Lobbyists Urge Scientists To Get Involved on the Hill

The lobbyist credited his client. The client credited his lobbyist. Both praised scientists and legislators on the brink of an historic vote that would put the National Institutes of Health on the path to doubling its budget in five years. Congress, as of press time for The Scientist, was poised to pass a $500 billion legislative package that includes a $2 billion increase for the National Institutes of Health. The agency received $13.648 billion for 1998. Prior to the vote on the "omnibus" spending bill, the Senate appropriations committee requested $15.6 billion for the agency--$819 million more than requested by President Bill Clinton in February (B. Agnew, The Scientist, 12[6]:1, March 16, 1998). That vote represents the success of science advocacy--a complex network of registered lobbyists, informal advocates, scientists active on Capitol Hill, and philanthropists who help fund the campaign. While that network may have made a difference in this year's budget battle, many lobbyists and advocates agree that the cooperation of more scientists with lobbyists will be necessary to sustain four more years of increases. "Scientists need to be more engaged in the political process," agrees Gordon P. MacDougall, president of Beacon Consulting Group Inc., which represents the Campaign for Medical Research, a Washington-based nonprofit organization started last February to promote doubling NIH's budget. MacDougall sees his role as interpreter and guide. "Every profession has its own language and its own processes." He helps clients understand the legislative process, the importance of timing, and how to deliver an argument in five minutes or less. "We help them develop a message and say when to deliver." Mary Woolley John Whitehead, chairman of the Campaign for Medical Research, says the guidance of MacDougall and colleagues helped his organization be an effective voice for science. "I really have little experience in the Washington scene and no experience lobbying," Whitehead says. Lobbyists "keep the issue alive." Even though any constituent has the right to engage in the political process, lobbyists bring expertise in grasping the intricacies of following legislation from subcommittee to subcommittee. "It's really a tortuous path." Whitehead can vouch for the efficacy of others' advocacy. He recalls that the steady campaigning by Mary Woolley, president of Research!America Inc., an Alexandria, Va.-based advocacy organization, sparked his interest in the issue. He suspects that that organization--which is not a registered lobbying firm--interested key legislators such as Sen. John E. Porter (R-Ill.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) in the issue. April L. Burke, principal of Lewis-Burke Associates Inc., a Washington lobbying firm, notes that more lobbyists, advocates, and scientists are working together. One key to NIH's recent success may be that most advocates have been pushing first for overall increases, rather than their particular interests in a specific disease. "Everyone's idea is to make the pool bigger, and then they'll compete for a piece of it," agrees Lewis-Burke legislative assistant Mark Marin. Still, Burke sees room for improvement. "The hardest sell is not between me and Congress, but between me and the scientist," she notes. "The scientist often thinks that science explains itself and justifies itself." She sees her role as educating scientist clients about how to communicate with policymakers. Scientists--with coaching--can make a better case for research than she could personally, she admits. It can be tough for scientists to switch from scientific discourse to political persuasion, though. For example, scientists are used to criticizing colleagues' works in peer review journals and at conferences. That's not acceptable on "the Hill"--especially since a scientist may only have five minutes to make an impression. "In a political environment, if you use your time to trash someone s work, you end up bringing the entire enterprise down." Mike Stephens, vice president of Van Soyce Associates, agrees that scientists--with the help of lobbyists--can more effectively carry the message. "The lobbying and the advocacy (for his client, the Federation of American Society of Experimental Biology) is really done by the scientists, not by the paid staff." However, his expertise and relationships (Stephens worked as a staff member on the House appropriations committee from 1975 to 1996) can help scientists, especially in issues of timing--"when to make the case, when to stay out of the way." Stephens, like his colleagues, stresses the importance of timing. Last year, when the issue began to crystallize, advocates may have made the push too late. "We needed to work earlier in the process," Stephens admits. Actually, last year may not have been the ideal time to push for NIH increases, since the balanced budget agreement had just been passed. This year, advocates started earlier and tried to account for the balanced budget agreement in their arguments. This year, the loose alliance of pro-science lobbyists and advocates has done a good job of sticking together. "There's better coordination than there's ever been," Stephens notes. Those alliances can be fragile, since many groups, like FASEB, are against disease-specific budget earmarks, while many of the disease groups favor distributing research money to specific diseases. Complicating matters