>>KAREN STUDWELL: There will be three of us
sharing this hour with you and we first wanted
to give you a brief introduction to let you
know who we are and what we do here in Washington
on behalf of the members of APA and FABBS.
As I mentioned, I am Karen Studwell, and I
have been here for 11 years, lobbying Congress
on the importance of federal investments in
psychological science, from cognition and
learning, child development, sexual health,
HIV-AIDS prevention research, mental and emotional
disorders, as well as peer review and protecting
research infrastructure.
>> HEATHER O’BEIRNE KELLY: Hi, I am Heather
O’Beirne Kelly, a psychologist by training
and like Karen, a senior legislative and federal
affairs officer here in the APA science government
relations office. This is my 14th year advocating
on behalf of APA for the psychological research
portfolios within the National Science Foundation,
the Department of Defense and the Department
of Veterans Affairs. I also run APA’s Executive
Branch Science Fellowship program and, with
my colleagues, lead a number of advocacy trainings
throughout the year here in Washington and
offsite at many of your other society annual
meetings and in university departments.
[pause]
>> PAULA SKEDSVOLD: Hello. I am Paula Skedsvold,
executive director of the Federation of Associations
in Behavioral & Brain Sciences (otherwise
known as FABBS). I have been in Washington,
DC for 17 years, working on Capitol Hill as
a Congressional Fellow (supported by APA),
at NIH (in the Office of Behavioral and Social
Sciences Research), and in the advocacy community
(promoting our sciences on the Hill and in
federal agencies). As Executive Director of
FABBS, I conduct advocacy on behalf of scientific
societies who are members of FABBS.
Before we get started, let me briefly explain
FABBS and what we do for our sciences in Washington,
D.C. FABBS is a coalition of 22 scientific
societies, all of which share an interest
in advancing the sciences of mind, brain and
behavior. We conduct advocacy on Capitol Hill
and with federal agencies to improve funding
for our sciences and research training for
the next generation. Although our work is
focused on federal funding and advocacy in
Washington, D.C, at times, we need scientists
back home to join this effort. Now is one
of those times because federal funding for
science and many government programs is being
tightened. We are partnering with APA, our
largest scientific society, to provide this
training so that you are equipped to lend
your voice to this effort. Karen will now
briefly describe the activities of APA’s
science government relations office and then
get us started.
>>KAREN STUDWELL: Thank you, Paula. As lobbyists
for the APA science directorate, we have the
following four goals. As one of our goals
is to increase the ability of APA scientists
to advocate for their own discipline, we have
trained hundreds of individuals how to effectively
advocate with their congressional representatives.
While we might bring people into Washington
or provide trainings at smaller society meetings,
we hope that the webinar format will extend
our reach to more of our members while still
providing each of you with the information
and tools that you need to pick up the phone
or send an email to your representative’s
office, to request a meeting to discuss the
importance of federal investments in your
area of science and to use that experience
to engage in the public policy process. As
it is part of our mission to empower each
one of you to advocate on behalf of your discipline,
we will be happy to assist you after the webinar
is over to ensure that you are prepared.
[pause]
To give you an overview of what we intend
to cover today, I will provide some background
on the current legislative and budget issues
that we want you to take actions on, and then
Heather will provide some additional context
and communication strategies for you and Paula
will end the presentation with specific next
steps to get you started and we will try to
leave enough time to answer your questions
at the end of the session.
Now that you know a little bit about us, we
would like to learn a little about you as
well, and your level of advocacy experience.
We know a few of you that registered have
attended trainings in person before, but some
of you we don’t know. If you could answer
yes or no to the following polling question
as it comes up on your screen, we can get
a better idea of how engaged most of you have
been up to now in policy. We will give you
a few minutes to answer the following question,
“Have you ever contacted your member of
Congress?” and that could be about any issue,
not just those related to psychology or science.
[pause]
I’ll give you a few more seconds, in case
you were checking your email, or otherwise
distracted from the presentation.
[pause]
Thank you! As we know some of you have attended
our trainings before and have met with your
congressional delegation here in Washington,
we hope that your previous experience has
prepared you well to be comfortable scheduling
your own meeting in the district. And a majority
of you may not have any experience, and that’s
also fine. For those of you who have no experience,
we hope that this training will provide you
with enough information to take the plunge
into advocacy.
[pause]
So why become an advocate? Although we may
not always realize it, policy and funding
decisions are made every day, with or without
your input, and there is a connection between
the decisions made by a small subcommittee
in Congress and support for research labs
across the country, including yours.
When Congress decides to make a statement
about government waste, it is often scientists
studying psychological, behavior, brain and
social sciences that end up being targeted
by members of Congress and it’s our job
to accurately explain why this research is
important.
Congress has a lot to do and little time to
be educated on all the issues they are voting
for or against. Regardless of your area of
expertise, as a scientist, your expertise
puts you in a unique position to share research
and knowledge that is relevant to important
health, education, social or national security
issues.
We will always need advocates and it’s a
job that is never done. There were nearly
100 new members of Congress in 2010, many
of whom had never held public office. Some
of these new members came to Washington with
the express purpose of cutting the federal
budget, which means we have lots of work to
do to educate policymakers about all the work
you do, and, in turn, that education enhances
the value of all behavioral sciences.
[pause]
We’re so glad you are participating today
as getting scientists more involved in advocacy
is always a challenge, and we have asked our
previous attendees why they may not have participated
in federal advocacy before and these are just
some of the responses. Most often, people
feel that they just don’t have the time,
either to the read up on the issue, attend
a meeting, even attend a webinar such as this
or to figure out the complicated process.
