“Policy, Politics and Procedure.” Those three words were drilled
into the incoming class of American Association for the Advancement of Science
Congress-ional Science Fellows as all 30 of us sat wide-eyed in the Library
of Congress during an intense orientation seminar on how our government “really
works.” We were taught that the “three P’s” are equally
important when making decisions regarding national legislation. The frank, three-hour
whirlwind session is the same as the one given to freshman members of Congress
as they settle into their offices in Washington, D.C.
The reactions from the other fellows in my class were varied. Some idealists
gasped in disbelief that federal policy-making is not dominated by, well, policy.
Other perhaps already jaded members of my class smirked and nodded in tacit
agreement — that’s just the way it is. At the time, I was somewhere
in the middle.
Now, after three months in the trenches of a congressional office, I smirk and
nod while reciting the “three P’s” — Politics, Procedure
and what’s the other one? Oh yeah, Policy.
Politics
Everyone knows that everything in Washington revolves around politics. However,
we are living in especially partisan times. After such a short time on Capitol
Hill, I do not pretend to understand the politics of certain situations; I simply
recognize that the politics are important. The partisan nature of this business
is striking.
As a volcanologist observing the recent controversial and important votes last
fall, I can best describe the situation as the Great Washington Rift. Capitol
Hill is slowly spreading apart, with red rocks on one side and blue on the other.
The rift is flooded with all kinds of legislation. Some pieces of legislation
are nefarious, while some are meaningful, adequately debated and based on the
best scientific knowledge available. However, a bipartisan effort to pass good
pieces of legislation is as infrequent as a rift-related volcanic eruption.
Procedure
Like most staffers on the Hill, I am learning procedure as I go. The system
of parliamentary procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives is a complex
web of ever changing rules. Article I section V of the Constitution states that
“Each House [Senate and House of Representatives] may determine the rules
of its proceedings.” Hence, there are countless rules, and they are always
changing.
Congress is always voting on rules and amendments to rules. If you asked congressional
staffers across the Hill if they understand what is going on at all times on
the House floor, I wouldn’t be the only one to sheepishly say, “kind
of.”
Policy
The best way I have to describe legislative policy on Capitol Hill is to cite
Scottish poet Robert Burns: The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry.
The journey of a piece of legislation is purposefully long and arduous, thus
reducing the chances of passing bad laws. If legislation gets to the House floor,
everyone is supposed to have had a shot at it. Great system, right? Politics,
however, too often control procedure and policy.
When the majority party wants to pass legislation on a controversial topic,
they often create a rule and add it to an existing and sometimes completely
unrelated bill. A good example of this is the recent vote over whether or not
to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas drilling.
Certain members of Congress have been unsuccessfully trying to enact this policy
for 25 years. Most recently, instead of having an up or down vote on whether
to open ANWR, it was tacked on to a defense appropriations bill, for which there
was significant political pressure to pass. As a result, the appropriations
bill passed the House with the provision to drill in ANWR. After a filibuster,
however, the Senate leadership removed the provision from its bill, leaving
ANWR protected for the time being.
Hope?
Many members of the scientific community look at the situation described above
and the lack of peer-reviewed science in federal policy-making with disdain.
True, in the current environment, it is very difficult for policies based on
sound science to have a chance. Furthermore, the United States and our science
community currently face tremendous challenges. This is evident by the briefings
on Capitol Hill, and by what we hear in the news.
Each week, we read about an increase in negative effects on society due to global
climate change and the end of cheap, easily attainable oil and natural gas.
Meanwhile, the United States is falling further behind in math and science education.
Gloomy, but there’s still some hope.
On the first day of my fellowship, I was thrown into the fire and handed legislative
issues regarding “peak oil.” The term refers to the reality that the
world is going to reach its peak in oil production soon — possibly within
the next decade or two. The exact date of the peak is vehemently debated, but
actually not very important. If mitigation is not done now, the resulting increase
in the price of oil and gas will negatively affect every part of our society.
My first task regarding peak oil was to help form the bipartisan House Peak
Oil Caucus, co-founded by Reps. Tom Udall (D-N.M., my boss) and Roscoe Bartlett
(R-Md.). Shortly after its formation, the Peak Oil Caucus introduced House Resolution
507, expressing the desire of the House of Representatives for the United States
to collaborate with international allies to establish a new project to address
the inevitable challenges of peak oil. This project would encapsulate a level
of scope, creativity and sense of urgency not seen since the mission to put
a man on the moon in the 1960s. A project of such magnitude has the potential
to significantly improve efficiency with which we drill for, recover, and use
oil and natural gas; greatly improve the use of renewable and clean energy;
reduce the human effects contributing to global warming; and boost our science
community back into strong global leadership.
Currently, H.R. 507 has 18 co-sponsors, half Republican, half Democrat, and
has had a hearing in the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. Is this the
start of a groundswell that will effectively close the Great Washington Rift,
or at least stop further spreading? Let’s hope so. At least it may change
my mantra back to “Policy, Politics and Procedure.”
 |
Geotimes Home | AGI Home | Information Services | Geoscience Education | Public Policy | Programs | Publications | Careers  |