Fiscal Reset

Another crisis averted, right? Despite the Congresses’ apparent penchant for last minute drama, a deal was struck and the debt limit has been raised. So how did research fare?

Well, that is not an easy question to answer. The deal is comprised of long-term, 10-year caps and shorter term cuts to total discretionary spending. The caps will essentially prevent any real growth of discretionary spending, which contains all federal research agencies like NIH and NSF. For those of you familiar with government budgeting, this is similar to a long term continuing resolution.

Under the terms of the deal, for an agency budget to grow, the money would have to be re-purposed or offset from an existing discretionary program. In the past, Congress could simply increase the spending cap, which would give appropriations committees the funds needed for increases. Not anymore though.

Obviously, a flat budget is preferable to the deep cuts put forward by the House earlier in the fiscal year. However, for those familiar with biomedical inflation, a flat budget is equivalent to a funding cut. R&D budgets have not been able to keep pace with inflation, which means that a dollar today is worth significantly less than it was in the previous year.

What we do know is that research needs advocates now more than ever. Our nation is in the midst of a radical shift in fiscal policy and lawmakers are looking to their constituents to help set priorities. Make sure they know that research is an indispensable investment in America’s future.

Members of Congress are already returning to their districts for the August recess. Set up an in district meeting with your representatives today. We have several web tools to help.

Complacency is Not an Option

Earlier today I saw a tweet from one of our New Voices, @JLVernonPhD:

"If you haven't called your Congressional Representative and Senators about the debt ceiling, you are as much at fault as they are."

He couldn't be more right, which is why I'm sharing a modified version of a letter that Research!America's President & CEO Mary Woolley sent to the Research!America membership last week.

Decisions will be made soon. That is why it is critical to speak up now. You know and I know that researchers, research-based institutions, patients and their families and our nation’s economic future will all be worse off if Congress chokes off funding for health research.

• We can’t afford to lag other nations when it comes to R&D. Without research-fueled innovation, our economy will continue to sputter.
• We can’t afford to stall progress against life-threatening and disabling diseases, biding our time as chronic conditions like Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, autoimmune disorders, depression, PTSD and other health threats take a rapidly increasing human and fiscal toll.
• We can’t afford to dismantle the basic research infrastructure at universities, academic medical centers and independent research institutions across the country, hamstringing the U.S. R&D pipeline.

You and I know that whether the goal is to wage battle against diseases like Alzheimers or to ensure our nation remains competitive in the global economy, it is counterproductive and counterintuitive to divest from medical research. Now we must get that message across to Congress. Research!America is committed to providing advocacy tools to help you do just that.

Today's Tool: A script for when you call Congress.

Phone calls are an effective way to connect with your representatives and can have greater impact than emails or other forms of electronic communication. The script below is just a template. Providing in-district or state examples of the impact of NIH funding will strengthen your argument and demonstrate just how important this issue is to you. It can also be tailored for use in advocating for other key health agencies. Drop us a line in the comments if you would like assistance in tailoring this script.

• Hello, my name is __________ and I’m calling from ________ in your district.
• I am calling because I’m very concerned about the current debate over federal spending for programs that are important to me and all Americans.
• The National Institutes of Health (NIH) play an essential role in discovering life saving cures and treatments while enhancing our nation’s economic competitiveness.
• Unfortunately, these difficult fiscal times have resulted in over $300 million in cuts to the NIH budget, and obtaining funding for medical research is harder than it has ever been.
• As your constituent, I urge you to support legislation that provides robust NIH funding and I urge you to convey this message to your colleagues in Congress.
• NIH research is crucial to improving the health of all Americans and creates the high quality jobs that our nation needs today.
• Thank you for speaking with me and I look forward to hearing more from your office on this key issue

If we keep fighting together, we will make a difference.

Tell Congress: No More NIH Budget Cuts

Photo credit: Heather Benson

The recent budget deal for fiscal year 2011 reduced the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget by over $300M. The NIH director has reported that grant funding rates are at an all time low.