As the academic season gets underway, it’s
even more understandable that people feel
crunched for time. Some of the other reasons
you may share is that you think it won’t
make a difference, or that you’re just very
uncomfortable in that context, you don’t
know what to say or you don’t know how to
conduct lobbying. And it can be intimidating
for those that have never done this before.
Given that we only have an hour, we do hope
to make the most of your time and also make
you feel comfortable enough to engage with
your representative on these important issues
to our organizations and scientists across
the country.
[pause]
We often time our advocacy for when Congress
is in session and voting soon on an issue
or bill that might affect our disciplines.
This year, we have a little different strategy,
as at this moment Congress is about to leave
Washington to campaign in the district, so
will be home from now through election day
on Tuesday, November 6th. Given the importance
of these issues, we would like to help you
to take this opportunity to reach out to your
own representative from the House. Remember
that representatives are usually more accessible
in the home district than they are in Washington,
so your odds of getting to talk to your representative
this fall are rather good.
There are several reasons to be quite concerned
about the state of our sciences within the
current policymaking environment.
The fiscal year2013 appropriations for all
the primary science agencies are still in
flux, so the Senate is voting this weekend
to keep most programs at their fiscal year
12 levels through March 2013, which will delay
a final decision on the actual fiscal year
2013 funding levels.
There continues to be an increased scrutiny
around the behavioral, social and economic
sciences and there have been proposals in
the House to eliminate entire disciplines
of research from both NIH and NSF, efforts
also to increase the nation’s STEM disciplines
workforce have often left out the behavioral
and social sciences, and worst of all, there
is the imminent threat of across-the-board
spending cuts, or sequestration, to most budgetary
accounts, including scientific research, which
would be devastating to scientists across
the country. We will explain a bit more about
that scenario later.
Recognizing that you may all be working in
different subdisciplines and are in different
stages in your careers, we would like to help
you educate your representative about the
importance of your area of science and why
federal investments in research are crucial
to the local economy, public health, education,
private industry, national security and are
economic engines for their district. We also
want encourage stable funding for science
and to tell Congress that they must stop the
sequestration, if they can do nothing else
or the results would be devastating to researchers
and students in their home districts.
Although we only have an hour here today,
we are going to be repeating these points
several times. So, just to be clear, these
are current issues that we are concerned about,
and, secondly the two messages we are asking
you to deliver to your member of Congress.
First, the current political and budget climate
is a threat to science, including the sciences
of mind, brain and behavior. Second, Congress
must act to prevent large budget cuts from
happening automatically on January 2, 2013,
what is known as a sequester.
[pause]
So this is a preview of the message that we
would like you to deliver to your member of
Congress. First, we would like you explain
to your representative how your research contributes
to the public health, and I understand that
you all do different things, so, it doesn’t
have to contribute to all of these things
haha, your individual research projects, they
might have contributions to public health,
perhaps education, and some of you work in
autism, some of you also work in workplace
productivity and national security. And because
these research projects are bringing money
to the district, they’re considered vital
to the economic health of the district. And
second, we need you to tell your representative
that 8 percent cuts to domestic spending will
hurt science in general and your research
in particular. Ask for his or her support
to stop the sequester and for stable and sufficient
federal investments in research agencies across
the federal government.
As sequestration is not limited to science
programs or even public health programs, but
it is scheduled to cut nearly every defense
and non-defense discretionary program, so
we have been working with a coalition of thousands
of organizations that oppose sequestration
and are working to educate Congress about
the devastating impacts it will have if they
don’t act to stop the sequestration. So
you are not alone in your efforts and will
be joining with thousands of other individuals
who are all working to prevent cuts to these
core government functions.
[pause]
Now we’re going go over a little bit about
the legislative process and occasionally these
will tend to be about 10-15 slides, but for
the purposes of today we’ve narrowed it
down just a little bit. And before we get
into the details of sequestration, we just
wanted to give you a brief background on how
the legislative branch operates, as your representatives
are serving in the House of Representatives.
Your senators also represent you, but their
district is the whole state, so you will have
a higher likelihood of meeting with your representative
and they will know your community and your
concerns should be of greater importance to
them. Depending on what committees your representative
sits on, and which party he represents, he
or she may have more or less influence or
capacity to address your concerns. However,
your representatives need to be held accountable
for their decisions that have a direct impact
on your ability to pursue and sustain your
own scientific research careers.
[pause]
As you will be reaching out to your member
in the House of Representatives, we just wanted
to give you a little background on who these
people are and we encourage you to look up
your own member if you don’t know or have
not done so yet. There are links provided
later in the training to help you do that
as well.
As an overview, there are 435 members of the
House, which is currently controlled by the
Republican Party while the Senate and the
White House are currently controlled by the
Democrats.
Members in House are elected every 2 years,
so, your representative is essentially always
running for re-election and is more familiar
with local issues and the local constituency.
By contrast, senators only run every six years
and represent the whole state.
So other than running for re-election, one
of the primary roles of Congress is to provide
legislative authority for government programs
through what’s called authorizing bills,
and also provide annual funding for the programs
that have been authorized- and that’s what
we are focusing on today, which is called
appropriations. As the government is quite
large, Congress divides the appropriations
for all the functions of government into 12
different funding bills and among 12 different
appropriations subcommittees that address
different functions of government. NIH, for
example, is funded under the bill that funds
the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services and Education. The National Science
Foundation, by contrast, is funded under an
appropriations bill with the Departments of
Commerce and Justice. If your member serves
on the subcommittee that funds an agency,
she will theoretically have more knowledge
of the agency, and also more influence over
its funding level.
