Final Report to the IEEE-USA
Congressional Fellowship Committee
A Year in the Life of
a Congressional Fellow
By Frederick Martin
1998 IEEE-USA Congressional Fellow
In summoning up remembrances, and looking over my monthly notes describing some of my
activities as a Congressional Fellow I am reminded of a question posed to me by an old
friend from my days in high energy physics. Art R., who has spent the last six years as a
specialist on energy efficiency at DOE, wanted to know if I had left some sort of mark on
Washington! I smile to myself, I don't recall my answer, but whether or not I left a mark
on WDC I can say with some certainty that WDC left impressions on me.
That 1998 was a very political year is one impression I received. A great deal of
posturing and sloganeering transpired but beyond filling various rice bowls extra full in
the this year of budget surpluses little else of substance was accomplished; except, of
course, the Republican Party got a modest kick in the shins, at the end of the year.
Although less than fifty percent of the voting public participates in the elections, it is
still possible for the party in leadership to be rebuked by those that do vote.
The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
I started off the year in the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
(Chairman Murkowski of Alaska) working for the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
(Chairman Nickles of Oklahoma), with majority staff members Dave Garman and Howard Useem.
Howard Useem worked for Senator Murkowski on electric power deregulation. Dave Garman, the
person for whom I went to work, managed a hodgepodge of energy and environmental issues
for Senator Murkowski; neither Dave nor Howard had had any formal technical training or
experience related to the issues confronting the Subcommittee and Senator Nickles appeared
to be totally disengaged from these activities.
Initially a number of seemingly important issues were bandied about: US participation
in the Large Hadron Collider, soy oil supplements to diesel fuel, mining deep ocean
sediments for methane, environmental regulations for decommissioned power reactors,
nuclear waste disposal, manufacturing tritium, and, most important, the DOE budget with
emphasis on research and development. In dealing with these issues there seemed to be
several a-priori axioms as the starting point: we hate Clinton - fore most, Democrats are
obstructionists, and Republicans are the only true environmentalists, comments of the
press notwithstanding. Laboring under this mantra would seem to be a rather unproductive
process.
So what happened to the issues?
Unfortunately, the staff member for whom I worked, Dave Garman, left his position
shortly after I arrived and it was left vacant and no one else seemed to have the
slightest interest in a Congressional Fellow. This event ultimately obliged me to find
another position. However, we did hold some briefings on two bills. One concerned soy bean
oil supplement to diesel fuel and the other the mining of methane from methane hydrate in
deep ocean sediments.
The principle motivation for the Bio-Diesel Fuel Bill S. 1141 (Johnson, SD) to
supplement diesel fuel with soy bean oil is to expand the market for soy bean farmers,
corporate affirmative action. Ancillary considerations included disposing of used cooking
oil from restaurants and the reduction of particulate emissions from diesel engines. The
proposed legislation modifies the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The original Act included
provisions regarding subsidies to encourage the use of alternative fuels derived from farm
products, yclept "bio-mass fuel" or "bio-fuel", for "light
vehicles". This legislation expands those provisions to include additives to
petroleum diesel fuel for heavy vehicles, stationary diesel engines, locomotives, marine
engines, etc. These policy issues concern DOE activities and since DOE already had a
program to deal with this supplement the proposed legislation was not particularly
essential. I do not know what happened to this legislation.
Methane Hydrate, S. 1418 (Akaka, HI): This legislation directs the DOE to investigate
the possibility of mining deep water sea sediments for methane hydrate. Under sufficient
pressure and at low temperature, large quantities of methane can be absorbed into ice
crystals that form in the ocean sediments. This program was under study by the DOE, US
Navy, and the USGS but a few years back it was dropped, presumably in a frenzy of budget
cutting. There purports to be a colossal quantity of methane sequestered in this hydrate.
The 1999 Budget for DOE included research funding for this program. The bill passed out of
the Senate and was heard before the House Committee on Science where is was eventually
passed and sent to the full House. I believe it may have made its way to the President's
desk.