On July 26, the House of Representatives is scheduled to make their funding recommendation for NIH. Let them know that NIH is critical to our nation’s health, competitiveness, and economic vitality. Our nation needs robust support for health research now more than ever.

In addition to sending a message to your members of Congress, pass this alert on to others who will speak out in support of health research. 'Like' this alert on Facebook and share it with your networks.

Our federal budget will continue to be a critical issue and we need every willing voice to send our message loud and clear to our elected officials in Washington. Act now to support research.

Five at Five

Five quick quips as we round-up the week here at New Voices...

Cancer and cancer research are always hot button issues and this week was no exception with lots of ink covering cancer from patient advice (cancer is like improv?) to new graphic warnings for cigarettes to how a sitting at work can lead to specific types of cancer.

Ed Yong (again) shows us how research can be made accessible to the public with his piece on herding HIV to an evolutionary dead end.

Here at New Voices we talk about the NIH a lot, but were surprised to learn today's 27 institutes started as a one-man shop in 1887.

Good news for those who don't have time to call Congress during the day: 33 members of Congress sleep in their offices. I wonder if any of them are using hammocks to help them sleep more deeply?

On this day in New Voices
2010 - We got an inside look at the Barresi Lab at Smith College.
2009 - We talked about Engaging Audiences.

Bicameral and Bipartisan Support for NIH

Letters have made their way to the House and Senate subcommittees dealing with the NIH appropriations. The Senate version, penned by Bob Casey Jr. (D-PA), and Richard Burr (R-NC), asks the subcommittee’s Chairmen and Ranking Member to “maintain a strong commitment to funding for the NIH.” Twelve Republican House members join Brian Bilbray (R-CA), the author of the House letter, in asking the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education to avoid deep cuts to NIH’s budget.

Together, these two letters present evidence of bipartisanship in an overtly partisan environment where fiscal policy has become politically charged. This is a positive indication that both sides, Republican and Democrat, agree on health research as a priority that must be protected. Both letters cite the dual role health research can serve in the economy; not only does it advance the health and well-being of Americans, but it is critical in our efforts to strengthen the economy and create opportunities for innovation. Lastly, the letters reflect the growing consensus that scientific and medical research are necessary for American competitiveness.

The consequences of reduced funding are clear: fewer postdoctoral positions, increased competition for available resources, and a decline in the supply of young researchers will further erode American preeminence in the sciences. Against this background, the letters reflect a recognition that science and health research, and NIH funding in particular, bring multiple and long-term gains requiring sustained investment by the government.

The timing of the letters-the House version in late May, and the Senate’s in early June- suggest that critical agency funding decisions are close at hand. Make sure your representatives know that cutting medical research is not in our nation’s interest.

Urge Your Senators to Support NIH in FY 2012

Considering the current budget environment, it has never been more important to speak out about the importance of research to improve health. U.S. Senators Robert Casey (D-PA) and Richard Burr (R-NC) are circulating a letter in support of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which finances lifesaving research at hospitals, universities and other research institutions across the country.

Take action now! Contact your Senators and request that they sign on to the Casey-Burr letter to show strong, bipartisan support for NIH and its critical mission of advancing medical research.

Freshmen Start the Day with NIH 101

On Wednesday, I attended a breakfast meeting sponsored by Congressman Dan Benishek, MD of Michigan. This meeting provided an opportunity for several freshman Members of Congress to meet Dr. Francis Collins, the director of the National Institutes of Health.

We were thrilled to be joined by Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia, Congressman Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, Congressman Larry Buchson, MD of Indiana and Congressman John Carney from Delaware.

Congressman Benishek opened the meeting by introducing Dr. Collins and thanking those in attendance. After providing a brief overview of the NIH, the members were given an opportunity to ask questions about health and biomedical research.