[pause]
As the fiscal year begins on October 1st,
appropriations bills are supposed to be completed
by September 30th each year, but this rarely
happens. However, each subcommittee drafts
its own funding bills, sends those to the
full appropriations committee, and then the
bills would be sent to the floor of each chamber,
one for the House and one for the Senate.
If the bills are different, a conference committee
of House and Senate appropriators would work
together to iron out the differences and the
resulting bill would have to be approved again
by the full House and Senate. When different
parties control each chamber, the process
doesn’t exactly go by the book, as we have
seen in the recent past and this year as well.
At this point, Congress and the administration
have agreed to a continuing resolution, would
essentially delay the final votes on fiscal
year 13 funding and will keep funding levels
at their fiscal year 12 levels until March
2013. Continuing resolutions are considered
emergency funding bills, although they are
used quite regularly when Congress can’t
reach agreement by October 1st.
So while it would appear funding might be
at least stable until March 2013, it is a
bit more complicated than that because of
the looming threat to all discretionary spending
, what we call sequestration. So, what is
sequestration? Some of you may have heard
about it in the papers so far, but the bottom
line is that it’s an automatic, across-the-board
8.2 percent cut to both defense and non-defense
discretionary spending that is scheduled for
January 2, 2013. Discretionary means that
Congress has the discretion to fund these
programs, as opposed to mandatory spending
like Social Security. It does not mean that
they are dispensable by any means, and this
is not a cut directed at science, it is a
cut that would apply to nearly everything
the government does. It would cut funding
for not only NIH and NSF, but funding for
food inspections, education, air traffic control,
the national parks, hurricane and weather
monitoring, the FBI and criminal justice programs.
Basically, everything! And this slide sort
of gives you that overall picture of everything
you would cut. Pretty much everything you
can think of that the government does will
be cut under this sequestration.
So where did it come from? The Budget Control
Act of 2011. As some of you may recall, the
last election in 2010 resulted in a renewed
interest in slashing the federal budget and
finding ways to address deficit spending and
debt reduction. The Budget Control Act that
passed in 2011 established a bipartisan committee
to find $1.2 trillion in budget savings, and
tried to encourage compromise by including
a threat to both defense and non-defense spending,
that would be automatically cut if they failed
to reach consensus on a deficit reduction
plan that could have included both entitlement
reforms as well as tax reform. This committee
was called the Super Committee, and while
they tried, ultimately they failed to reach
agreement, and each party blamed the other
for their lack of compromise. So even though
sequestration was seen as a doomsday scenario
enforcement mechanism that was not supposed
to come about, the administration must now
figure out how to absorb 8.2 percent cuts
across all functions of government.
[pause]
So what does it mean for science? According
to NIH Director Francis Collins, it would
be devastating to the investigators who have
been funded by NIH for years, but it would
be even worse for first-time investigators
who are just starting their own research careers.
More specifically, an 8 percent cut to NIH
would likely drive the success rates below
10 percent, stifle medical discoveries that
save lives and drive our economy, impact scientists
in every state across the nation, causing
labs to be shut down, scientists to be laid
off or not hired and local businesses that
support research centers will close.
So, in real numbers, and this is easier to
read, ah we are talking about a $2.5 billion
cut to NIH in January 2013 and a $586 million
cut to NSF. And that’s as simple as we can
make it is as devastating as it sounds. And
that will happen unless Congress takes some
action to stop the sequestration on January
2nd. The only way to avoid those cuts is for
someone to tell Congress to stop them, and
Heather is going to walk you through how you
can do that successfully.
[pause]
>> HEATHER O’BEIRNE KELLY: Thanks Karen,
this is Heather, no pressure. We know that
this material can take awhile to sink in.
So, first of all, remember that we will be
posting these slides and we’ll also be sending
you an email with all of these written materials,
so rest assured that you’ll have more of
this information in your hands. As Karen mentioned,
the funding situation certainly is very serious
and can be discouraging, but I want to turn
to what you can actually do to have some impact,
because, as Karen mentioned, your voice is
important and maybe even most important in
times like these when there are limited resources
and Congress is forced to cut programs. It’s
absolutely vital that members of Congress
have a more sophisticated understanding of
how science affects their communities and
the nation more broadly, and you’re with
us today because you want to be involved at
this critical point in time.
So, I want to highlight how you can most effectively
advocate, starting with some general context
and strategies, and then getting more and
more specific about an actual meeting with
your member of Congress and/or a staffer in
the district office. Paula is then going to
tie together Karen’s content about the budget
and appropriations and sequestration and my
communication strategies by walking you through
the exact steps you’ll take to schedule,
choreograph and follow up on your live meeting.
So, in general, there are numerous ways for
scientists (and APA and FABBS staff) to advocate
for psychological science and the results
of our research at the federal level. Uh,
this slide shows some of those strategies.
You can communicate with your senators and
representatives through personal meetings
in Washington, which usually end of being
with their staffers, through meetings back
home in their district offices, which of course
is what we are asking you all to do, you can
take meetings back home in their district
offices, which, of course, is what we’re
asking all of you to do, you can draft and
present what is called public testimony that
is delivered to Congressional committees either
during hearings or offline for staff use,
and we as organizations do that quite often
throughout the year. We often have scientists
invited to testify on topical issues at Congressional
hearings, and often scientists and organizations
as multiple levels send letters, emails and
telephone calls, and also work through more
indirect channels that include media placements
such as letters to newspaper editors, paper,
radio and TV ads, billboard sponsorships,
and so on. APA and FABBS are able to use all
of these approaches but, of course, our training
with you all today is geared towards handling
a person-to-person meeting in a district office.
