greenspan of the Federal Reserve. John Travolta's visit was memorable because of the crowds.  Somehow word got out that he was visiting Senator D'Amato. Within a short time there were hundreds of people milling about in the hallways outside the main office entrance, mostly females. To be fair to senate staff, it was the summer time and the Senate is inundated with interns working there during their college vacation. Unfortunately for them, Mr. Travolta exited through the other unknown entrance one floor above the main entrance. When I walked by the milling throng after his exit and informed the crowd that he had left the building already, they didn't believe me!

THE OTHER SIDES

There are a number of other sides up on the Hill. Of course the most commonly heard one is the other side of the aisle, and that is simply due to the fact that there is an aisle separating the Republican and Democratic Members from each other in both chambers.   Also, in the Capitol building there is the Senate side (north) and the House side (south). The Senate "swamp" is where the press briefings are held with the Capitol building placed beautifully behind the speakers, of course on the Senate side of the Capitol. The final other side, or end, is the other end of Pennsylvania avenue, where the President resides in the White House.

THE ELECTION

For senators, every six years there is a great event: the election. The people get to choose, at least those people who bother to vote do. However, many others get their voices heard through the polls, an extreme example of over-amplification of static, if ever there was one. In any case this is the time when senators and their campaign staffs get to practice the "new math" that takes over at this time of term: "Electoral Calculus." It involves a very difficult optimization problem. The problem is to maximize the positive impact on voters, and minimize the negative impact on voters. However the voters are broken out into multiple sets, some of which overlap, the membership is time-varying, and they respond non-linearly to multiple variables, many of which are unknown.

In the office we are not allowed to help the campaign as we are government employees. However many people took time off from their staff jobs and were hired by the campaign. The office did do information searches for the campaign, as we did for any constituent who might ask about the senator. Also, there was always a weighing of constituent concerns in determining whether to back or oppose bills, regulations, and funds. From comments by staff in other offices I suspect this is true in most offices all the time, and I don't know if it was any more so this year since it was an election year.

For the election night rally all of the office staff were invited up to NYC. We attended the mass republican rally in the Sheraton hotel on Sixth Avenue in Manhattan. It was also the locale for Governor Pataki's election victory speech. About ten days before the election the senator made a gaffe. This was the campaign that "putzhead" and "waddler" made the news. Until that debacle the polls showed a tight race. At first he denied he had said it, and I feel that spelled the end for the senator. Thus on election eve as the staff gathered in the grand ballroom the mood was hesitant, and shortly after the polls closed at nine o-clock we heard the bad news that the senator had indeed lost. The staff all joined him on the stage along with Mayor Giuliani, Ex-mayor Koch, and Governor Pataki for the concession speech. The high point came when Senator D'Amato responded to the crowd booing at mention of Shumer's name (the winner) saying, "No, no, no, he is our senator, he was elected to do the peoples work, and we have to support him in that." 

THE FAREWELL COCKTAIL PARTY

Early in December there was a farewell cocktail party for the senator at a fine Italian restaurant, of course. Secretary Rubin, Chairman Greenspan, Tim Russert, Senators Hatch, Spector, Murkowski, Sarbanes, and Moynihan, a number of NY state representatives, friends, and staff all attended. There were many warm heartfelt good-byes and stories of bipartisan cooperation from the other senators attending that night. The senator gave a rousing speech about having the greatest eighteen years he could ever have dreamed of and said don't worry about me, I've been blessed. It was quite moving and someone yelled out "you should have campaigned like that and you wouldn't have lost." It was a bittersweet evening, but the food was excellent, and the drinks, well the drinks flowed freely as they often do in Washington, D.C.

 C-FOURTH

How are things accomplished in the nations capital? The following is my somewhat tongue in cheek catch-all determination of why legislation is discussed on the floor and sometimes passed, and funds get allocated.

CONFLICT: When the two parties want to mark their differences clearly with partisan clashes, such as the tobacco debate, a bill will be brought up.

CONSENSUS: When everyone agrees so there's no problem bills can fly through. This only means there was a lot of back room maneuvering beforehand to address everyone's concerns, as with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

CRISIS: Whenever there is a clear crisis, e.g. the savings and loan debacle of the last decade, Congress will act, and act fairly quickly.

CASH: While I didn't get to see this directly, I don't accept that hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on various lobbying efforts and political donations simply to inform people, or help those one agrees with.

 CONCLUSION

This year has left me with memories of small victories, frustration with the variety of opinions on any issue, and a much larger appreciation for the work our elected officials have to struggle to accomplish. It was a unique and valuable experience that I recommend to anyone who can open themselves to a completely different way of looking at problems. As I was repeatedly told, "on Capitol Hill, logic is irrelevant." However I would rephrase that to "on Capitol Hill, the logic is inscrutable."