Preprint

Summary Report
Public Policy & Government Engagement
Community Engagement Frontier Topical Group 06
Snowmass 2021

Rob Fine1, Louise Suter2

1Los Alamos National Laboratory

2Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory

> ABSTRACT
>
>
>
>
> This document is the Snowmass summary report for the Public Policy &
> Government Engagement topical group within the Community Engagement
> Frontier. This report discusses how the U.S. High Energy Physics (HEP)
> community currently engages with government at all levels and provides
> recommendations for how the execution of these activities can be improved
> and for how the scope of existing activities can be expanded. This includes
> the current HEP Congressional government engagement “DC trip”, materials
> produced for communication with government officials, government engagement
> in areas other than HEP funding, and interactions with the funding agencies,
> Executive Office of the President, and state and local governments.

Submitted to the Proceedings of the US Community Study

on the Future of Particle Physics (Snowmass 2021)

##  1 Introduction

This document has been prepared as the summary report of the Snowmass group
focused on Public Policy & Government Engagement, Community Engagement
Frontier topical group #6 (CEF06). The charge of CEF06 was to review how the
High Energy Physics (HEP) community engages with government at all levels and
all related topics. Among the topics investigated were how public policy
impacts members of the HEP community and the HEP community at large and the
issue of awareness within the HEP community of direct community-driven
engagement of the U.S. federal government. We note that in the previous
Snowmass process, the topics which now fall under the purview of CEF06 were
then included in the broader “Community Engagement and Outreach” group whose
work culminated in the recommendations outlined in Ref. [1].

The organization of this report is as follows. The remainder of this section
provides a high-level summary of the proceedings of CEF06, provides context
for this report concerning the CEF06 contributed papers, defines key
terminology, and lists the high-level recommendations detailed throughout the
remainder of the report. Section 2 provides an overview of how HEP is funded
in the U.S. and the role that community-driven government engagement plays in
that process. Section 3 discusses who is accountable to take action of these
recommendations and 4 describes the importance of unity of messaging while
engaging in these efforts. Section 5 describes existing activities focused on
engagement of the U.S. federal legislature on the topic of funding for HEP and
recommendations for improving the efficacy of these activities. Section 6
describes the content of the HEP community communication materials used in HEP
government engagement activities and the effort that produces these materials.
Section 7 describes the state of community-driven engagement on non-budgetary
topics and the potential for utilizing external resources to expand activities
in this area. Section 8 describes the state of relations between the HEP
community and funding agencies. Finally, Section 9 describes ideas for how HEP
community-driven government engagement can expand beyond activities targeting
the U.S. federal legislature.

###  1.1 History of CEF06 Activities

Throughout 2020, CEF06 held bi-weekly “Town Hall” meetings and discussion-
focused “Community Chats”. The records of these activities can be accessed on
Indico [2]. Following the 2021 pause in Snowmass proceedings, weekly meetings
within CEF06 focused on organizing the feedback received during 2020 into
detailed summary documents. This effort formed the basis for the contributed
papers prepared by the group, which are described below.

###  1.2 Contributed Papers

The culmination of CEF06 activities during the 2021-2022 Snowmass process was
the development by the group of three “contributed papers”. These papers serve
as the record of the proceedings of CEF06 and provide further details in many
areas than this summary report includes. The three reports are:

  * •

Snowmass 2021 Community Engagement Frontier 6: Public Policy and Government
Engagement Congressional Advocacy for HEP Funding (The “DC Trip”) [3],

  * •

Snowmass 2021 Community Engagement Frontier 6: Public Policy and Government
Engagement Congressional Advocacy for Areas Beyond HEP funding [4], and

  * •

Snowmass 2021 Community Engagement Frontier 6: Public Policy and Government
Engagement: Non-congressional government engagement [5].

###  1.3 Definitions

Throughout this report we utilize the following terms, which we define here
for the convenience of the reader:

  * •

AAAS \- American Association for the Advancement of Science

  * •

AIP \- American Institute for Physics

  * •

APS \- American Physical Society

  * •

Administration \- When capitalized, referring to a general or specific
Presidential Administration; the staffing of the executive branch of the
federal government

  * •

“Ask” \- An appropriations request made by the HEP community for particular
funding levels for DOE OS and NSF

  * •

CEF06 \- Community Engagement Frontier topical group #6; the Snowmass group on
Public Policy & Government Engagement

  * •

“DC Trip” \- The annual HEP community advocacy trip to Washington, D.C.

  * •

DOE \- Department of Energy

  * •

EOP \- Executive Office of the President

  * •

HEP \- High Energy Physics

  * •

HEPAP \- High Energy Physics Advisory Panel; convened by DOE and NSF to
provide advise on HEP priorities

  * •

NSF \- National Science Foundation

  * •

OMB \- Office of Management and Budget (within EOP)

  * •

OS \- (DOE) Office of Science

  * •

OSTP \- Office of Science and Technology Policy (within EOP)

  * •

OHEP \- (DOE OS) Office of High Energy Physics

  * •

PBR \- The President’s Budget Request; the federal budget proposed by the
President which Congress considers while forming its own budget

  * •

P5 \- The Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel and the report they
produce

  * •

SLUO \- SLAC Users Organization

  * •

UEC \- Fermilab Users Executive Committee

  * •

USLUA \- U.S. Large Hadron Collider (LHC) Users Association

  * •

WHIPS \- The Washington-HEP Integrated Planning System; framework used to
coordinate logistics of HEP community advocacy

###  1.4 Recommendations

The activities of CEF06 have culminated in a number of recommendations for how
the HEP community should engage with the government over the next decade.
High-level recommendations are highlighted below, and are reproduced
throughout this report where they are contextualized and, in cases, elaborated
on through sub-recommendations (Recommendations 2, 4, and 7).

CEF06 Recommendation 1 – Representatives of APS DPF, HEPAP, and the user
groups, as appropriate, should have dedicated discussions to determine what
actions can be taken to advance the recommendations outlined in this report.
0.5pt2pt There is limited bandwidth in the current infrastructure for
investing resources into additional government engagement activities, and the
recommendations here cover a broader scope than existing community-driven
advocacy. These discussions should specifically include considering the option
of forming an HEP community government engagement group, composed of elected
community representatives and policy experts, that is explicitly responsible
for developing expanded government engagement capabilities.

CEF06 Recommendation 2 – HEPAP must build community unity around the 2023 P5
plan and develop a clear messaging strategy spanning the next 10 years.
0.5pt2pt Impactful community-driven advocacy and strong support for HEP within
Congress are dependent on a unified community message that reflects the
priorities outlined in the P5 report. Dedicated efforts to engage the HEP
community and all relevant stakeholders are required to build and maintain
this unity as the 2023 P5 report is developed, rolled-out, and implemented.

CEF06 Recommendation 3 – Representatives of UEC, SLUO, USLUA, and APS DPF
should facilitate discussions to consider the formation of a more formal “HEP
Congressional advocacy” group to assume responsibility for organizing the
annual advocacy trip to Washington, D.C.
0.5pt2pt The formalization of such a group has the potential to streamline the
adoption of other recommendations in this report and to elevate the profile of
this important effort within the HEP community. Any discussions on this topic
should include other leaders of the HEP community and provide mechanisms for
feedback from community members.