further, Stephens explains, those groups often have the most compelling message for Congress. "It's the human element of having disease and disability that's the most important driving force," he adds. Even though AIDS activists have been among the most vocal--and effective--in pushing for more research dollars, Jane Silver, of the American Foundation for AIDS Research (AmFAR) public policy office, acknowledges that the organization needs to work for the larger goal of biomedical research to be successful. The organization also needs scientists willing to testify for more funding. "Scientists are often viewed more favorably than advocates or lobbyists." She recalls that Aaron Diamond AIDS Research Center's David D. Ho gave effective testimony on the Hill before he was thrust into the national spotlight by a Time magazine cover. But after he received "Man of the Year" honors from the publication, he returned to ovations--and to deliver a very effective pro-research message, Silver notes. David Moore, vice president of government relations at the American Association of Medical Colleges, sees lobbyists' newest role as matchmakers. Savvy professional advocates are pairing scientists who research a particular disease with patients affected by that disease, coaching them on how to deliver their message, and helping them find the ideal time to testify. "We're now seeing teams of people making the case." Such strategies--and the involvement of more scientists--may be necessary for biomedical research's next big battle: ensuring that fiscal year 1999's gains are not a blip. That battle will require the voices of more patients, biomedical professionals, and researchers. "It takes everybody," explains Terry Lierman, president of Capitol Associates Inc., a Washington-based lobbying firm. "The lobbyists are only as good as the people they represent." April Burke Editor's Note: Of the 3,759 lobbying firms registered in Washington, D.C., more than 800 list "science" as an issue of activity, according to House of Representatives lobbyist registration records. While many lobbyists engaged in advocating science say they are only as strong as their constituents, these firms affect science policy on levels ranging from battling for tiny programs to banding together to boost science funding across the board. One firm, Lewis-Burke Associates Inc., allowed Associate Editor Paul Smaglik to witness one day of this activity. On that day, Sept. 23, 1998, the firm's efforts consisted mostly of information gathering and trying to grasp what was happening with the usual appropriations drama--hardly "glamorous cloak-and-dagger stuff," as April L. Burke , a principal with the firm, commented. The firm's four paid lobbyists and two support staff primarily represent nonprofit research organizations. Since Lewis-Burke Associates' clients are nonprofits, they are not allowed to contribute to political action campaigns, and the budget (which Burke-Lewis runs out of a checkbook) is too small to support wanton expense-account lunches--a lobbyist cliché that Burke says is mostly untrue. Burke allowed Smaglik access to the firm's activity with the understanding that he not divulge the names of clients or colleagues without her permission. Times given are approximations. 9:30 a.m. Burke and legislative assistant Mark Marin discuss a battle over organ donation. One client, a small transplant center, wants organs to continue to be allocated on the basis of proximity--with highest priority given to local needs and lowest to candidates far across the country from the available organ. However, some prominent players, including Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) favor a single national list. Burke notes that a national list could funnel most transplants to five or six major transplant centers, including one at the University of Pittsburgh, which, Burke notes, is in Specter's state: "Major medical centers have been pushing for years to get a national list." Language in the House version of the Labor, Health and Human Services bill, which also funds the National Institutes of Health, favors Burke's position, through a one-year moratorium on the national list. Language in the Senate's version remains silent, implicitly endorsing the list. As the budget battle nears conclusion, the discrepancy has yet to be resolved. "We have come down to the wire," Burke reports. Marin recounts the previous day's meeting with one senator's legislative staff, where a colleague called the bill "unacceptable." The meeting basically ended in an impasse. Burke notes that legislators are loathe to side either way, because the wrong choice could have the appearance of an arbitrary decision about a potential life-and-death situation. "People on the Hill hate this," Burke comments. "They just want it to go away." 9:50 a.m. Burke and Marin commandeer a cab to Capitol Hill for a subcommittee hearing on the Department of Energy. Halfway there, Burke chides herself. She forgot to bring a toy model of a NASA probe, which she had planned to give to one member's legislative staff. One of the research organizations she represents participated in designing the probe. A law passed in 1995 rendered most gifts illegal. But the toy would be exempt, since it's considered a commemorative model. Giving it to legislative staff would help connect the institution she represents with a successful, high-profile research mission. 