So policy-makers at the federal level have
not only multiple constituencies, but multiple,
concurrent agendas. And certainly we hope
that all are focused on meeting the needs
of their districts and states, and though
they may have very different ideas about how
to think about national problems and solutions
to those problems, we also of course hope
that they care deeply about challenges like
economic well-being, health and safety, education,
national security, etc. Because they can only
act on these issues from within the halls
of Congress if they continue to stay in office,
members of Congress also of course care about
getting re-elected, getting media attention
that is flattering and arming themselves with
arguments to trump the opposition. I know
that this all sounds obvious, but I’m mentioning
this explicitly to reinforce the point with
you all that no matter how well any given
legislator understands or values the importance
of science, or any particular scientific finding,
science will never, ever be the only factor
in a policy or political decision that gets
made. It’s our job, and it’s your job,
to make sure that science is at the very least
one important factor in that decision-making
process.
So it’s important as an overall advocacy
strategy to be thoughtful about when, what,
why, where, who and how kinds of questions
relevant to your issue. APA and FABBS, or
you, as an individual scientist, are going
to be most effective in talking with federal
legislators when you have a clear message
and a specific request that is also timely
and directed at the right person or group
with power to affect that issue. Earlier I
used the word “choreograph” and that was
very purposeful – we all have limited chits
to use and we want to use them well. This
may be the only meeting with this staffer
that you ever get, or at least that you get
this year. You’re a psychological scientist
with expertise that is relevant, and a request
that is timely – as Karen mentioned and
walked you through, federal funding for science
is under attack, unfortunately – and members
of Congress have the power to affect that
funding.
Here is why those Members of Congress or their
staffers want to meet you, or they should
want to meet you. You are a scientist from
their district who can explain in a non-political
and non-partisan way why psychological research
is valuable to their community and to the
nation as a whole. You have examples of work
that has made or could make a difference in
the world in some way, and the federal government
should continue to invest solidly in psychological
research because no one else will and our
nation will suffer without this knowledge.
This is where the thinking that went into
your one page biographical briefs comes in
handy - it’s important as scientists to
be able to convey why your work matters and
what the nation gets in return. I want you
to picture yourself telling a smart, but perhaps
non-scientist neighbor why taxpayers should
fund your work and what would be lost if the
federal government stopped investing in fundamental
and applied behavioral science.
Here, I’m going to repeat those talking
points that you heard earlier from Karen,
since they’ll be the most important part
of your actual meeting., You’re going to
tell Congress that psychological research
is critical in addressing your district’s
and the nation’s challenges in areas ranging
from public health and economic growth to
educational achievement and national security
and so on. Cuts to federal research budgets
will hurt your research specifically, but
also science more generally, and you need
your representative’s support to maintain
stable and sufficient federal investments
in research agencies across the federal government.
You’re also going to do some education about
how the process of science works. Research
dropped in these areas, for example, as a
result of cuts to federal programs will not
be picked up in the private sector, which,
as we know, focuses on much more near-term
profit and product development. That is not
necessarily something your representative
or his or her staff know.
So let’s talk about some general communication
strategies, or do’s and don’ts, for when
you’re visiting with a member of Congress
or his or her staff. Paula is going to get
into more specifics, but in general, it’s
important to realize that this is not just
a “normal” conversation or even a regular
meeting with which most of us are probably
most familiar. What we call “Hill” visits,
in Washington, or in your case, “district”
visits, have a shape and set of rules unto
themselves. And we want to help be more comfortable
with those before heading into one.
So, first of all, there is a balance of powers
involved as a backdrop to your meeting. It
may seem obvious, but the politicians’ power
lies in what they can make happen in Washington,
whereas your power lies in your ability to
keep them in Washington or vote them out.
They have power to say yes or no to legislation,
and you have the power of information – information
that they want and need to be effective policy-makers.
This meeting is your chance to ask for something
very specific from them and to share a rationale
for that request, based on your scientific
expertise. The meeting is brief and focused
– I want you to remember that part in particular
- and, above all, respectful and polite, whether
or not you agree with the representative’s
overall politics and policy stances. The meeting
can also be unusual in terms of setting – and
we try to remind people of this going in so
that you’re not surprised, by chance, if
you’re sitting in a hallway, for example.
District offices usually are not very glamorous,
and your meeting might take place in an actual
room or it could also be out in a communal
space where others can hear your conversations.
And we want you to think of that ahead of
time so that you’re comfortable with it.
You could meet with a young staffer or someone
with far less advanced, formal education – but,
remember, that person has far more power than
you have within the policy arena.
It also is not an equal sharing of information
in the way that we’re used to in conversations.
You often will ask and say more than what
you will get in return, and you’ll need
to be comfortable with that also. Most often
these staffers cannot speak for the member
of Congress beyond a general public stance
on budget issues, for example, but they will
take the information and request that you
share with them and pass it up their chain
of command to a higher ranking legislative
director. You really will have made a difference
simply by showing up, sharing your expertise
and its relevance to the Member’s district,
and by asking pointed questions – and we
want you to know that in advance in case you
come out of the meeting feeling as if you
didn’t get many specific promises or information
in return.
[pause]
The basic “do’s” are to be polite, brief
and engaging. In effect, you want to take
this very dry budget information about scientific
research and bring it to life, by telling
a story that captures for your listener why
you study what you do, why the work is relevant
to the district and why your member of Congress
should stay up at night worrying about how
to fund it in lean budgetary times. Give local
examples of how your research has helped or
could help a segment of the population, especially
a local part of the population.