CEF06 Recommendation 4 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group must continue to
support, and should aim to grow, the annual HEP community-driven advocacy
activities.
0.5pt2pt The annual community-driven advocacy effort is essential to increase
knowledge and interest of HEP in Congress. Participation in these activities
should be encouraged within the community, and community leaders should
support efforts for continued development and growth of this effort.

CEF06 Recommendation 5 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group must continue
support for the development and maintenance of HEP Communication materials,
working with the 2023 P5 chair and other experts as needed.
0.5pt2pt High quality and well-developed communication and outreach materials
are essential for effective government outreach, and their quality reflects
directly on how our field is perceived. Investment in these important
resources must be continued, and they should be made more broadly available
within the community.

CEF06 Recommendation 6 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group and APS DPF
executive committee should identify an existing community group or create a
new one to take ownership of strengthening connections between the HEP
community and science and physics societies, including APS, AIP, and AAAS, and
continuing conversations about how the HEP community can engage in advocacy
for topics beyond HEP funding.
0.5pt2pt The purpose of strengthening these connections should be to leverage
external expertise on advocating for DEI, immigration policy, R&D, basic
science funding reform, and other areas that impact HEP. Maintaining strong
connections between the HEP community and these external groups will expand
the resources easily available to HEP community members in these areas. The
HEP group tasked with strengthening these connections to external groups
should also facilitate an expanded discussion around the potential for HEP-
specific community advocacy in these areas.

CEF06 Recommendation 7 – DOE and NSF should improve existing communication
channels and create new ones, as necessary, to enable improved HEP community
feedback to the funding agencies.
0.5pt2pt HEP community members have substantive opinions about how our
community interfaces with the funding agencies and lack sufficient avenues to
provide feedback to them. Any steps taken to improve communication should
include the development of mechanisms for community-level, individual, and
anonymous feedback to be provided on topics including the climate of the field
and the granting process. Transparency about what feedback is provided and
what actions are taken to address feedback should be a key element of the
solution.

CEF06 Recommendation 8 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group should work to
improve HEP community engagement of the executive branch, especially OMB and
OSTP.
0.5pt2pt Steps should be taken to optimize community-driven advocacy targeted
at these groups and to separate the logistics of this effort from the
community-driven advocacy targeted at Congress. Meetings with these agencies
should be timed for maximum impact on the development of the President’s
Budget Request. Specialized outreach materials and messaging points should be
developed, and HEP community members meeting with these agencies should
receive specialized training.

CEF06 Recommendation 9 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group and APS DPF
executive committee should facilitate discussions to explore the potential
advantages to systematic engagement of local and state governments.
0.5pt2pt The goal of these discussions should be understanding the potential
costs and benefits of allocating resources for such activities. Specific
locations of particular relevance to HEP activities should be identified to
guide these discussions.

##  2 HEP Funding and HEP Community-Driven Advocacy

###  2.1 How HEP is Funded in the United States

To constructively discuss the role of community advocacy in funding High
Energy Physics (HEP) in the United States, it is essential to briefly discuss
the U.S. federal budget process. The Department of Energy (DOE), through its
Office of Science (OS), and the National Science Foundation (NSF) fund HEP.
Funding for these executive branch agencies is provided for in the U.S.
federal budget on an annual basis. The construction of the federal budget is a
lengthy process that can be summarized by roughly breaking it down into three
key steps.

  1. 1.

The President proposes a budget. The President’s Budget Request (PBR) is based
on input from executive branch agencies and is coordinated by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).

  2. 2.

Congress legislates a budget. Both entities within the legislative branch (the
House of Representatives and the Senate) propose budgets, taking into account
their priorities and the priorities of the Administration (reflected in the
PBR). The House and Senate budgets are then reconciled into a single
Congressional budget which forms the basis for authorizations and
appropriations to fund executive branch agencies. The authorization step
dictates how each agency may utilize its funding, with variable degrees of
specificity, while the appropriations bill allocates the funding.

  3. 3.

OMB appropriates funds to the executive branch agencies. This process is
dictated by Congress’s authorizations and appropriations bills to carry out
specific programs, projects, and activities in line with agency and
Administration priorities.

The President’s budget request is formulated using policy guidance from OMB
informed by the previous year’s budget. Based on this guidance and community
input, each agency (DOE and NSF in the case of HEP) submits proposals to OMB.
OMB revises and synthesizes these proposals, accounting for Administration
priorities, which the President then reviews and transmits to Congress. After
OMB has submitted the proposal to the President, agencies have a period during
which they may appeal revisions made by OMB. The Congressional budget uses the
President’s budget request as input, but the appropriated budget often differs
from that initial request.

Historically HEP community-driven advocacy efforts have focused on step (2),
i.e., advocacy aimed at Congress. Working with policy experts, the HEP
community formulates a Congressional appropriations request for DOE OS HEP and
for NSF (this appropriations request is colloquially known as the “Ask”).
During the authorizations and appropriations processes in Congress, the budget
narratives provided by the HEP community justify the funding levels in these
appropriations requests.

###  2.2 P5 and HEP Community-Driven Government Engagement

The High Energy Physics Advisory Panel (HEPAP) is a federal advisory committee
that provides advice and guidance to OS HEP and NSF regarding experimental and
theoretical HEP activities. Its charge [6] is to facilitate program reviews
and long-range planning and to provide advice on funding levels. The Particle
Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5) is a sub-panel of HEPAP formed as
needed to address questions about HEP projects and their planning. Recently P5
has been convened following iterations of the HEP community planning process
(Snowmass) and in each case has produced a report of its findings. Of
particular note are the 2013 [7] and 2008 [8] P5 reports.

In 2013 P5 was charged with producing a strategic plan for U.S. HEP. This plan
assumed a 10-year timescale in the context of a 20-year global vision for the
field. The charge asked for an assessment of the (then) current and future
scientific opportunities over the following 20 years, considering the field’s
(then) current state. The charge included three budget scenarios as reference
points when forming recommendations. The full 2013 charge to P5 is available
in Ref. [9], and the report, which was approved in May 2014 by HEPAP, is
available in Ref. [7]. Since then, the 2014 P5 report has provided a focal
point for all HEP community-driven advocacy and has factored explicitly into
initial budget proposals sent to Congress and Congressional deliberations. We
note that the activities of the current Snowmass process will culminate in a
report expected to be utilized by HEPAP in constructing a new P5 report in
2023. This report will become the new focal point for HEP advocacy.

###  2.3 Recent HEP Funding Levels

The community’s budget request and President’s Budget Request (PBR) often
differ, as does the amount ultimately appropriated by Congress. Figure 1 shows
the PBR and Congressional appropriated budgets, compared to the scenarios laid
out in the 2014 P5 report, in recent years. Figure 2 and Table 1 compare the
PBR, the HEP community “Ask”, and the Congressional appropriated budgets over
a similar time frame. Numbers are only shown for DOE OS HEP, as HEP is not the
dominant fraction of NSF funding. Note that the impact of the 2014 P5 report
on the HEP budget was not seen until 2015 due to the multi-year time frame of
the budget process.