10 a.m. After submitting to the usual metal detectors and baggage X-rays at the Rayburn House Office Building, Burke and Marin enter the hearing, where the subcommittee members are exhorting DOE officials for not having a more coordinated, clearly articulated research agenda (Notebook,The Scientist, 12[20]:31, Oct. 12, 1998). Burke and Marin are attending the meeting because some clients receive DOE funding. 11:30 a.m. In the journey back to the office (lengthened by a delay due to Nelson Mandela's limousine procession and security detail), Burke analyzed the meeting: "I think that what this committee was saying [to DOE] was, 'It's not that we don't love you ... But you are [organized] like some corporation that's based its structure on the turn of the century." She added that the subcommittee's perception that the agency lacked coordination was reinforced when some staffers appeared to have trouble relaying relevant information to the witnesses they sat behind. "The witnesses appeared earnest, but not well staffed," Burke commented. The lack of communication underscored the message delivered by the subcommittee: the DOE lacked organization. Besides the hearing summary, Burke recited a list of who was in the audience (representatives of most DOE-funded labs) and what interests were at stake (potentially more regulation by Congress and more oversight by other agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency)--information relevant to clients. She also planned to also pass on the one bright spot: "Everyone there said: 'The research is really good.'" 1:30 p.m. Legislative assistant Todd Dickinson makes final preparations for a press conference celebrating an amendment to a bill that would increase the number of H1-B visas allowed yearly. The bill's passage would mean more foreign scientists could work as postdocs and at high-tech jobs (P. Smaglik, The Scientist 12[15]:12, July 20, 1998). Complicating matters for Dickinson, a host of lobbyists and public relations professionals representing more than 25 different organizations contributed to the press release--each with special interests and related demands. Hours prior to the event, someone faxed draft copies of the release to all parties involved for a final edit. Dickinson's contribution? Changing the phrase "higher education" to "academic," since the institutions Lewis-Burke Associates represents are independent research institutions not necessarily tied to colleges or universities. Colleagues from other firms meet Dickinson for the cab ride to the Capitol lawn, where the conference was to be held. Discussions ensued about how the release of the Starr Report could impact the event. The lobbyists were especially concerned about how long Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), the bill's key sponsor, would stay following his prepared statements. "Smith's going to make a couple of quick remarks and he's out of there," predicted one of Dickinson's colleagues. At the press conference, Smith, contrary to expectations, took questions. And no reporters asked about President Bill Clinton. When the event concluded, Dickinson agreed that the timing of the Starr Report served as a distraction. "Here we are in the middle of all this, trying to get attention." Still, he and his colleagues were pleased with the turnout--at least eight television cameras recorded the event, and a small crowd of print reporters scribbled Smith's remarks in their notebooks. Dickinson noted that Smith's cooperation raised the event's profile. Mobilizing constituents--who were also Lewis-Burke clients--helped garner the representative's support. The cab back to the office again gets delayed by another Mandela limousine procession. 3:30 p.m. Back at the office, Dickinson briefs Burke about the conference. "That's the closest I've been to a member in a month and a half," he reports. Lobbyists tend to be more effective working with a member's staff, but sometimes they require the profile that a member brings to an issue. Burke switches from speaker phone to headset to E-mail as she responds to questions from a variety of clients and colleagues. She receives one call regarding a small aquarium and museum funded through the National Science Foundation. The client and Burke want to raise funding to the tiny program. Burke notes that NSF has touted the program in brochures and videos, although funding for it has remained relatively stagnant. She calls clerks in the House and Senate appropriations committees and asks them about an impending "bump-up" in the informal science program. They assure her, for the time being at least, that the item remains in the appropriation bill's language. "It's a good program. It's tiny. It deserves more," comments Burke, pausing before moving on to the next phone call, fax, E-mail, issue. POSTSCRIPTS Organ transplant:As part of the $500 billion omnibus budget deal on Oct. 15, Congressional leaders and President Clinton agreed to a one-year moratorium on switching to a national organ donation list. H1-B visas: Also as part of the omnibus budget deal, Congressional leaders and President Clinton agreed to increase the number of H1-B visas from 65,000 in fiscal year 1998 to 115,000 in 1999 and 2000, 107,500 in 2001, before reverting the level back to 65,000 in 2002. Informal Science: As part of the NSF budget, the informal science program was boosted from $36 million in fiscal year 1998 to $46 million for 1999.

Lobbyists Urge Scientists To Get Involved on the Hill

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of