The Q&A discussion touched on a variety of issues and challenges facing health and health research. The importance of prevention was discussed as a cost-effective means for improving health while lowering overall health spending. Dr. Collins also mentioned the importance of personalized medicine and new technology to foster healthy behaviors in patients. But he also informed members about the challenges facing the NIH. Dr. Collins estimates that grant award rates at NIH could dip as low as 17% due to funding constraints, which would be the lowest in history.

Overall, the freshmen members in attendance seemed supportive of research to improve health and interested in health research issues. They all received personal invitations to take a tour of the NIH. Have your representatives visited the NIH campus yet?

Gangs of DC

Two political “gangs” with the same goal now exist in Congress. The Gang of Six and the Gang of Seven both seek to reach a deficit reduction deal that can gain traction with Democrats and Republicans alike.

With the goal of slashing $4 trillion from the nation’s budget deficit over the next decade, the Gang of Six arose out of President Barack Obama’s deficit commission toward the end of 2010. The older of the two, it is comprised of three Democrats and three Republicans: Sens. Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Mark Warner (D-VA), Tom Coburn (R-OK), Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), and Mike Crapo (R-ID). Four of the six members of the group came from President Obama’s Simpson-Bowles deficit commission. The group recommends spending cuts, overhauling the tax code, and revamping Medicare and Medicaid entitlements.

The bipartisan, bicameral newcomer, the Gang of Seven, was recently called for by President Obama. Led by Vice President Joe Biden, it includes Sens. John Kyl (R-AZ), Max Baucus (D-MT), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), and Reps. Eric Cantor (R-VA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and James Clyburn (D-SC). Its first meeting is scheduled for May 5.

Because it is unclear exactly why a second group was formed to tackle the same issue as a preexisting one, the emergence of the Gang of Seven has caused a lot of buzz. According to ABC News, some lawmakers feel that it undermines the work of the earlier-formed gang. That the latter group is comprised of both Senators and Representatives is the only obvious difference between the two. The Christian Science Monitor poses a further observation of the group’s differences:

Unlike the bipartisan “Gang of Six” senators who have been trying to reach an agreement on these very same issues, the newly minted “Gang of Seven,” as some commentators are referring to the new negotiators, represents the starkest partisan views on Capitol Hill: The GOP appointees oppose tax increases, the Democrats oppose cuts to entitlements, especially Social Security.

The article goes on to say that although both groups are unofficial, if either one is able to agree to a plan, they may have the leverage to garner enough support in Congress to pass a budget compromise.

Special thanks to today's guest blogger, Rachael Schoop, a communications associate at Research!America.

Urge Your Members of Congress to Participate in Your Congress-Your Health

Research!America and our partners have launched Your Congress-Your Health. Every Member of Congress has been invited to respond to a questionnaire about medical research, the deficit, and support for federal agencies that conduct research to improve health (NIH, FDA, CDC, NSF, and AHRQ). Please contact your Representative and Senators TODAY to urge them to respond to the questionnaire.

Cuts to research funding have already occurred at NIH, NSF, CDC, and AHRQ. That is why it is more important than ever for Americans know where lawmakers stand on these critical issues.

Take action now!

Invest in Montana research, continue to reap long-term benefits

If science and research are important to you, it is up to you to make the case for it. That means reaching out to the public and policymakers to explain the benefits of research and how it impacts your community.

Richard Bridges, Chair of the Department of Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Sciences at the University of Montana, recently published an op-ed on the importance of research in Montana:

The real bottom line is that research and discovery, which go hand-in-hand with education, are the very lifelines of innovation that drive job growth and enhance our quality of life. Just as it is important to realize that the rewards of scientific research are many, we must be equally aware that Montana has become a player and directly benefits from the national investment in research.

Speaking as someone who has spent most of my life in a lab, I can safely say we, as scientists, have not done a stellar job of informing people about what we do or how we do it. Unfortunately, this may prove to be a significant omission, as research funding for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation are now on the chopping block despite strong public support for research.