Year | President’s Request ($M) | Our Ask ($M) | Appropriated ($M)
---|---|---|---
FY23 | TBD | 1356 | TBD
FY22 | 1061 | 1180 | 1078
FY21 | 818 | 1285 | 1046
FY20 | 768 | 1045 | 1045
FY19 | 770 | N/A∗ | 980
FY18 | 673 | 860 | 908
FY17 | 818 | 833 | 825
Table 1: PBR, HEP community request, and Congressional appropriated budgets in
millions of dollars. This is also shown in Figure 2. *Due to delays in the
FY19 budget process, no advocacy was aligned with the construction of this
budget. Figure 1: DOE OS HEP funding since the last P5 [10]. For a given year,
purple denotes the PBR and green denotes the Congressional appropriated
budget. Figure 2: PBR, HEP community request, and Congressional appropriated
budgets in millions of dollars.

##  3 Accountability for Acting on CEF06 Recommendations

Existing HEP community-driven advocacy activities are broadly considered,
within the community, to be highly successful at engaging the U.S. federal
legislature. These activities are jointly coordinated by the Fermilab Users
Executive Committee (UEC), SLAC Users Organization (SLUO), and US-LHC Users
Association (USLUA), with input from the American Physical Society Division of
Particles and Fields (APS DPF) Executive Committee. Despite the longevity and
success of the collaboration between these groups, this existing
organizational structure does not provide sufficient resources to act on all
the recommendations outlined in this report.

The infrastructure that supports HEP community advocacy, which has grown
organically over the past several decades into its current form, is structured
entirely around the execution of annual advocacy activities (i.e. the “DC
Trip”). This organization is appropriate and effective but doesn’t provide a
mechanism for resources to be efficiently invested into broadening the scope
of community activities or achieving other long-term goals. As outlined in
this report, there are several areas in which the community would benefit from
expanding the scope of government engagement activities. There presently
exists no group or collection of groups that could assume responsibility for
directing such an effort. The authors of this report have been careful to
provide actionable recommendations. Still, in several cases, progress will be
constrained by the lack of a group responsible for taking action.

The potential composition of such a group to oversee the development of long-
term HEP community government engagement initiatives was a recurring theme
throughout CEF06 proceedings. We concluded that it would be premature at this
stage to recommend a specific solution. Instead, the groups that have
historically directed HEP community government engagement activities should be
charged with advancing this discussion.

CEF06 Recommendation 1 – Representatives of APS DPF, HEPAP, and the user
groups, as appropriate, should have dedicated discussions to determine what
actions can be taken to advance the recommendations outlined in this report.
0.5pt2pt There is limited bandwidth in the current infrastructure for
investing resources into additional government engagement activities, and the
recommendations here cover a broader scope than existing community-driven
advocacy. These discussions should specifically include considering the option
of forming an HEP community government engagement group, composed of elected
community representatives and policy experts, that is explicitly responsible
for developing expanded government engagement capabilities.

We note that of the presently available options for an existing group to
assume this role, each is constrained in key ways that would impact their
efficiency. The leadership of UEC, SLUO, and USLUA are necessarily preoccupied
with the execution of annual community advocacy activities. APS DPF exists
within the larger structure of APS and is therefore limited in its ability to
elevate, through advocacy, the interests of HEP above any other area of
physics. In addition, the community must respect the limitations placed on
federal funding concerning advocacy for policy; individuals affiliated with
the national laboratories or benefiting from federal grant money are subject
to these limitations.

We additionally note that the above issue exists across the whole of the
Snowmass Community Engagement Frontier. In this frontier, we lack a clear
analog to P5, which is charged with digesting the physics recommendations
produced by the Snowmass physics Frontiers. As such, there is a greater danger
that our recommendations will stagnate without clearly identified groups to
act on them.

##  4 Garnering Support for P5 2023

The stakes are high for the HEP community, which currently has an annual
budget in excess of USD 1B and is designing future projects that will require
similar or even greater levels of funding. These budgets, ultimately derived
through the U.S. federal budget process as described briefly in Section 2 (and
in more detail in Ref. [3]), are reaffirmed and renewed annually. Translating
excitement and interest in HEP into public and federal support for funding is
critical to the long-term health of the field and the larger scientific
enterprise in which HEP plays an essential role.

CEF06 Recommendation 2 – HEPAP must build community unity around the 2023 P5
plan and develop a clear messaging strategy spanning the next 10 years.
0.5pt2pt Impactful community-driven advocacy and strong support for HEP within
Congress are dependent on a unified community message that reflects the
priorities outlined in the P5 report. Dedicated efforts to engage the HEP
community and all relevant stakeholders are required to build and maintain
this unity as the 2023 P5 report is developed, rolled-out, and implemented.

One of the fundamental aspects of the P5 plan and report is that they outline
a community-wide strategy for all HEP that can garner broad support and
community buy-in, thereby resulting in a singular community-wide message about
the status and future of our field. This community unity around a singular
plan has been seen as necessary by policymakers, as has the successful
implementation of the plan. The success since P5 2014 of this unified
messaging is in notable contrast to the state of community messaging before
2014, which was significantly more fragmented. Of particular relevance for
maintaining the unity of our messaging is the science advocacy undertaken by
individuals outside of community-organized advocacy. It is critical that the
messaging from these individuals be consistent with HEP community messaging.
The HEP community collectively has a responsibility to communicate the
community message broadly and to provide the knowledge and supporting material
to convince everyone inside and outside the community that the P5 plan is
worthy of support.

Actions that should be taken to ensure the maximal impact of the P5 plan can
be divided into two time frames. First are short-term actions pertaining to
the drafting of the P5 report and its initial roll-out. Second are long-term
actions that should be taken over the next decade to ensure that the plan
remains relevant as budgetary, scientific, and other circumstances may evolve.
In addition to these, it is critical that action be taken to begin
implementing the recommendations of the Snowmass Community Engagement
Frontier, which in many areas highlight systemic barriers to building
community unity.

###  4.1 Short-Term Actions to Build Unity

HEPAP and the 2023 P5 panel must lead the effort to build community support
for the new P5 plan. Failure to sufficiently educate and convince the
community, Congress, and the executive branch about the merits of the 2023 P5
plan jeopardizes the successful implementation and execution of projects
outlined in the plan. The first aspect of this approach should be a P5
“feedback campaign”, including opportunities for feedback, detailed question
and answer sessions, colloquia, seminars, and conference talks. In order for
the community to rally behind the P5 report, sufficient opportunity must be
presented for all voices to be heard directly as the document is drafted. The
Snowmass and HEP communities should have explicit opportunities to provide
feedback outside of HEPAP meetings before the P5 report is finalized.

CEF06 Recommendation 2.1 – HEPAP and P5 should solicit feedback on the 2023 P5
report from HEP community members and all other relevant stakeholders before
it is finalized.

Once the P5 report is complete, HEPAP and P5 should undertake an “education
campaign” to broadly communicate the details of the finalized report. Meetings
should be arranged with all relevant stakeholders, including national
laboratories, domestic and international funding agencies, the Executive
Office of the President (OMB and OSTP), and experimental collaborations

CEF06 Recommendation 2.2 – HEPAP should implement a wide-reaching outreach
program to communicate the 2023 P5 plan to the HEP community and all other
relevant stakeholders. This program should include education on the details of
the plan and emphasize the importance of clear messaging on the priorities.

###  4.2 Long-Term Actions to Maintain Unity

In the years since the publication of the 2014 P5 plan, the P5 chair has led
an annual effort to produce status reports that summarize the community’s
progress with respect to its execution [11]. This effort has been a highly
successful element of centering the P5 plan in community-driven outreach
activities targeted at Congress. It is vital that this effort be continued,
ideally by the 2023 P5 chair, and supported until the next P5.

