How I came to DC in 1998 and created a fellows program to help Congress leave the Cold War behind
BY LORELEI KELLY
Stanford Center on Conflict and Negotiation, 1996
Georgetown’s Lorelei Kelly chronicles her experience setting up and managing a fellowship program at the start of the new millennium — in hopes that others can learn from that experience.
Congressional fellows serve an important and often overlooked role in supporting Congress in its legislative and oversight duties. Their impact runs deep, often providing a bridge between disparate parts and a reservoir of knowledge.
In 1998, I created the Security for a New Century fellows program, which ran a bipartisan study group on national security. The methods we developed have served as a blueprint for several programs, including today’s technology fellows and the Nuclear Security Working Group. The blueprint has also been consulted in the creation of continuing education offerings like the Project on Government Oversight’s oversight training, USA Facts data skills training, and the Wilson Center’s Foreign Policy Fellows program.
I was asked to come to DC in 1997 by my close friend, Rep. Elizabeth Furse [D, OR], to join her staff to research and establish a bipartisan convening framework for nuclear security. Furse wanted to restore information-sharing that had previously been provided by the Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus, a bicameral gathering eliminated by House Republicans during the post-1994 “Contract with America” cuts. The re-centralization of power into Leadership had long-term impacts on Congress’ ability to legislate, including degrading informal knowledge sharing. In the case of the Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus and other groups dedicated to complex public interests, it eliminated lawmakers’ ability to pool funding in order to hire shared staff, which ultimately put an end to their ability to collaborate in a deep and meaningful way.
The goal of the fellows program was to fill this vacuum with a bipartisan study group on new security issues. We intentionally chose the term “study group” because the designation had no existing rules and regulations associated with it. The title also conveyed the general objective: to increase understanding of emerging international security challenges as a cutting-edge educational resource for Congressional staff.
How we got started
When I arrived in DC to work for Rep. Furse, I spent the first months tracking down and speaking with folks who had been part of the shared “situational awareness” systems of Congress. These groups included:
the Office of Technology Assessment, a legislative agency that provided authoritative analysis of complex scientific and technical issues; and
the Democratic Study Group, a rapid response information sharing organization that had defeated the segregationist committees of the 1970s (It had 250 members at its height, including dozens of dues-paying Republicans).
The apparatus that shared information within the House had been dismantled by the Gingrich revolution. Information functions like the House Action Report, which explained key aspects of legislative processes and insider summaries, disappeared. In subsequent years, this institutional information space was largely privatized as paid subscription services.
Many committee staff positions had been eliminated. The only member organization that survived the 1995 cuts was the Republican Study Committee, which arranged its staff funding mechanism to comply with the new rules. It also relied heavily on outside ideological allies like the Heritage Foundation for support, organizational heft and policy input.
From my research, I concluded that the most important action we could take would be to restore the norm of shared information stewardship on global security issues. This meant that we had to find a way to both provide nonpartisan subject matter expertise and a second-track convening system with an educational purpose.
Applying behavioral economics insights to restore community norms
I came to DC from the Stanford Center on Conflict and Negotiation (SCCN), where my colleagues were luminaries of behavioral economics, specifically decision making in conditions of uncertainty. This faculty group included my mentor Lee Ross, a social psychologist, economist Amos Tversky, and Nobel Prize winners Ken Arrow and Robert Wilson. Janet Alexander from Stanford Law School and Byron Bland, a peace process expert on Northern Ireland, and many other students and faculty provided experiential wisdom.
Some of the behavioral insights we considered when organizing the study group were:
Information asymmetry: Hoarding and uneven information sharing harms the ability to prepare, protect, and defend against global security threats
Reactive devaluation: Information from a political adversary is automatically diminished, limiting the potential for problem solving
Attribution error: The tendency to blame the individual explaining a new, complex, or confusing situation
Loss aversion: The tendency to avoid immediate loss, even if the apparent cost is more than offset by a future gain
Congressional fellows bridge the information gap
Congressional staff and Members work inside an information tsunami that is part political and part structural. With constant narrow interest lobbying, perverse incentives to perform instead of govern, and domineering parties, Congress lacks a “big picture” perspective on the world. It also often lacks the internal expertise to understand the issues of the day and to bridge cross-cutting interests. Congressional fellowships are one means to address this problem— providing technical expertise in offices and on committees. They add a resilient layer of public policy knowledge sharing across parties, and across the Hill. Oftentimes, fellows have perspectives and expertise that Members of Congress and Congressional staff lack, or affiliations with information networks that provide distinctive expertise.
According to the Congressional Research Service, “Congressional fellowships are generally intended for persons with advanced degrees and are usually salaried positions lasting nine months to a year or more.” The duties of fellows may vary widely, but they typically involve providing policy support to full-time staff. Congressional fellows are not paid by Congress, but rather are paid for by an outside entity, typically an educational institution. The House of Representatives and Senate each have their own rules concerning how the fellowships work.
Security for a New Century
The Security for a New Century study group had two full-time fellows, one in the House and one in the Senate. We worked as co-directors and constant collaborators in order to create the most timely and useful opportunities for staff to learn from our speakers and from each other.
Based in Rep. Furse’s office in the House, I partnered with Reps. Jim Leach [R, IA] and Lynn Woolsey [D, CA] and later with Rep. Mark Kirk [R, IL]. We were employees of the Henry L Stimson Center, a nonpartisan think tank and the sponsor of the program.
