Congress is an important part of the context for science, because it sets its policy and funding, and because it is a proxy for our society. Congressional gridlock can, for example, reflect lack of broad societal agreement on goals and means. A Congressional sweep as occurred in the Fall of 1994 could presage broad agreement and fundamental changes. It is much too early to tell what will happen in the 104th Congress because the changes, especially in the House of Representatives, are too major to extrapolate from past experience, but let me make five points based on the new political landscape. First, science was not an explicit issue in the election so there is no explicit mandate. This, together with the traditional Republican support for basic research argues that basic science programs may fare relatively well in the new Congress. On the other hand, cutting taxes, balancing the budget, and increasing defense spending will increase pressure on the budget. Republicans support science and space programs and Congress tends to lump the two together. Therefore, under budget pressure some Members may feel that spending a few billions on NASA's Shuttle and Space Station are enough for ``science,'' with little left for university research. Third, except for medical and Defense areas, applied research is likely to be cut. Fourth, the new Congress is likely to be very reform-minded and the Administration---not wanting to appear laggard with the 1996 elections looming---may try to ``out reform'' the Congress. Finally, although there will be a totally new leadership and many new faces, a theme of the 103rd Congress---that science needs to be more responsive to national goals---may carry over because it has had broad bipartisan support.
Again, it is much too early to say with any certainty what will happen. With this introduction and disclaimer, the following is offered as an historical view of the Congressional context.
Although on occasion Congress uses scientific research results, the Members are not scientifically sophisticated and few have scientific credentials. More importantly here, neither do scientists understand Congress, and few have legislative credentials. (note: The various congressional fellowships sponsored by the professional societies are a welcome and effective remedy although the number of fellows remains small, about 25 per year.) It might be valuable for scientists to make an effort to understand Congress, not only as citizens, but also because it is an important part of their professional context [Wells, 1992; Byerly, 1994].
Scientists might begin to comprehend Congress by looking for similarities to university politics involving conflict over and balancing of interests. Often in university conflicts the parties show little mutual understanding in spite of long institutional cohabitation. A dispute between, e.g., Romance Languages and Biochemistry over the allocation of faculty positions may reveal little common ground. As a result arguments can be emotional, unproductive, and unfair. At times power is more important than reason in decision-making; and consequently fierce fights over apparent trivialities, such as parking, are really struggles over power. Congress is similar.
Among Members of Congress who have dealt regularly with science policy there are two schools of thought, one represented by Senator Barbara Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat, and the other by Representative George Brown, a California Democrat. Senator Mikulski's views are congruent with those of many other Members of Congress; Representative Brown's views overlap Mikulski's in many ways, but with a fundamental difference. Whereas Mikulski would impose reforms of science policy, Brown hopes to convince scientists to choose a healthier course, one sustainable in the post-Cold-War world.