CEF06 Recommendation 2.3 – The P5 chair or equivalent should continue to
produce the one-pager (or equivalent) status reports that summarize the
community’s progress in executing the 2023 P5 plan annually.

Though status updates on P5 progress and priorities are presented at HEPAP and
similar venues, feedback provided by community members in the course of CEF06
proceedings indicates that these communications are not generally disseminated
to the broader HEP community. Prioritizing regular talks at APS, DPF, and
other HEP-wide conferences would help to keep the community engaged and
informed in the coming years as the 2023 P5 plan is executed.

CEF06 Recommendation 2.4 – HEPAP should provide regular status updates on P5
progress and priorities broadly within the HEP community through mechanisms
such as talks at APS, DPF, and other HEP-wide conferences to keep the
community engaged and informed as the 2023 P5 plan is executed.

Since the last P5, we have seen natural deviations from the plan laid out in
the 2014 P5 report due to budgetary changes, physics discoveries, the
development of new technologies, and shifts in Administration priorities.
Similar deviations should be expected throughout the execution of the 2023 P5
plan, forcing the funding agencies to choose how best to accommodate them. A
mechanism must be created to communicate such changes and deviations from the
P5 plan to the community as they arise. Specifically, these should be
communicated and explained to the community through written reports and
conference presentations. Additionally, mechanisms should be created to
facilitate community input into such decisions.

CEF06 Recommendation 2.5 – HEPAP must communicate to the community and provide
avenues for feedback when there are changes to the implementation of the 2023
P5 plan that arise due to evolving funding profiles, changes in Administration
or HEP priorities, or other external circumstances.

In addition to maintaining the infrastructure to respond to external
circumstances over the next decade, the community would be well-served by
developing the infrastructure to monitor internal circumstances, particularly
in areas where there is overlap with the activities outlined by P5. This
should include the systematic collection of data on an annual basis such as
the fraction of the HEP portfolio designated for research, and the size,
career breakdown, and diversity of community membership. Having these data
available will help to understand the full impact of the 2023 P5 plan over
time as it is implemented.

CEF06 Recommendation 2.6 – HEPAP should continuously assess the impact of the
2023 P5 plan on the community over the course of its implementation. This
should include providing mechanisms for community feedback on the impact of
the plan and monitoring relevant community metrics. Suggestions for metrics
include the fraction of the HEP funding portfolio allocated to research and
the size, growth, and diversity of the field.

###  4.3 Progress is Required on Community Engagement Topics

Tremendous progress has been made during this Snowmass cycle in the area of
“community engagement” topics. The activities of the Community Engagement
Frontier (CEF) were not focused on questions about the science that our
community engages in, but rather were focused on questions about how we do
science. Conversely, the P5 process is designed to produce a roadmap for the
particular science (organized into projects) that our community will undertake
in the coming years, but not necessarily to weigh in on the many factors that
will impact the ability of community members to engage in that work.

There is no precedent for the P5 report to include any “community engagement”
guidance or recommendations. And it is not clear that the P5 scope should be
expanded to include consideration of such topics. However, it is clear that
many of these topics are critical to the foundation of the HEP community and
there are many areas in which action must be taken to ensure the future
success of the field. Of particular concern is the talent that the community
stands to lose if progress is not made in areas that the early-career
generation of community members view to be highly important. At their core the
issues identified within CEF collectively represent a barrier to community
unity, and inaction in this area poses a severe threat the to the successful
implementation of the 2023 P5 plan.

CEF06 Recommendation 2.7 – DOE and NSF should include CEF topics in the P5
charge or create a separate HEPAP subpanel focused on CEF topics. Not all
topics within the purview of Snowmass CEF may be appropriate for such a HEPAP
subpanel, but this would provide an important mechanism for specific community
goals to be defined and our progress towards achieving them to be tracked.

##  5 Congressional Advocacy for HEP Funding

Community-driven advocacy is critical to sustaining strong support for HEP
funding and priorities. Historically (for the past 30+ years), this advocacy
has been centered on an annual trip to Washington, D.C. by a delegation of HEP
community members. The principal goal of this effort is for the delegation to
visit as many Congressional offices as possible. In meetings with Members of
Congress and their staff, community members share their excitement about HEP
research and solicit support for HEP from policymakers. This effort also
includes meetings with executive branch offices (OMB and OSTP) and
representatives of the funding agencies (DOE OS, DOE OS HEP, and NSF).

The goal of this effort is to cultivate support for the funding of physical
sciences research in general and HEP in particular. Community members discuss
the overall benefits of HEP and basic research with policymakers and deliver
an appropriations “Ask” for HEP funding. The “Ask” includes a request for
specific funding levels for each of DOE OS HEP and NSF. The timing of the trip
is chosen to align with the annual budgetary cycle when the budget is being
discussed by Congress (typically this is in March).

The percentage of offices visited has grown over the years as support for the
trip has grown. In 2010, 34 community members participated; by 2017 this
number rose to 50. In 2017 about 70% of House and Senate offices were visited.
Following an increase in funding that enabled greater participation, in 2019
100% of House and Senate offices were visited, and the number of trip
attendees approached 70. Coordinating the meetings of 70 community members
with up to 541111Including six non-voting members of the House of
Representatives. Congressional offices requires considerable organization.
Over the years, several sophisticated tools have been developed to support
these efforts.

The annual effort is jointly coordinated by the Fermilab Users Executive
Committee (UEC), SLAC Users Organization (SLUO), and U.S.-LHC Users
Association (USLUA), with input from the American Physical Society Division of
Particles and Fields (APS DPF) Executive Committee. The primary affiliations
of trip attendees in recent years have been 50%, 35%, and 15% with UEC, USLUA,
and SLUO, respectively. Attempts are made to recruit participants from
different career stages, demographics, and research areas, though the
organization of the trip is limited to the user groups. Historically, the
chair of the UEC Government Relations subcommittee has assumed the
responsibility of leading this organization.

Through election, the groups responsible for the organization of this effort
represent a large portion of the U.S. HEP community, but not the community as
a whole. There are constituencies within the HEP community that are
systematically excluded by focusing the organization within national
laboratory user groups. This was a topic of discussion during the proceedings
of CEF06, and though we did not arrive at a specific conclusion, we recommend
that this conversation be continued. In particular, the community should
consider the creation of a new group with elected membership to assume the
responsibility for organizing this effort that can be explicitly
representative of the entire HEP community.

CEF06 Recommendation 3 – Representatives of UEC, SLUO, USLUA, and APS DPF
should facilitate discussions to consider the formation of a more formal “HEP
Congressional advocacy” group to assume responsibility for organizing the
annual advocacy trip to Washington, D.C.
0.5pt2pt The formalization of such a group has the potential to streamline the
adoption of other recommendations in this report and to elevate the profile of
this important effort within the HEP community. Any discussions on this topic
should include other leaders of the HEP community and provide mechanisms for
feedback from community members.

Throughout this document we will use the term “HEP Congressional advocacy
group” to refer to the group responsible for organizing annual HEP community-
driven advocacy activities targeted at Congress, in its present form or any
hypothetical future form. The remainder of this section describes specific
aspects of the present organization of annual community-driven advocacy and
provides specific recommendations for how these activities can be improved.
The collection of these specific recommendations can be summarized by the more
general recommendation below that this important work needs to be sustained.