Though we see the tremendous advancements made in medical care on a daily basis, we tend to forget that the seeds of these discoveries may have been planted a decade earlier in basic biomedical research labs like those in Missoula, Hamilton, Great Falls, Butte, Billings or Bozeman.

Indeed, a 2011 study in The New England Journal of Medicine found that drugs discovered in public-sector research institutions are "expected to have a disproportionately large therapeutic effect." This means university research labs have become a primary pipeline in development of high-demand medicines and treatments, like those in the University of Montana's Skaggs School of Pharmacy aimed at new drugs for stroke and traumatic brain injury. The federal investment in research also has a proven track record of return. Few cancer survivors or their families would argue that developing life-saving therapies is not worth the expense, given that the NIH budget for cancer research works out to about $2 per American per month.

While many Montanans benefit from and appreciate the research discoveries, they may not be aware that these discoveries are made right in their own state. As the number and competitiveness of scientists in our universities, hospitals and research institutes have grown dramatically in the past several years, so too has our success in attracting NIH grants. Considering that about 60 to 70 percent of this funding typically supports salaries, it translates directly into jobs: skilled technical jobs, sustainable jobs and well-paying jobs. Indeed, a study by the Families USA Foundation revealed that in 2008, the $38 million awarded to Montana by NIH led to the creation of about 700 jobs. Further analysis by Research!America revealed these health research jobs in Montana had an average annual salary around $55,000. Excitingly, this successful trend is continuing, as 2010 saw further increases in both NIH and NSF awards made to Montana.

These dollars support not only faculty and technical staff, but also undergraduate and graduate students. In this manner, jobs created in research labs provide a way for students to pay for their education while gaining valuable hands-on experience, as well as open up the types of employment opportunities that can keep them in the state after graduation. Active research on campus not only brings students into the labs, it also brings current ideas, problem solving and the concept of discovery right into the classroom. This is exactly the type of training and "hands-on" experience that will keep Montana's work force globally competitive.

Recent entrepreneurial developments around both UM and Montana State University also demonstrate that these research successes can extend off campus and lead to creation of private-sector spin-off companies with all the associated economic benefits, the foremost being more jobs. Lastly, this growth in biomedical science provides a welcome opportunity for Montana researchers to specifically address challenges relevant to our state and its residents. Who better to help solve problems related to rural health disparities, asbestosis, addiction, traumatic brain injury, mad cow disease, Lyme disease, brucellosis and chronic wasting disease than the faculty researchers and students on our own campuses and in our own communities?

Our current times require that not just scientists speak up, but that all of us who see the long-term value of science voice a call to continue making our national investment in research a priority. Research is the key to Montana's future.

Endgame for FY 2011

On Friday, President Obama signed off on the budget deal brokered with Congress. The final tally was $38.5 billion in discretionary cuts, although even the CBO has questioned this number.

How did health research fare? We’ve seen better days. The NIH and NSF were both cut by 1.2%, about $300M and $60M respectively. The Agency for Healthcare Research and quality was cut by $25M or 6%, while the FDA was actually provided with $107M increase. The CDC has been hit with the worst of the cuts to health research, totaling $820M – a cut of nearly 13%.

So let’s think about this. At a time when our deficit is being driven by the cost of healthcare and American business is losing its competitiveness to pay for healthcare, our government has decided that prevention is not a priority. Cutting the CDC might save us $820M (0.0002% of total federal spending) in the short run, but how will those cuts impact our health, our deficit, and our economy in five years?

Some have suggested that this budget deal could have been much worse. The budget that was previously passed by the House and defeated by the Senate, HR 1, contained much deeper discretionary cuts that would have been devastating to health research and science.

Now that FY 2011 has come to a conspicuous end, Congress and the White House have already begun to set their sights on FY 2012 and beyond. Paul Ryan recently released his budget plan, ‘The Path to Prosperity’, and President Obama has put forth a plan entitled the ‘President’s Framework for Shared Prosperity and Shared Fiscal Responsibility.’