Stay on message – this is really important
– Paula will tell you how to introduce yourself,
remind you what your talking points are, and
help you close the meeting by asking the member
to stand for science in tough times. The staffer
you’re meeting with well may have other
off-topic questions for you – remember that
many people still think that all psychologists
are clinicians and may have mental health
or other kinds of questions for you. We really
want you to feel free to say that it’s not
within your area of expertise, but we also
want you to say that your colleagues at APA
and FABBS, in Washington, will be happy to
get back in touch with their staff with more
information on those topics. Then we want
you to politely get right back on message.
And the same goes with any other sort of off-topic
conversations, like social chit-chat. Because
these meetings are in your district you may
well have people you know in common. For example,
if you realize that you and the staffer have
a mutual friend back home, go ahead and spend
a minute talking about that and then politely
segue into why you’re there for the meeting.
The basic “don’t’s” also focus on
being polite, brief and engaging. First of
all, please don’t underestimate the staff,
no matter how young or different from you
they are, since these staff have the power
within the office to, at the very minimum,
pass along your information and request, and
at a maximum, they really can help develop
a relationship with you as a smart, useful
constituent expert. And that’s our endgame
with you all, for you to be seen as a resource
for this office.
Please also, no matter how tempting it is,
don’t use this opportunity to discuss politics
or the upcoming election, because that will
just muddy your purpose for this particular
meeting and really can potentially alienate
staff. The only exception is if, for some
reason, you have been a campaign volunteer
or a donor for the particular member with
whom you’re meeting or his or her staffer,
and then by all means mention that before
launching into your talking points. It is
appropriate to say that you’ve been a supporter
of this office, and they do want to hear that.
This is not the time, though, to list all
of the policy stances or votes with which
you disagree – this really is, again, a
focused meeting to ask the member to fight
for science. Remember that sometimes members
with whom you disagree on other issues will
be on your side for science.
So now is the perfect time to bring this all
together in the more specific context of your
meeting, so I’m going to turn things over
to Paula. And before I do that, I’m going
to remind you also to please feel free, at
any time, to send your questions in and, after
Paula goes through some of the specifics,
we’ll start taking some questions if we
have some time at the end.
[pause]
>> PAULA SKEDSVOLD: Ok, let’s take a few
minutes to walk through the specific steps
you will need to take for a successful visit
with your member of Congress.
Step one, prepare for the meeting. First,
you will need to identify your member of Congress.
This information is readily available on the
House of Representatives web site at www.house.gov.
Once you get to the site, look in the upper
right corner of the page near the U.S. map
and you will see the words “Find Your Representative.”
Type in your zip code, including the four-digit
extension, and you will be connected to a
page showing your representative and a map
of his or her district.
Next, click on the representative’s name,
which is next to his or her picture, and you
will be directed to his or her Web site.
Here you will find almost everything you will
need to know about your representative: a
biography highlighting his or her education,
career, and perhaps number of years in Congress;
information on the committees/subcommittees
on which he or she serves; and priority issues
(things that are relevant to their district).
Become familiar with your representative’s
background and issues, as this may help you
frame the description you prepare of your
own research. Try to make it relevant to something
they care about.
Now that you have identified your representative
in Congress, it’s time to prepare a one-pager
explaining your research and why it is relevant
to him or her. In other words, why it is relevant
to the district, the health of the nation,
the local and/or national economy, national
security, etc. Just spend a few minutes thinking
about how your research is relevant and build
your one-pager around it. In the few minutes
thinking about how your research is relevant,
excuse me, and the materials provided before
the webinar, we included two excellent examples
of one-pagers, one by Deborah Boehm-Davis
and one by Bonnie Kaul Nastasi. These are
actual examples that have been used effectively
in Hill visits (and both agreed to allow us
to share them with you). You will notice that
each includes a brief description of the scientist,
their area of research and why that research
is important – and both do so in lay terms.
The one-pagers will help you develop the brief
message that you will actually deliver to
your representative. At the end of the meeting,
you will simply refer to the one-pager and
leave it with him or her. Ask the representative
or district director to share it with the
relevant staff in the district and Washington,
D.C., office. Be sure to include your contact
information and funding agency, if applicable.
The next step is to actually arrange the meeting.
On your representative’s home page, you
will find information about the location of
the Washington, D.C., office as well as the
district office or offices. Find the district
office that is most convenient for you, get
the phone number and arrange for the meeting.
Specifically, call that district office and
say something like (here, I will use the example
of a scientist and friend of FABBS and APA,
someone from the Society for Industrial and
Organizational Psychology) – say something
like “Hello, I am Fred Oswald , a scientist
and professor at Rice University and a constituent
of Representative Culberson’s. I would like
to schedule a brief 15-20 minute meeting with
the Congressman or the district director to
discuss federal funding for science and its
potential impact on my research. Is he holding
office hours, or are there other opportunities
for him to meet with constituents?” If you
can schedule a meeting in the office, do it.
Find a date and time that works, allowing
plenty of time for traffic and parking. If
the only time that works is a town hall meeting
with other constituents, get the date and
time. We’ll walk you through this scenario
in a few minutes.
Now, let’s prepare to deliver the message
– again, assuming that this a meeting in
the office.
Arrive early (since, of course, you want to
create a good impression). Be polite at all
times; it’s truly the easiest way to create
a positive context for your message. Remember
to be flexible – although you need to be
early, they may have been held up at another
meeting with constituents and will appreciate
your patience. Remember why you are there
– to deliver a few key points about the
impact of cuts to science and its potential
impact on your research, the district and/or
the nation. Develop the brief (say 2-3 minutes),
lay-friendly pitch, and hone it as needed
to make sure it is relevant to your representative.
