SPANNING THE GEOSCIENCE-GOVERNMENT DIVIDE: THE IMPORTANCE OF CONGRESSIONAL TIME

In many ways, the past is the key to the present in Congress because seniority and the ability to build a consensus are two of the most important factors influencing public policy outcomes. Past elections determine who holds committee chairmanships and which states and districts are represented. The most recent election sets the magnitude of the majority as well as the width of the ideological spectrum that determines how difficult it will be to achieve a policy consensus.

Geoscience training involves an early appreciation for long time scales and dynamic processes. Yet geoscientists are as likely as any other citizens to see political stasis: the conflict de jour between political parties; the perpetual budget crisis; election coverage that emphasizes who is surging or falling behind the pace; or campaigns about anything except policy substance.

Recent empirical examinations of long congressional time (50 years) allow experts to begin understanding public policy processes. In non-controversial policy arenas marked by incremental change, expert testimony influences policy priorities, as geoscientists did regularly between the 1920s and 1970s. In contrast, when a policy topic becomes a valence issue over which elections are contested, policy making will either stall, or infrequently undergo fundamental and massive transformation.

Continuing policy advice in the form that was successful during a non-controversial phase is not merely ineffectual but can become harmful when the policy arena undergoes a phase shift to a valence issue. By the latter part of the 20^th century, geoscientists occasionally testifying on the Hill came away perplexed and frustrated that their arguments based on the best evidence were not part of the final policy determinations. In fact, their evidence was sometimes challenged and derided as being ideological, and their research funding was seriously reduced, compounding their frustrations.

Geoscientists will benefit from an understanding of the policy process that goes beyond the 2- or 4-year election cycle, and 5- to 15-year policy descriptions. Policy experts agree that 50 years is important to capture changes in areas such as telecommunications or foreign policy. One hundred years is needed in environmental policy, i.e. the policy arena in which geological knowledge is most relevant.