The DOE funded the US commitment to the Large Hadron Collider in the 1999 Budget.
Tritium production in the US remains in limbo. A number of proposals have been offered
including purchasing excess tritium from Russia. Since 1988 DOE has investigated a number
of alternatives as a source of tritium. This search has come dearly; in ten years, DOE has
expended $3.7 billion for this quest. The DOE had promised to make a decision on whether
to use a commercial power reactor for producing Tritium, presumably the TVA proposal, or
to pursue developing a new accelerator facility, the latter was estimated to be
considerably more expensive. However, the House passed some legislation banning the use of
commercial power reactors to produce nuclear weapons material. As of mid December, DOE had
not made an announcement on the future production of Tritium.
After firmly establishing my reputation as a loose canon, as far as the Committee was
concerned, I relocated to the Congressional Research Service (CRS); where there was
a definite interest in my background, whereas some of the other possibilities were more
tentative and tepid.
The Congressional Research Service - Division of Science, Technology, and
Medicine
At the CRS I joined the staff in the Science, Technology, and Medicine (STM)
division. Eric Fischer was the manager, and I went to work with Mike Davey who handled
many of the defense related issues that came to the Division. In two previous descriptions
of my activities, I described the CRS and STM and I shall summarize those descriptions
here.
Legislation drives the CRS activities and its 700 plus employees; it works exclusively
for Congress and its research products are available usually only to Congress (although
Congressional offices can provide reports, etc. to constituents). At the request of
Congress or on its own volition, CRS prepares reports and briefs on issues of concern to
the legislature. CRS also provides phone consultations, one-on-one briefings in Member
offices, general seminars, and workshops for staffers and officials on the Hill. CRS
treats all requests from Member and committee offices as confidential and prepares
materials exclusively for that office. General reports and issue briefs are be coming
available on a Congressional Intranet. In the legislative process speed and timeliness are
paramount and many requests are reported back within 24 hours. Also CRS anticipates the
legislative priorities for the session and prepares reports, briefs, and updates in
advance covering legislative issues.
The STM Division employs about 41 persons plus one or more gratuitous persons, like me.
Thirty five of these folks are analysts and in 1997 they produced approximately 50 written
reports as well as consultations, hearings, briefings, and seminars.
CRS does face a crisis, of sorts, in the coming decade. Because of the large increase
in personnel during the 1970's more than 50 percent of CRS employees will be eligible for
retirement by the year 2006. In the Division of Science, Technology, and Medicine, only
one of the 35 analysts is under the age of 40. With the declining budget, in real terms,
hampering the hiring of new analysts the CRS faces a real challenge in maintaining its
institutional memory beyond the next decade, a necessity in order to continue quality
service.
My Task
For well over a decade the Air Force has been quietly working on developing and
perfecting an airborne laser weapon for shooting down airborne threats. Iraq's deployment
of SCUD missiles in the Gulf War gave an added impetus to this effort and recent efforts
in North Korea and Iran to deploy short and medium range missiles have increased the sense
of urgency for an airborne laser. The Air Force is currently building a prototype for this
weapon. Mounted in a 747, the airborne laser weapon includes a chemically powered,
multimegawatt laser, and two laser radars to track the missile and measure the atmospheric
turbulence for beam compensation. The prototype was scheduled for test and evaluation in
2003 but has been put off until 2004 because of budget cuts in the 1999 budget.
Using my background in airborne laser communication, I launched into a detailed
technical study of the Air Force program. The study took me to the Lincoln Labs, TRW, and
Lockheed Martin as well as a number of interviews and briefings locally in the Washington
DC area. The study delved into the intricacies of optical tracking at hundreds of
kilometers, adoptive optics systems for modulating a laser beam wave front to compensate
for atmospheric distortion, and the time it would take a high power, diffraction limited,
laser beam to heat the missile shell to the point of elastic yield that would lead to the
collapse of the missile from internal stresses.