After you deliver this brief message, you
will thank the representative (or their staff)
for their time and leave behind the one-pager.
Again, please ask that they share your concerns
and contact info with the Washington, D.C.,
office. The actual votes will occur in D.C.,
and the D.C. staff will remind them about
constituent concerns before the votes.
[pause]
Alright let’s walk through the specific
message during the meeting – your “talking
points.” You will say something like: “Thank
you for taking the time to meet with me; I
know this is a very busy time for you. I am
Deborah Boehm-Davis, a psychological scientist
at George Mason University” (And this is
a good time to provide your business card).
Then say: “I am very concerned about the
current budget climate and its impact on funding
for science through federal agencies such
as the National Science Foundation and National
Institutes of Health.” (You can mention
others if you have funding from them, for
example, the Federal Aviation Administration
or the Institute for Education Sciences).
You should continue with a description of
your research and its relevance: You may say
something like: “My own research has been
supported by the FAA. It examines limitations
in our ability to process information and
the impact on human-machine interactions,
such as pilot errors in the cockpit. This
research helps us understand the errors and
build training programs to reduce them. The
research saves lives – and helps train the
next generation of scientists. It also provides
support for our university at a critical time.”
Then you make the specific request. Say: “I
urge you to protect federal investments in
science through the appropriations bills.
We also need your leadership to identify a
reasonable, balanced approach to avoiding
the significant, automatic 8 percent cuts
to science due to sequestration. I understand
that Congress must address federal deficits,
but we must also protect investments that
will help our country (and district) grow.”
After you make the specific request, pause
to await a response from the representative
or staff member. If there is no response,
you might inquire about the representative’s
prior leadership on issues related to science
funding, or their support for NIH- or NSF-funded
research, or issues affecting the university.
Keep it conversational, but get a sense of
their support for the issues you have raised.
If the opportunity is there, you might also
mention how federal research is funded since
many non-scientists do not know. They think
funding stays, for example, in Bethesda, Maryland,
at NIH, instead of going to universities around
the country. So you might say: “The federal
funding that I receive through NIH provides
a portion of my salary as well as support
for two graduate students in our department
so that they are prepared to begin research
careers on their own in a few years. It’s
a boost to our local economy.” Again, keep
it casual, but get the point across if you
can.
Finally, finish on a high note. Say: “Thank
you very much for your time. I will leave
this summary of my research. Please have your
staff here or in D.C. contact me if you could
use someone with my expertise.”
And then finally, after the meeting, send
a brief email thanking the representative
or staff for taking the time to meet with
you. In it, you should restate your key points
– the issue and action you would like for
them to take. You might even offer to show
them your lab after the election, and, again,
mention that you are a resource.
Then, let us know how the meeting went. We
are advocating for science funding at the
federal level, so it’s important that we
learn whether your rep will lend their support.
Finally, we will periodically issue what we
call “action alerts” in which you can,
with a few simple clicks of the mouse, send
your representative a note on an urgent matter.
Please, I urge you, please sign up for both
FABBS and APA action alerts and respond when
we need you. The Web addresses are provided
on the slides here.
And that’s it. We are happy to assist you
throughout this process if you need any help.
And to get us started on the Q&A, which I
think we’re at that stage, let me start
with a question about giving your message
at a town hall meeting.
OK, let’s say you learn from the district
office that your member of Congress is not
holding office hours in the district, but
will be appearing at various town hall events.
Ask the district office where and when the
town hall events will occur and whether you
need to register to ask a question.
Next, prepare your brief question. I would
recommend writing it on an index card so that
you can say exactly what you need to say.
Arrive early so that you can introduce yourself
to the district staff – and gain, be sure
to give them a business card when you introduce
yourself. Sign in to ask a question if needed.
Then, sit in the front of the room or near
a microphone.
When it’s your chance to speak, mention
who you are, your concern and then finish
with the question. So you might say something
like: “I am Fred Oswald, a psychological
scientist at Rice University, and I am very
concerned about the tight budget climate and
its impact on funding for science, science
that is important for this nation and our
district.” And then now you want to, now
the question – and remember, this is going
to be for the record since this is a public
event. So the question would be: “Are you
working to protect federal investments in
science at the National Science Foundation,
National Institutes of Health and other agencies?
Also, are you working across the aisle to
find a balanced approach to cut the deficit
without massive cuts to science coming as
a result of sequestration?”
Then, give your representative time to answer.
As soon as you can after the town hall meeting,
send us an email and let us know what they
had to say.
So, we have additional questions. Our email
addresses are listed here. Just send any one
of us an email if you have questions during
this entire process. We’ll now move on to
other questions.
[pause]
>>HEATHER O’BEIRNE KELLY: I everyone, this
is Heather, I’m going to first start by
saying that because we started late, after
three o’clock, we’re currently finding
out from our tech people if we can go past
four o’clock while answering these questions.
In the even that we cannot, we wanted to first
say thank you, and sorry for the technical
issues, but also leave this slide up until
the end so you can at least jot down our emails
in case we weren’t able to answer any question
on here. So thank you very much, and, again,
you’ll be getting from us very shortly next
week with a lot more detail. We do have a
couple questions.
First question we got is from Joseph and he
asked, “Are there a lot of people doing
this at universities now?” And our response
is, “Oh, we so wish that were the case,
Joseph…no, there really aren’t. There
are lots of people in a university town who
would speak about doing this and want things
to happen in Washington, but do not actually
take the time to go schedule a visit for all
of those reasons that Karen mentioned: not
having enough time, not being totally sure
of the issue. So you will actually be relatively
rare if you actually go in and take a meeting
on this particular issue for science funding.