CEF06 Recommendation 4 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group must continue to
support, and should aim to grow, the annual HEP community-driven advocacy
activities.
0.5pt2pt The annual community-driven advocacy effort is essential to increase
knowledge and interest of HEP in Congress. Participation in these activities
should be encouraged within the community, and community leaders should
support efforts for continued development and growth of this effort.

###  5.1 HEP Advocacy Tools and Logistics

####  5.1.1 The Washington-HEP Integrated Planning System (WHIPS)

The Washington-HEP Integrated Planning System (WHIPS) is a framework developed
to handle most of the logistics of planning, executing, and documenting HEP
community advocacy activities. Aspects of the trip planning logistics were
developed by multiple individuals over many years, and a considerable effort
was undertaken in 2018 to consolidate these aspects into a unified framework.
WHIPS has significantly improved the efficiency of organizing, and thereby the
success of, the annual HEP advocacy effort. The functions that WHIPS
efficiently serve were previously handled manually, involving significant
last-minute work by the trip organizers. The development and maintenance of
WHIPS has been a voluntary activity by a small group of early-career community
members. Single points of failure and the lack of a clear plan to facilitate
knowledge transfer risk its long-term utility.

WHIPS stores information about trip attendees and their connections to states
and Congressional districts, details of Congressional offices and
(sub)committee assignments, and all future and past meetings between trip
attendees and Congressional staff. An algorithm has been developed that
assigns trip attendees to Congressional districts based on where the attendees
have lived, worked, voted, or have family. These connections between a
community member and a Member of Congress enable more focused meetings that
cater to that district’s or state’s priorities and in many cases provide a
foot in the door for setting up meetings. WHIPS has significantly contributed
to the recent success of the advocacy effort, in particular providing
technical capability to support the current number of trip participants and to
hit the target of visiting 100% of offices in 2019 [12].

We strongly endorse the continued utilization of this valuable resource, and
recommend that steps be taken to ensure that its maintenance and
administration be supported in future years. Specifically, we note that the
past and present developers of WHIPS are all early-career members of the
community without permanent (long-term) positions – this presents the
potential for expertise to become unavailable if developers move out of the
field as their careers progress. We note that during the proceedings of CEF06
it was suggested that community members with permanent positions could be
intentionally brought into the development team to get involved in the
maintenance and administration. Along the same line of reasoning, it has been
proposed that the administration and development of WHIPS be formally brought
under the ownership of one of the organizations that has historically led
community advocacy activities (or a future organization created more
specifically for the purpose of leading advocacy efforts).

CEF06 Recommendation 4.1 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group must ensure
continued access to and sustained maintenance of WHIPS, which has been
enormously additive to the annual advocacy efforts undertaken by the HEP
community.

We additionally note that the developers of WHIPS maintain a list of technical
features and functionalities that have been proposed by users and we observe
that action on these has historically been focused on the imminent needs of a
particular year’s advocacy efforts. The HEP Congressional advocacy group
should allocate labor and resources to continue the development of WHIPS
between advocacy cycles to better accommodate less-urgent but still worthwhile
development tasks.

####  5.1.2 Other Advocacy Tools

In addition to WHIPS, the annual advocacy effort has historically utilized
several other technologies to organize and execute activities each year. Two
of particular note are the “Twiki” page222We note that this is not a publicly
accessible resource, and therefore do not provide a reference to it.,
maintained by the Fermilab UEC, and the HEP funding website and grants
database [13]. Specific ideas which have been raised for how to expand the
utility of the grants database include tracking HEP grants by Congressional
district and developing improved metrics to track the fraction of NSF funding
that is used for HEP-specific projects and grants. The HEP Congressional
advocacy group should establish a long-term plan for the continued utilization
of these tools. This plan should include contingencies if underlying
technologies supporting these resources become unavailable. We also note that
progress has been made recently in importing aspects of the grants database
into WHIPS.

CEF06 Recommendation 4.2 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group should
establish a long-term plan for the continued utilization of all technical
tools that support HEP community advocacy activities, including the “Twiki”
and HEP funding website and grants database.

####  5.1.3 Internal Advocacy Diagnostics

We strongly endorse the development of improved tracking diagnostics to
understand the efficacy of HEP community advocacy activities. The advent of
WHIPS has made this much more technically feasible, and several specific
diagnostics are presently built into the WHIPS database system (e.g. tracking
the advocacy activities of individual community members and for individual
Congressional offices). However, we note that studies of such metrics are, by
definition, outside the scope of the planning for advocacy activities in any
individual year due to the long time scale on which their analysis would yield
valuable data. Therefore, a dedicated conversation should be undertaken by the
HEP Congressional advocacy group on this topic, and an intentional effort
should be made to expand the tracking of diagnostic information within WHIPS
or elsewhere. Examples of diagnostic information pertaining to the offices
visited that could be tracked in WHIPS include the voting records of
individual offices or Members of Congress, appropriations requests delivered
to offices, and signatories of the “Dear Colleague” letters. Also, diagnostic
information pertaining to the subset of the HEP community that engages in
advocacy should be developed – this suggestion is expanded on in Section 5.5.

CEF06 Recommendation 4.3 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group should
facilitate a conversation about advocacy diagnostics that would enable an
analysis of the long-term impact of HEP community advocacy and should identify
a plan for collecting relevant data.

###  5.2 Advocacy Training

Community members participating in HEP advocacy activities have varying a
priori levels of understanding of the U.S. budget and appropriations process,
how to communicate science, and how to interact with policymakers. They need
to be trained in these areas and in the day-to-day and meeting-specific
logistics of the advocacy trip. Over many years, training material has been
developed to educate participants on each topic quickly. In advance of the
trip each year several dedicated sessions are held to train trip attendees on
topics including: an overview of the U.S. budget process; how to efficiently
communicate about science; the specifics of that year’s “Ask”; WHIPS; how to
schedule meetings; and how to effectively participate in meetings. In recent
years veteran trip attendees have produced example videos showing how to
conduct meetings. In aggregate, these recordings cover a variety of styles and
scenarios reflective of the spread in how these meetings can take place.

These advocacy training resources have been critical to the recent success of
community-driven HEP advocacy activities and resources should continue to be
invested to support them. Additionally, a subset of these resources would be
beneficial to the broader HEP community for facilitating discussions between
community members and the general public about the societal impacts of our
field. Making these materials more broadly available within the community
would additionally have the effect of raising awareness within the community
of HEP advocacy activities.

CEF06 Recommendation 4.4 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group must ensure
that resources continue to be allocated to provide advocacy training to “DC
Trip” attendees. In addition, relevant parts of the training currently used
for this effort should be made more widely available to the community to
increase the community’s policy literacy overall, independently of the goals
of any year’s particular advocacy efforts.

###  5.3 Community Advocacy Inreach

The planning and execution of the annual community advocacy activities are
generally contained within a small subset ($\sim$100) of the community
composed mainly of members of the executive leadership of the user
organizations (Fermilab UEC, SLUO, and USLUA) and DPF, and some past trip
attendees. We strongly suggest that having more knowledge and discussion of
the activities in various formats would benefit the field and positively
impact our advocacy goals. For example, broader inreach into the community
would help us to achieve our goals to have a more representative group
participate in advocacy and to build stronger connections to every district.
The current state of community inreach about community-driven advocacy
activities is minimal. There are a limited number of updates provided to the
community each year at APS DPF and user group annual meetings, as well as
yearly updates provided to HEPAP at public meetings (beginning in 2017, see
Refs [14, 15, 16, 17, 18]). Additionally, some details are available in user
group meeting minutes, reports, and web pages. However, the overall reach of
these means of communication into the community is limited, and awareness of
advocacy efforts is generally deficient.