Which plan do you support?

Crisis Averted, For Now

Some government employees may have been looking forward to a long weekend. But a government shutdown is no laughing matter. It’s clear that government employees throughout the nation were bracing for the absence of essential income in a difficult economic environment. But a deal was cut and appropriations will continue through the end of this fiscal year. So ends the long standing battle over FY 2011 budgeting, which culminated this past weekend with the 7th CR, and nearly furloughed 800,000 federal employees.

It’s hard to say just who came out ahead in this deal. All sides are claiming victory even though it is becoming increasingly clear that this was really just one of the first upcoming budget battles and tougher fights are still come (e.g. debt ceiling and entitlements).

Health research and science may emerge unscathed by this most recent budget debate, despite the fact that these areas were clearly targeted for cuts in H.R. 1 – the House spending bill that never passed the Senate.

Some have suggested that H.R. 1 should be viewed as a policy document that lays out the priorities of House Republicans and will continue to guide their approach to governing. Hence, while research programs may appear safe for now, they could be targeted again during debates over the FY 2012 budget.

This is why it is essential for all those who care about health research to continue to reach out to Congress and demonstrate the local impact and importance of these programs. Remember, that at the end of the day your representatives are ultimately accountable to you. Make sure they know that you didn’t send them to Washington to cut medical research.

A House Divided

Last week, the Tea Party came back to Washington. They rallied to express their outrage over government spending and Congress’s inability to reach agreement on the budget. Rep. Michelle Bachman (MN-6), now weighing a presidential run in 2012, addressed the crowd of about 200 people.

With a government shutdown seeming more likely, some policymakers have re-termed it as a government ‘slowdown’. And when this was mentioned at the rally, many in the crowd cheered the idea of the government shutting its doors.

But the Tea Party represents just one ideological faction that has come to be affiliated with Republican Party and they have brought their own unique approach to the budget debate. Some have openly advocated for a government shutdown, believing that to be an effective means to reducing government spending.

House Republican leadership is currently in the process of finalizing a budget for the coming fiscal year. However, several Republicans have indicated that this forthcoming budget is not sufficient to address government spending. In fact, the Republican Study Committee, a group of 175 House Republicans, announced its plan to release a so called ‘rogue budget.’ As you might have guessed, this document would cut spending at a much higher rate than the plan released by the House leadership.

In essence, there are three Republican factions within the House that have differing visions for the future of the federal government. When the House Budget Committee releases its plan for FY 2012 tomorrow, the debate will be renewed. Where do you stand?

Do You Know Your Members of Congress?

Either way, today is the day to get in touch with your member in the House of Representatives.

The House is currently crafting a spending bill that may include unprecedented funding cuts to NIH, NSF, CDC, AHRQ and FDA. These cuts represent a major threat to the nation’s health, job growth and competitiveness.

It is critical that you contact your representatives TODAY so they know that cuts to American research are unacceptable.

It's about your job. Your health and the future well-being of your family. It takes 30 seconds to send a message and another 30 seconds to share with your contacts via email or Facebook.

Your minute could be the constituent voice that convinces Congress to protect research.

Profiles of Promise

“Medical care cost is reduced. And then, of course, it gives people this hope and the opportunity to enter back into the work force and become productive members of society.”

~Representative Dave Reichert (R-WA-8)

Above are excerpts from Profiles of Promise – a campaign lead by United for Medical Research that highlights Members of Congress who have distinguished themselves through advocacy for health research.

Congressman Reichert’s quote says it all. We know that investments in health research can not only reduce the cost of medical care, but enable people to live more productive lives. This message is even more salient at a time when the nation’s budget deficit is being driven by unprecedented spending for health care. Better and more cost effective treatments offer a way to bend the cost curve.