And if you do it in a non-partisan, non-political
way that will make you stand apart. We will
look at the group that signed on today and
check those of you with matching zip codes
and send you an email later next week suggesting
that if there are any matches, people who
live in the same town who might not already
know each other, we’ll put you in touch
with each other if that’s alright and suggest
that you work on a visit together. So we’ll
take care of that and then I’m going to
pass you to someone else with the next question.
[pause]
>> KAREN STUDWELL: Thanks, Heather. The next
question basically asks if you know someone
in a senator’s office, whether you should
go to the Senate staff as well as the House.
I would say if you have a personal relationship
with a senate staff that you can get into
that meeting, and you live geographically
close enough to make that meeting, then I
would say by all means. You could use the
same materials to speak with your senator
or their staff as well. So I would encourage
you to make the most of that relationship
and pass along the same message, because it
really is both houses of Congress have to
get together to address the sequestration
issue, so all voices to all house and senate
offices are helpful. We were focusing on the
house district office because the districts
are much smaller and will give you a better
opportunity to actually be able to make those
meetings in the district. When we bring folks
to Washington we of course would send you
to all of those offices because they’re
just right across the street, but where you
are they probably might be 100 miles away.
So I’m going to hand it off to Paula for
one more question.
[pause]
>> PAULA SKEDSVOLD: Okay, Janet asks, “Are
we willing to review the one-page briefing
sheets?” And yes, we are. Our email addresses
are still up. If you know one of us from a
prior experience working with APA or FABBS,
feel free to send it to one of us. If you
don’t know us, then send it to all three
of us and we’ll split them up. We’ll be
happy to take a look at them for you.
[pause]
>>HEATH O’BEIRNE KELLEY: Hi again, it’s
Heather. So thank you for sending questions
in, this is great. We made up some example
questions that we thought people might ask
and you’re asking completely different questions,
so this is great. We have another question
that says “Does having two or more people
with a staffer in a meeting appear to be ganging
up on a staffer?” I love that you would
even be nice enough to ask that question.
The answer is no. It is not ganging up on
a staffer. In fact, it’s really the norm
to have a small group of people from a district
or a business or a university go in at the
same time to speak with a staffer. So, in
Washington in particular, five people going
together to meet with a staffer is completely
average, so no. One thing we’ll talk about
with you all is if you do have a couple people
on the meeting, please just practice ahead
of time with each other so that you could
even role play a little about, and again,
with that choreography of the meeting: who
will say what, how will it go from your end,
just so that it goes a little bit more smoothly
once you get there and so that all of you
have the same expectations and you’re all
on the same message, so you can all keep to
the time and all have a chance to say a little
tiny bit about your research, and that no
one’s going to be saying things off message.
So, no a couple of people or up to five I
would say is an absolutely acceptable number
to go meet with a staffer as long as you’re
all polite and you’re all on message.
[pause]
>> KAREN STUDWELL: Okay, our next question,
and we get this a lot, which is: “Should
we go if our own reps and senators are already
supportive?” And I would have to say yes.
Whether your congressman is on your side or
not, it is always worth a visit because no
one thinks sequestration works as a policy.
Most members of Congress are actually opposed
to it, whether they’re opposed because of
the cuts to defense, or they’re opposed
to the cuts to domestic spending, pretty much
all of them might agree with you. Like, “Yes,
this is a terrible idea!” but most of them,
because they were not prepared for this, have
absolutely no idea how this will impact their
constituents on the ground. So anything that
you could do to help provide them with information
is actually very helpful for them, and if
you have a very supportive member, one thing
that members of Congress almost never hear
is “thank you.” So if you take the time
to go meet with your member and thank them
if they’re big supporters of scientific
research funding, then say thank you, and
also let them know that all of these cuts
coming from sequestration will have a personal
impact to you in the district. And it may
be hard for you to figure out that personal
impact, but just imagine that your research
grant is cut by eight to ten percent, and
just imagine that the next time you go back
to compete they say no, we don’t have any
money. So, how devastating would that be and
then maybe you can formulate a good response
to that, because absolutely no one really
thought that sequestration would happen. So
no one actually knows what the impact will
be, but we know if you calculate an eight
percent cut to research, to your own research,
to the amount of people who can benefit from
services, it’s quite large and substantial.
So hopefully that helps, and I would encourage
you to visit all of the members whether you
think they’re supportive, or not.
[pause]
>>PAULA SKEDSVOLD: Okay, the next question
is: “I work in a corporate setting, should
I use a different approach?” And the answer
is, in general, no you would the same approach.
But just highlight your area of science and
how you’re using it in the corporate setting.
So, for example, if the particular area of
science has been used to save money for the
corporation, definitely highlight that. Members
of Congress love that. As specific as you
can be would be best.
[pause]
>> HEATHER O’BEIRNE KELLEY: Hi, this is
Heather. So we’ve got a great question.
This question is: “I’m a post-doc. Will
I be taken as seriously as a professor?”
I love that question. We’ve all been there.
The answer is yes. Actually, it’s one realm
in which you are taken as seriously as a professor
and, in some ways, they are more interested
in hearing from you for a couple of reasons.
One, is that you will also be meeting with
someone closer to your own age than to some
of your more senior professors, and so they
like to know where you are and what you’re
doing, but also because in Washington and
back home these days, training in the sciences,
the pipeline issue for future scientists is
a huge, huge issue. Most members of Congress
are very interested in and concerned about
where our future competitiveness, innovation,
and so by extension where our next scientists
are coming from, and so they’re very interested
in hearing from graduate students and post-docs
and young scientists. So, I would actually
be putting yourself forward very much as someone
who’s in this training realm and is really
concerned about your future as a scientist,
where the research funding will come from,
whether you can even stay in this field and
be a part of that science pipeline with the
way that the funding threats are taking place.