We recommend that a summary of annual advocacy activities regularly be
assembled in a document suitable for distribution within the community. We
note that a high-level executive summary is presented each year to HEPAP,
though its existence is not effectively broadcast within the community and it
is likely inaccessible to members of the community that lack the public policy
expertise of HEPAP. We additionally note that specific details of the trip may
not be suitable for consumption outside of the community (e.g. themes of
interactions with the offices of current Members of Congress), but believe
that these details can be omitted with due care taken in the preparation of a
summary. The goal of such a summary should be to increase awareness of
advocacy efforts in the community and to cultivate interest in participation
in future advocacy activities.

CEF06 Recommendation 4.5 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group should enhance
efforts to educate the HEP community about advocacy activities. This effort
should include invited and submitted talks at conferences, collaboration
meetings, and other community gatherings. The goal should be increasing
awareness of the trip and providing expanded opportunities for community
members to participate in organizing and engaging in advocacy activities. An
annual report summarizing community advocacy activities should be produced and
distributed widely within the community.

###  5.4 Continuity and Succession of Trip Leadership

The leadership of the annual advocacy trip has historically been provided by
the Fermilab UEC, SLUO, and USLUA, and has been directed by the chair of the
UEC Government Relations subcommittee. This model has its strengths, namely in
enabling the rotation of the time-intensive coordination of logistical aspects
of the effort among community members annually while simultaneously providing
the basis for institutional knowledge to be preserved within the executive
leadership of the three user groups. There are many nuances to planning the
annual advocacy effort which require the expertise of community members who
have repeatedly participated in this effort over many years and have developed
considerable experience. Examples of this nuance include sustained long-term
relationships with Congressional subcommittee staff and other elected
officials, logistical expertise, and experience communicating legislative
details with career staff members at OMB and OSTP.

It has been noted repeatedly by community members that the model in use is
susceptible to single points of failure in the form of individuals relied upon
for a disproportionate amount of subject matter expertise. Specifically, it
has been suggested that a plan be developed to intentionally expand the pool
of community members that have specialized knowledge in the following key
advocacy areas:

  * •

Organizing meetings with funding agencies and executive branch agencies during
the annual trip to Washington, D.C.;

  * •

Organizing and conducting meetings with (sub)committee staff during the annual
trip to Washington, D.C.; and

  * •

Development and administration of WHIPS and other technical elements of the
infrastructure that enables HEP community advocacy.

We recommend that the executive leadership of the user groups and DPF have
dedicated discussions to assess the robustness of advocacy leadership
continuity and identify steps that can be taken to mitigate points of failure.

CEF06 Recommendation 4.6 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group should
prioritize the creation of documentation to guide future advocacy effort
leaders in the planning of annual activities and this documentation should be
made broadly accessible within the community.

###  5.5 Improving Representation in Advocacy Activities

The groups historically represented by the organizers of annual advocacy
activities provide broad, but not complete, academic representation for the
U.S. HEP community. For example, theorists make up a smaller fraction of the
users community than the whole HEP community because the national laboratories
focus primarily on experimental efforts. It is also the case that most
participants in the annual advocacy efforts have historically been members of
the Energy and Intensity333We note that the Intensity Frontier, as defined in
the proceedings of Snowmass 2013, maps nearly onto the Neutrino and Rare
Process Frontiers, as defined in the proceedings of Snowmass 2021. Frontiers,
with smaller representation from the Theory, Cosmic, Computational, and
Instrumentation Frontiers. There is no comprehensive demographic information
available for participation in annual advocacy activities, especially farther
back than recent years. Still, there is some information available from post-
trip surveys in recent years which supports these assertions.

According to the last few years of data, approximately one-third of
participants have been postdocs, one-third professors or national laboratory
scientists, and the final third has been distributed between Ph.D. students
and other university or laboratory staff. It is expected (and indeed intended)
that the demographics of the group will skew towards early career members of
the community, but more could be done to increase the representation of
graduate students in particular.

Historically, participation by underrepresented and marginalized groups in the
advocacy efforts has not been explicitly tracked. The users groups must take
actions to quantify and improve representation through the invitation of
individuals or by working with groups representing underrepresented and
marginalized demographics in HEP.

CEF06 Recommendation 4.7 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group should track
the demographics of individuals engaging in community-driven advocacy
activities, and efforts must be made for the demographics of participants in
these activities to be representative of the field.

We note that the creation of a dedicated HEP Congressional advocacy group with
directly elected membership, as suggested in Recommendation 3, could provide
an avenue to more completely reflect the demographics of the field. This would
be particularly relevant to broadening the participation of community members
based at smaller institutions, or who are otherwise unaffiliated with the
national laboratories.

###  5.6 Expanded Time Frame for Community Advocacy

The majority of existing HEP community advocacy activities center on an annual
trip to Washington, D.C. in the Spring, generally timed to coincide with the
drafting of appropriations and authorizations bills at the subcommittee level
in Congress. There is some precedent for additional, targeted, in-person
advocacy in Washington, D.C. by a smaller delegation. In these cases, the trip
is timed to coincide with debate surrounding the final details of the budget,
generally in the Fall. During the proceedings of CEF06 community members
repeatedly observed that there is the potential to expand the scope of
advocacy efforts to regularly include such “off-cycle” activities. These off-
cycle activities could also include, for example, trips to district offices
(rather than to Washington, D.C. offices) in the Fall to reinforce the
messaging delivered each Spring.

Expanding the time frame in which the community engages in advocacy would
provide the opportunity to boost participation (i.e. increased participation
by a broader subset of the community), albeit at the expense of additional
resources required on the organizational/management side. We note that such an
effort would have been prohibitively resource-intensive before the advent of
WHIPS and that WHIPS potentially lowers the threshold for introducing
additional advocacy activities to an acceptable level. One idea which has been
suggested is to create a new profile tier within WHIPS to provide community
members with the resources (e.g. automatically generated letters) to engage in
targeted advocacy of their local (Congressional) offices.

It is worth carefully considering the marginal increase in resources required
to sustain additional advocacy efforts throughout the year beyond what is
already required to support the current advocacy model. We do not offer a
recommendation as to whether such a model of more continuous advocacy is
appropriate. However, we recommend that a conversation around this topic be
facilitated with more careful consideration of the potential costs and
benefits.

CEF06 Recommendation 4.8 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group should
investigate the potential for year-round advocacy as an extension of annual
HEP Congressional advocacy activities.

##  6 HEP Communication and Outreach Materials

A vital resource for HEP community-driven advocacy activities is a series of
informational pamphlets designed to concisely relay the community’s most
important messages in a visually appealing and accessible manner. These
materials, which are available on the U.S. particle physics website [19] are
jointly maintained by APS DPF, UEC, SLUO, and USLUA. In addition to serving as
an important resource for advocacy activities, they serve the larger purpose
of communicating about HEP and its benefits to a general audience, and they
have multiple applications of which advocacy activities are just one.