But there’s something to be said for increased productivity too. When we’re productive, we’re working and earning an income, which means we’re paying into the tax system. Tax revenue, in turn, will help governments at the local, state, and federal level that are still reeling from the down economy. These revenues will enable government to fill the funding gap with domestic dollars rather than continuing to borrow from overseas.

Without a doubt, medical research is part of the solution to today’s biggest challenges. Profiles of Promise recognizes leaders from both sides of the aisle who understand and act on this. As you look at the members profiled in the campaign, try to find your representatives and if you do find them, be sure to thank them for standing up for medical research. If you can’t find your members of Congress featured, ask yourself, why isn’t my representative here?

Welcome to Budget 101

Image courtesy of Rep. Huizenga

Capitol Hill is buzzing over the budget these days. But for those of us not fully in tune with the budget process, all of the talk might sound like little more than, well, a buzz in our ears.

We can’t, however, brush it off: budgets for the NIH, FDA, CDC, and other important agencies are in danger of being cut. This is a time for science and research advocates to both understand and get involved in the federal budgeting process. So, consider yourself automatically enrolled in Budget 101, your introduction to the federal budget.

First, it’s important to realize that in Congress right now there are two concurrent arguments about two separate budgets:

Fiscal Year 2012
Affecting: Oct. 1, 2011 – Sept. 30, 2012
What’s going on? On Feb. 14, President Obama submitted his 2012 budget proposal to Congress. The budget will now proceed through Congressional committees and so forth (see below).

Fiscal Year 2011
Affecting: Now – Sept. 30, 2011
What’s going on? The 2011 budget was meant to have been completed and signed months ago, but a lack of movement in Congress has left the government functioning under a continuing resolution (CR). The CR stipulates that, for the time being, all areas of the federal government receive funding at the same level as the previous (2010) fiscal year. The CR, however, expires on March 4, at which time the federal government will shut down if no budget is ready. Currently, the Republican-controlled House has passed its own version of the FY2011 budget, but the Democrat-controlled Senate will likely block that budget, forcing a compromise.

As you can see, there’s been a holdup in the FY 2011 budget-making process. Here’s how the process is supposed to run, with a focus on how funding for agencies like the NIH goes through:

Step 1:
About one year before the president’s budget proposal, individual agencies (like the NIH, FDA, etc.) begin planning for the latest budget. They work with the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to come up with a budget strategy that also address the president’s priorities – fields and issues in which he’d like to see greater investment.

Step 2:
About six months before the president’s budget proposal, agencies have submitted their budget proposals and are negotiating with the OMB. By January, budget proposals should be finalized and compiled.

Step 3:
The president submits his budget proposal to Congress in February.

Step 4:
House and Senate budget committees discuss their own overall goals for spending and government revenue, which are then voted on. In cases of disagreement between the houses, a conference committee is set up. This step should take place February through May.

Step 5:
House and Senate appropriations committees take a closer look at the individual agency budgets and write bills that are then voted on by the individual house. Again, when there is disagreement between the Senate and House, a conference committee settles the difference. This step should take place June through September.

Step 6:
Appropriations bills are sent to the president - hopefully before Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year. That, however, did not happen in time for FY2011, so a continuing resolution was passed instead. Continuing resolutions are not uncommon, but it is rare for a resolution to expire and lead to a government shutdown.

Step 7:
Agencies receive their funding.

If you’d like to learn more, check out The Washington Post’s interactive feature on the budgeting process, or this AAAS presentation on the budget process and R&D investment. Also, be on the lookout over the coming weeks as Research!America’s own website is updated with information about the federal budget.

Act Now to Protect Research

Across the country, groups like FASEB and Research!America are speaking out about the federal budget debates going on in Congress. We must act together and in a unified voice to protect research.

The House of Representatives is debating unprecedented multibillion dollar cuts to the budgets of the NIH, CDC, AHRQ, FDA and NSF. These proposed reductions are a serious threat to our nation's health and economic competitiveness.