So actually, yes, and I think you have a very
interesting story to tell, precisely because
you’re a post-doc.
[pause]
>>PAULA SKEDSVOLD: Okay, I think this is the
last question. “What if you can’t schedule
a meeting for the exact week in October that
we’ve encouraged you to visit your member
of Congress?” That’s fine. We’d like
for you to do October 9th through 12th if
at all possible, but if you can’t do it
that week, just try to get it in and try to
do it before the election. After the election,
they’re going to be back in D.C. and they’re
going to be voting on a number of these issues.
So we’d like for you to focus on this as
soon as you can, you know, before the election.
Now, this is not to say that after the election
that you still can’t speak to them, but
it would be extremely helpful before they’re
back in D.C. voting on these issues. And of
course, we hope that you will develop a relationship
with them and that they will call on you in
the future and that you will be able to contact
the office in the future as well. Actually
it looks like there might be one more question.
[pause]
>>HEATHER O’BEIRNE KELLY: While one of the
other questions is coming in, we had another
earlier one. We touched on this briefly but
the question was: “Do you have any tips
for a person meeting with a representative
with whom you disagree about everything?”
For many of you, that might be the case. That
is often the case, and again, we suggest that
it’s very important as a constituent to
talk with someone with whom you agree and
someone with whom you do not agree, because
as we say here in D.C., your friends are not
always your friends and your enemies are not
always your enemies. Psychology has the benefit
of being a very broad and a very deep field,
and so we have a lot to say about a lot of
things, and a member with whom you may not
be able to connect on a particular hot social
issue in particular, for example, you may
agree much more so with on a completely different
issue. So from the standpoint of there may
be things you can find agreement on it’s
important, but it’s also important that
if there is literally nothing that you agree
with, to go in and register your voice as
a constituent of this person who represents
you in Congress. It’s absolutely important
that that office know where his or her constituents
stand, whether they stand with you or not.
So we encourage you to use your voice so that
they know that there are scientists who are
actively engaged in their community, who will
stand up and say publicly I disagree and it’s
important for you to hear why. So yes, we
absolutely encourage you to go in.
[pause]
>>KAREN STUDWELL: OK well I think that takes
care of all, oh wait, we have one more question
coming in. I think maybe someone asked again
if it’s okay to meet with your senators,
and I would say yes. If you have the time,
you can. Let’s see, one more question. “What
do I do if my representative isn’t running
for Congress?” Or if your representative
is Paul Ryan. OK, so first, if your representative
is not running for reelection, please go ahead
and meet with them anyway, because one year
you’re a Congressman, next year they’re
running for governor, next year they’re
running for the senate. So, they’re usually
addicted to the public policy atmosphere and
often find themselves in leadership positions
again. So a visit to a retiring Congressman
is not a visit wasted I would think.
[pause]
And no one wants to answer the Paul Ryan question.
But I of course would definitely go meet with
Paul Ryan.
>>HEATHER O’BEIRNE KELLY: This is Heather.
We’re all weighing in on that one. Yes,
I think you should absolutely, if he’s your
member of Congress, go in, try to meet with
that office. Obviously, it is going to be
near impossible to meet with him personally
for a one-on-one meeting, but again, he may
be having town hall meetings back in the district.
He’s probably having meetings all over the
place, but absolutely go and weigh in with
staff on this issue. It’s very important.
He’s still an active member of Congress,
and as they formulate campaign issues, it’s
very important for you to weigh in. So I think
we’re saying yes, please, and just don’t
be surprised if there’s not a chance for
you to physically meet with him. All of these
people will be back, whether they are reelected
to their positions or not, for the lame duck
session, which is what we call in between
the election and when everyone takes their
seat in January. Sos there will be votes in
the lame duck session that are important for
science. And so please go in and try to meet
with anyone who is your current member of
Congress.
[pause]
>>PAULA SKEDSVOLD: Just one brief follow-up
about that, this is Paula. The House’s budget
is starting from the lower starting point
and it is Paul Ryan’s budget basically and
it is hurting, trying to fund the federal
government at fiscal year 2008 levels. So
it’s a significant cut. So, he needs to
hear from his constituents; the staff needs
to hear from constituents. He will agree with
you, you know, he’ll say that there’s
a huge federal deficit problem and we need
to address that. You can agree with that,
but we need to take a balanced approach to
dealing with the deficit and we need to protect
important investments in science. So that’s
the message that we want you to convey. OK,
I think that’s it.
>>KAREN STUDWELL: Yes, I think those are all
of the questions that we had time for. Thanks
for bearing with us with our technical difficulties.
We got started a little bit late. As a reminder,
we would like you to try to schedule your
visits the second week of October, right after
Columbus Day. So you have some time to prepare
your briefing sheets and we can help you review
those. I did send an email out, this is Karen,
to most of you who had registered yesterday.
So you should have our email addresses already
if you look in your inbox. We will be sending
you additional materials, including a discussion
guide to help you review the talking points,
as well as a one-pager with specific requests
and a flyer from our non-defense discretionary
coalition, which you can leave-behind in the
offices as well. If we did not have time to
get to your question, or if you think of one
as soon as you log off the broadcast, please
don’t hesitate to contact Heather, Paula
or myself, and we will be happy to help you.
And on behalf of APA and FABBS, we thank everyone
for joining us today and look forward to hearing
from you after your visits, if not before.
Have a great weekend everyone.