Although we had hoped to have the study available by the time of the budget
negotiations in September, our schedule was no more accurate than the Air Force's schedule
for the airborne laser. As of February 1999, a draft report has finally gone to the Air
Force and others for review and so we can anticipate a completed report about a year after
we started the study. One of the features of our report which I believe is relatively
unique for the CRS/STM is the depth of the technical detail. We have shown how one can
make simple computations on the lethal range of the weapon making assumptions about the
propagation of the laser beam through the atmosphere. It would be interesting to know if,
in the future, any of the Hill staffers use the report to make their own assumptions for
estimating the lethal efficacy of the airborne laser. This level of technical detail is
rather rare in CRS/STM reports. Anyone interested in the report when it is issued should
contact Michael Davey at the CRS or their Congressman or Senator for a copy.
Several minor projects to look up information or explains technical concepts for Hill
staffers also came my way.
General Impressions
During the course of my Fellowship, I interacted with other Fellows and learned about
activities in some of the elected offices; projects and issues covered the national
spectrum - there is something for everyone.
I also had the opportunity to follow the hearings on the International Space Station
and other science projects; it is an interesting show. The 15 or so members of the House
Committee on Science held a series of hearings on the ISS, its problems of cost and
schedule overruns and the contributions of the Russian Space Agency. Several witnesses
testified that the Russian Space Agency is moribund and cannot meet its commitments to the
ISS without massive infusion of US dollars. Although the launches of the first components
last November represented a much needed milestone, the next major module comes from Russia
who could demand exorbitant funds to complete it. Parenthetically, I am told that the
relativistic gravity probe project at Stanford University employs several young space
engineers from Russia which mirrors in some degree the demise of space science in that
country. What comes through in the hearings on the ISS is that the members of the
Committee haven't a clue about the engineering, science, and organization that goes into a
project such as the ISS.
Capitol Hill shows signs of concern about R&D programs and the funding for them.
The pursuit of R&D in Congress probably has less to do with the science policy set
forth in the Vannevar Bush memo of 50 years ago and more to do with bringing Federal Funds
to Congressional Districts. Nevertheless, Congressman Ehlers (R.-MI) has formulated a new
science policy document to replace the Vannevar Bush memo of 50 years ago. Concurrent with
the effort to develop a new coherent science policy for Congress, several bill have been
circulated that would set guidelines for and authorize R&D funding with a goal of
doubling Federal R&D outlays over the next 10 or 12 years. The new policy fails to
recognize some subtle and not so subtle shifts taking place in science and engineering as
our society becomes more complex and more a network of tangled webs. One that clearly
stands out in the discussions on science, is the preponderance of interest in the
bio-medical sciences. These amount to about 40% of the total R&D budgets supported by
the Federal Government. Second, there is a shift towards the increasing use of
multi-disciplinary task forces to deal with technical and social issues in our society.
Some of these thoughts are described more detail in my IEEE10 note on Ehlers' Report.
Working on the Hill is generally a young persons game filled with activity and
enthusiasm. The hours are long, the pay is low, and the turnover time is about two years.
Older staffers are usually found in committees but some personal offices will have an
older staffer, particularly in the Senate. Very few of these folks have any experience in
the commercial, business, or R&D world. They are, however, the writers of the
legislation; legislation which somehow simultaneously satisfies the constituency of the
elected official and the broader issues of public policy. Success is always in the details
and when legislation deals with complex technologies outside expertise is sought. It comes
from a variety of sources: The CRS, lobbyists, think tanks, agencies, and -yes-
congressional fellows. Many congressional fellows are themselves young and well educated
but inexperienced in the ways of the world of commerce, business, and R&D. The
legislative process would well benefit from the congressional fellow who has the
experience of working in the "real world". He or she will also be well
positioned to absorb and appreciate the experience of working on the Hill.
Frederick Martin
IEEE-USA Congressional Fellow, 1998
February 19, 1999
[TOP][ BACK]
Last Updated: Feb. 19, 1999
The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers - United States of America |