These community communication and outreach materials are essential to the
Congressional HEP community-driven advocacy strategy but are separate from it
in key respects. During the HEP Congressional visits, these materials serve a
dual purpose: to provide a conversation piece during meetings and to leave a
reference guide for Congressional staff as they make their recommendations
following our meetings with them. We note that due to the Hatch Act of 1939,
government employees are expressly barred from engaging in political
activities, so these materials have always been communication material and
explicitly do not advocate for any area of government support. Their purpose
is to inform non-community-members in general about HEP and its benefits.

A committee of volunteers is formed to produce this material and update it on
an annual basis. This committee is composed of representatives from the UEC,
USLUA, and SLUO, with support from the Fermilab Office of Communication, DOE,
and the former P5 chair. Recently, this effort has been supported by a member
of DOE who has helped the community coordinate the drafting of these materials
and has served as a repository of knowledge and as the group leader, ensuring
that steady progress is made on schedule. We note that the contributions of
various individuals have been extremely helpful in crafting the trip materials
but that there is no formal requirement that this support is provided by the
Fermilab Office of Communication, DOE, or by the former P5 chair. There is a
risk that this support may someday end, and it would behoove the community to
identify a way of maintaining records and support from these organizations and
individuals.

Below is a list of the documents produced through this effort and the aspect
of HEP that each seeks to explain.

  * •

Particle Physics Progress and Priorities. Annually updated, this document
examines the HEP community’s recent accomplishments and the priorities for the
upcoming year within the focus of the P5 plan.

  * •

Particle Physics is Discovery Science. This document discusses the broad
questions the HEP community is trying to answer and how they tie back to big
questions called out in the 2014 P5 report.

  * •

Particle Physics Makes a Difference in Your Life. This document discusses some
ways in which HEP has impacted other fields and industries.

  * •

Particle Physics Builds STEM Leaders. This document discusses the outreach and
public engagement activities of the HEP community.

  * •

Particle Physicists Value Diversity and Strive Toward Equity. This document
contains a statement of HEP community values, describes current diversity,
equity, and inclusion goals, and highlights ongoing programs designed to
empower and provide opportunities for historically underrepresented and
marginalized groups.

  * •

Particle Physicists Deliver Discovery Science Through Collaboration. This
document shows that HEP is an international effort involving some of the best
minds worldwide. It also summarizes the plans, timelines, and present status
of projects identified in the 2014 P5 report.

  * •

Particle Physicists Advance Artificial Intelligence. This document explains
how the HEP community uses machine learning (ML) and successfully interfaces
with industrial partners to push the boundaries of ML research and
development.

  * •

Particle Physics and Quantum Information Science. This document discusses the
benefits of QIS, the skill sets that make particle physicists valuable in
these endeavors, and how QIS developments can, in turn, help solve fundamental
problems in our science.

  * •

Particle Physics in the U.S. Map. This map shows the distribution of
institutions involved in HEP that receive funding from either DOE or NSF.

CEF06 Recommendation 5 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group must continue
support for the development and maintenance of HEP Communication materials,
working with the 2023 P5 chair and other experts as needed.
0.5pt2pt High quality and well-developed communication and outreach materials
are essential for effective government outreach, and their quality reflects
directly on how our field is perceived. Investment in these important
resources must be continued, and they should be made more broadly available
within the community.

##  7 Community Advocacy on Topics Beyond HEP Funding

The existing framework for HEP community-driven advocacy is focused on
cultivating general support for and awareness of basic research and HEP
activities within Congress, with the explicit purpose of maintaining and
growing the funding of the field. As discussed in Section 6, a vital element
of this effort is fostering discussions about non-funding topics (e.g. the
impact that HEP developments have on society). Still, these are discussed only
to the extent that they directly support the budget-oriented priorities of
targeted advocacy activities.

Many topics beyond federal funding significantly impact HEP research and
researchers. Throughout the proceedings of CEF06, extensive discussions took
place about how the community might organize or participate in other
government engagement for such topics which are not directly tied to the
funding of the field. In this section, we briefly introduce a small number of
these topics, discuss how these topics sometimes arise in conversations with
Congressional offices in the context of existing (funding) advocacy and
highlight external resources available to community members to engage in
meaningful advocacy in this area. Additional details on many of these topics
are available in the CEF03 (Diversity & Inclusion) topical group report [20].

###  7.1 Legislative Topics Impacting HEP

Below are examples of topics that directly impact the HEP community and
individuals within the community. These examples all share the potential to be
significantly affected by policy actions of the U.S. federal legislature. We
note that this list is not exhaustive and that more details about these topics
are available in Refs. [4] and [20].

“Diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) has become a catch-all term for a
broad array of issues that marginalized communities experience which impact
every aspect of HEP research and all HEP researchers. One example of a policy
change within this area is expanded access to resources to perform research
provided by the America Creating Opportunities for Manufacturing, Pre-Eminence
in Technology, and Economic Strength (COMPETES) Act. Many small colleges and
universities have historically had limited opportunities to participate in
research. This group includes Historically Black Colleges and Universities
(HBCUs), other minority-serving institutions (MSIs), and non-R-1 and smaller
institutions, such as liberal-arts colleges and others without graduate
programs. The COMPETES Act, recently passed by the U.S. House of
Representatives, includes a program to increase funding to such small
institutions [21].

U.S. immigration policy is a vital issue because of the international nature
of HEP. Many scientists come to the U.S. to pursue education or academic
positions, collaborate with U.S. scientists, and use U.S. research facilities.
Many U.S. scientists similarly work and perform research outside the U.S. An
example of an issue in this area which can be addressed through policy is the
uncertainty and opacity inherent in the current U.S. immigration system which
imposes substantial physical and psychological costs on HEP researchers and
reduces the field’s efficiency and productivity. In addition, the widespread
practice of educating Ph.D. researchers in the U.S. while providing few paths
for visas or permanent residency for graduates afterward harms national
competitiveness in R&D. An example of policy targeting this issue is the Keep
STEM Talent Act [22]. This policy makes individuals who earned master’s or
Ph.D. degrees in STEM fields in the U.S. automatically eligible to apply for
permanent residency in the U.S. A recent APS report [23] discusses the of
international researchers on U.S. science.

“Research security” is a concept that has experienced increasing emphasis
recently, with largely detrimental consequences. While the need for extreme
care and caution is widely acknowledged to protect intellectual propriety,
basic research has always benefited from openness and collaboration, including
throughout the Cold War. The recent introduction of “sensitive” areas of
research and corresponding concerns about “foreign talent recruitment
programs” have been seen to have a widely-reported negative effect on
international collaboration, especially with Chinese institutions and
researchers [24, 25].

“National laboratories access” refers to physical access to the U.S. National
laboratories as well as access to their resources, and discussions about
restrictions to such access have increased in recent years. U.S. national
laboratories host substantial HEP experimental resources and infrastructure
that are critical for research. Even laboratories nominally open to the public
often have stricter access restrictions than other research institutions, such
as universities. Individuals who originate from “countries of concern” may be
barred from accessing otherwise publicly available resources based on a
background check for which there is limited transparency and no appeal.
Researchers visiting for workshops or conferences may be denied visas without
transparency or appeal. Denying these visas harms those researchers and U.S.
HEP as a whole: critical research may be delayed or even abandoned, and the
international community is increasingly viewing the U.S. as an inhospitable
location for hosting important meetings.