Contact your members of Congress today and tell them funding for health research is vital to curing diseases, generating jobs now and in the future, and securing the economic well-being of America. Congress must hear from our community in a unified and timely way or vital research will be at risk.

Take action now.

The Civic Scientist

Our jobs encompass a major part of our lives. When we think about our professions, it is essential to consider how our community of professionals is perceived by others, especially policymakers.

This is true for scientists. Science is vital to the well being of our nation and that is why practicing scientists and even students of science receive special treatment from the government, often in the form of grants, subsidies, or scholarships.

At the end of the day, we have policymakers (often without science backgrounds) making decisions about science that could have negative impacts on research and the scientific community. The scientific community often criticizes policymakers on the grounds that they don’t really ‘get’ science, yet few scientists have any training or interest in policy or politics.

However, when scientists combine their academic credentials along with a desire to change the world, the results can be dramatic. Well known examples include Albert Einstein, whose writings on the threat of nuclear proliferation informed policymakers on the specter of a nuclear armed world. James Hansen, now at Columbia University, was the first to alert members of Congress about the dangers of climate change. You may not recognize his name, but a PhD physicist and former professor, Dr. Vern Ehlers recently stepped down as the representative from Michigan’s 3rd district after a distinguished career in Congress.

What these individuals all have in common is a commitment to science, but also an awareness of the role that science plays in the well being of our nation. They dedicated their intellect and zeal to ensure that science would continue to serve society, while advocating for a government that was willing to support a vibrant scientific community.

Arizona’s Eighth Congressional District

Flags at half mast in front of the US Capitol.

By now, I’m sure you have all read about the shooting that took place over the weekend that claimed six lives and wounded 14 people. As we learn more about the victims and those affected, it is clear that they all had one thing in common – they cared deeply about our nation. These were individuals who dedicated their lives to improving the lives of Americans.

I actually had the pleasure and privilege to work with Congresswoman Giffords on the House Science Committee. I remember when we met - we had great discussion about solar energy and it was not until later that I realized I had been speaking with a Congresswoman. She is without a doubt, Congress’s expert on solar power and she has always recognized that initiating new policies for solar development and deployment are good for Arizona and good for the country. I found her to be one of the most dynamic and personable representatives on the Hill.

The assassination attempt represents an attack upon democracy. It was an assault upon the free society that is core to America. It raised questions of why this happened, how it happened, and what the country should learn from this great tragedy. We have already heard calls for a more civil political dialogue, one that avoids the vitriol that has colored recent campaigns and elections. This is not the first time that a concerted call for civility has been made. It wasn’t long ago that John Stewart convened the Rally to Restore Sanity on the Mall in Washington, DC.

It is difficult to say just what lessons the country will take away from this event. Without a doubt, the country needs more moderated and grounded voices that can shift the discourse from one of political retribution to reasoned compromise.

Your New Congress

Yesterday, your new Congress was sworn into office for the 112th time in America’s history. I was lucky enough to be on the Hill for the occasion, watching the ceremonies from a closed circuit television at a reception in the Library of Congress.

One of the most symbolic moments of the ceremony was when the House gavel transferred from the outgoing Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, to the new speaker. As John Boehner stood by, waiting for Speaker Pelosi to conclude her remarks and hand off the gavel, he was visibly nervous, fidgeting, and seemed anxious for his turn to offer his thoughts to the chamber. Not surprisingly, he was wiping away tears before he even began to speak.

Members of Congress aren’t that different from you or me. They have weaknesses, make mistakes, and often have only a surface-level understanding of the multitude of issues that cross their desk. This is why they rely heavily upon their staff, who in turn rely heavily upon experts to provide them with the best information possible. Hence, your expertise and awareness can make a difference in changing policy in the US. But in order for that to happen you must not be afraid to reach out to your representatives, tell them your story, and why they should listen. It could be the first step in improving our nation.