In 2001, Dr. Libby Turpen – who I met when she was on the staff of Senator Pete Dominici [R, NM] – became the program’s first Senate fellow. Senator Sam Brownback [R, KS] was the first host of the study group, which later moved to Senator Richard Lugar [R, IN] partnered with Senator Ben Nelson [D, NE]. Sen. Lugar ultimately created a permanent position for the Security for a New Century fellow to provide continuing education for all Hill staff while serving with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Subsequent fellows were recruited through a competitive open process.
The program was supported by philanthropies large and small, including Carnegie Corporation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, MacArthur Foundation, and Ploughshares Fund.
The main job of the study group, and the fellows who coordinated it, was to strengthen common pools of institutional knowledge. The study group was agile and responsive to committee agendas, current events, and staff needs.
As an educational effort, the study group was not involved in legislation, yet its impact was far reaching and diffuse. Its email notices created awareness among thousands of staff as well as security professionals in the DC area. It provided a collegial common ground on issues that everyone had to care about. Because the convening treated all staff as a community, it built trust.
Security for a New Century was at its finest when it responded to current events. In 2003, just before the Iraq War, we brought in a lead weapons inspector to explain in detail the Iraqi nuclear capacity. After the Abu Ghraib torture incident, we invited a military JAG to discuss the vital US response of carrying out rule of law redress for human rights violations. During both the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, we continually featured discussants who could address the problematic civil-military division of labor in warfighting efforts that included a significant amount of civilian protection and governance.
How the fellowship worked
Our operation was straightforward. We used large email distribution lists and hard copy “Dear Colleague” letters to notify staff of important topics that had arisen in the news cycle, and we were able to convene with 24 hours notice. We were responsible for all logistics so we lined up an assortment of rooms on either side of the Hill.
We continually checked in with staff to learn what issues needed more discussion and examination, and sometimes we delved into an individual member’s initiative on security policy, or convened a topical series.
We also constantly sought out persuasive speakers and the latest policy initiatives — attending hearings, conferences, book talks, think tank events, embassy gatherings, NGO briefings, and agency convenings.
Where national security is concerned, Congress needs to hear from federal employees who have first-hand experience. Yet federal employees are not allowed to initiate contact with Congress to share insights and provide detailed information. However, with a direct request from a Member of Congress, a federal employee can attend meetings and share knowledge.
Security for a New Century sought to overcome this feedback obstacle by seeking out and inviting “on the ground” professionals carrying out the policies that Congress authorized.
Federal agencies have legislative affairs units — some embedded physically in Congress — but they are reactive. While they gladly answer questions, they also control information and guard contact with the Legislative branch. Talking points are no substitute for authentic stories and evidence based on experience.
As fellows, we spoke at events, conducted training for nonprofit organizations, and wrote articles for publication. Study group attendance was regularly 50-50 Democrats and Republicans. We started with ten to twenty staff showing up in 1998. After 9/11, emerging global threats became a far more relevant and urgent issue. The average number attending steadily rose to thirty to thirty-five, and topics like transnational threats or terrorism packed the room with up to seventy staff — or until we ran out of chairs.
One Hour, Off the Record, No Acronyms
We successfully used the same content-directed framing in the study group for sixteen years, convening hundreds of sessions with thousands of staff from 1998-2014. Here is the original handout and a “Dear Colleague” invitation letter. You can see the original speaker guidelines here.
With its origins in conflict resolution theory developed at the Stanford Center on Conflict and Negotiation, this study group put theory into practice. The creators of SNC posed and tried to address the following questions:
How might we broaden the international outlook on Capitol Hill in the interest of the public good?
How can we control for potential bias?
What can be done to exclude power dynamics and partisan antagonism?
Other techniques that we used:
Content-only subject line
No commercial pitches
No hierarchies: If Members attended, they joined the general audience
Opened the sessions to off-the-Hill participants when appropriate
Retained the fellow on the minority staff in each chamber
Everyone with a Hill ID was invited
Transparency: We provided session notes with permission
Providing a break on the hour and allowing time for mixing afterward
The demise of the study group
The study group lasted from 1998 until 2014, when Senator Richard Lugar was defeated. While there have been discussions about how to re-establish it in Congress, it has never been fully replaced.
Final thoughts
Fellows on a public service tour of duty cannot solve the fragility of our system. To address the larger challenge, it is important to provide resources for long-term, permanent expert staff in Congress. If we want a gold standard representative government, we must invest in the information architecture of Congress like the critical infrastructure that the institution is.
That said, the formation of working groups and the deployment of Congressional fellows can help to fill the gap. They reinforce critical knowledge networks and create much needed opportunities for sharing informal knowledge.
Modernization will help move Congress toward this goal, but it is up to “We the People” to support the modernizers and Congress’ existing recommendations. We also must find ways to reconnect to each other and to elected leaders in Congress. A healthy and shared vision of the future will require that people see themselves reflected in government, and in so doing, become inspired to protect and defend this democracy and the miraculous institutions that serve it.
End Notes:
Lorelei Kelly recently founded Georgetown Democracy, Education + Service (GeoDES) at Georgetown’s McCourt School of Public Policy. She has been supporting the House modernization efforts since 2018. Read her CV and publications.
Security for a New Century, the study group Lorelei created with Representative Elizabeth Furse, is thoroughly explained in chapter six of Policy Matters: Educating Congress on Peace and Security co-authored with Elizabeth Turpen, PhD, her Senate partner.
Another model for shared situational awareness in Congress is the Afghanistan Congressional Communications Hub, a prototype Lorelei built to illustrate overlapping civil-military committee responsibilities in warfighting from 2009-2010.