“Basic science funding” and federal spending on R&D has been decreasing as a
percentage of GDP for four decades, a trend which has not been observed
globally. Therefore, although HEP has seen an increase in funding in recent
years, science spending in the U.S., despite growing in absolute terms, has
not kept up with economic growth or with international trends [26, 27].
Numerous studies have calculated positive rates of return from basic research
ranging from 20% to nearly 100%, depending on various economic assumptions
[28, 29], which indicate that the U.S. could realize substantial economic and
social gains by increasing science funding well above present levels.

###  7.2 Current Implicit Advocacy

Some of the above issues, plus others, are touched on in the materials that
the community uses in its current government engagement (described in Section
6). While materials that touch on these issues are part of the more extensive
discussion about the benefits of supporting particle physics, existing
community advocacy activities do not include advocacy for specific changes or
policies in these areas. The materials and the message about topics other than
HEP funding are crafted by a small group of volunteers connected to the annual
Congressional advocacy effort. It has been noted (see Ref. [3]) that this
group is not fully representative of our field and does not have a mechanism
for broader community input to be incorporated into these messages. These
topics all fall within a category of issues with general community support,
but the question remains if more expert input or explicit consensus-building
is needed or may be needed in the case of future issues.

The following items are topics that are implicitly advocated for as a core
component of existing community advocacy activities. The specific document
that discusses each topic follows the topics in parentheses. We note that this
is not an exhaustive list.

  * •

STEM education (Particle Physics Builds STEM Leaders).

  * •

International collaboration; international and open science (Particle
Physicists Deliver Discovery Science Through Collaboration).

  * •

DEI activities (Particle Physicists Value Diversity and Strive Toward Equity).

  * •

Emerging technologies; QIS and AI (Particle Physics and Quantum Information
Science, Particle Physicists Advance Artificial Intelligence).

  * •

Basic research support as a driver of U.S. innovation, economic development,
and national security (Particle Physics Makes a Difference in Your Life).

###  7.3 External Resources for Non-budgetary Advocacy

While the HEP community does not presently engage in advocacy on any topic
apart from the HEP budget, external resources exist within the larger research
community to facilitate government engagement on these topics. These groups,
which represent the broader physics and science communities, have considerably
greater resources than the HEP community alone. Below we summarize some
physics-specific groups and point out relevant considerations for
understanding how their resources could benefit the HEP community.

The American Physical Society (APS) is a nonprofit membership organization
representing physicists within the U.S. The mission of this group is to
advance and disseminate physics knowledge and advocate for the needs of
physicists and scientists at large. APS advocates for many non-funding
legislative issues of importance to the physics community. However, the HEP
community is only a subset of the broader APS membership. APS is a trade
organization available to all physicists, but the annual fee may limit
participation. APS also offers Congressional Science Fellowships, which aid
Congress by providing scientifically literate, skilled personnel. Raising
awareness of this program in the HEP community could be beneficial.

The American Institute of Physics (AIP) is another organization that works to
promote and advance the physical sciences. AIP is an umbrella organization
that pools the resources of 10 member societies, including APS. As an umbrella
organization, AIP can help coordinate the individual members’ activities and
messages. AIP also provides a Congressional staff program, very similar to the
one provided by APS. AIP, too, should be promoted as a resource within the HEP
community.

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) is mostly known
through its journal Science and policy fellowship program. Its goal of
advancing science means that it has an active government engagement group
which provides training programs and has significant resources. AAAS hosts
various groups to get scientists involved in policy, such as the Local Science
Engagement Network and National Science Policy Network. AAAS is an
underutilized resource within the HEP community, even more so than APS and
AIP. Details are available on the AAAS website [30].

###  7.4 Taking Action on Topics beyond HEP funding

The examples outlined above and others are widely considered within the HEP
community to be important. However, there exists no consensus on whether
action should be taken by the community to influence policy in these area, let
alone what specific actions would be appropriate. During the proceedings of
CEF06, some individual community members advocated that existing HEP community
advocacy resources be leveraged to undertake an expanded scope of advocacy
activities. Other individual community members cautioned that engaging in such
activities would lead to repercussions that impact the entire field. The
specifics of these conversations are elaborated on in Ref. [4]. At present, we
recommend that this conversation be continued and expanded upon. Additionally,
we recommend that the minimal available action be taken, which would be to
direct community members to available external resources so that they are
better equipped to participate in advocacy in this area if they choose.

CEF06 Recommendation 6 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group and APS DPF
executive committee should identify an existing community group or create a
new one to take ownership of strengthening connections between the HEP
community and science and physics societies, including APS, AIP, and AAAS, and
continuing conversations about how the HEP community can engage in advocacy
for topics beyond HEP funding.
0.5pt2pt The purpose of strengthening these connections should be to leverage
external expertise on advocating for DEI, immigration policy, R&D, basic
science funding reform, and other areas that impact HEP. Maintaining strong
connections between the HEP community and these external groups will expand
the resources easily available to HEP community members in these areas. The
HEP group tasked with strengthening these connections to external groups
should also facilitate an expanded discussion around the potential for HEP-
specific community advocacy in these areas.

##  8 Community Interactions with the Funding Agencies

The inner workings of the funding agencies are highly relevant to HEP research
and to individual HEP researchers, particularly as they progress through the
earlier stages of career development. Robust channels of communication must
exist between the funding agencies and the HEP community, and existing
mechanisms are insufficient. The specifics of the granting processes at each
of DOE and NSF, and expanding opportunities to improve feedback mechanisms
regarding them, are of particular note within the community. Additionally, the
power dynamic present between researchers and the funding agencies presents a
substantial barrier to all interactions between them which needs to be
addressed.

CEF06 Recommendation 7 – DOE and NSF should improve existing communication
channels and create new ones, as necessary, to enable improved HEP community
feedback to the funding agencies.
0.5pt2pt HEP community members have substantive opinions about how our
community interfaces with the funding agencies and lack sufficient avenues to
provide feedback to them. Any steps taken to improve communication should
include the development of mechanisms for community-level, individual, and
anonymous feedback to be provided on topics including the climate of the field
and the granting process. Transparency about what feedback is provided and
what actions are taken to address feedback should be a key element of the
solution.

The remainder of this section describes the current state of channels for
communication between the HEP community and the funding agencies, followed by
specific feedback about known deficiencies with recommendations for how to
address them.

###  8.1 Existing Mechanisms for Communication with the Funding Agencies

There exist groups, such as HEPAP and the Committees of Visitors (CoVs), that
have the explicit mandate to liaise between the HEP community and the funding
agencies. Although the membership of these groups is not community-driven
(e.g. through election), their compositions are specifically chosen to reflect
the demographics of the field, and their members are generally well-respected
within the HEP community. The primary role of these groups, as defined by the
funding agencies, is to represent community interests to the funding agencies.
While in principle their existence provides a conduit for individual community
members to provide feedback to the funding agencies, in practice the available
methods are flawed. HEPAP holds regular public meetings, at which time is
always explicitly allocated for public comments. While this allows individual
community members to speak directly to the funding agencies, the nature of
these meetings (in particular, the attendance of Congressional and executive
branch staff members) in practice limits the nature of feedback that
individuals are comfortable sharing. Community members also may provide
feedback directly to individual HEPAP or CoV members to be passed on to the
funding agencies, however this avenue for feedback is biased toward later-
career-stage individuals in the field that are more likely to have personal
relationships with members of these groups.

Regular meetings between Principal Investigators (PIs) and program managers at
the funding agencies are a vital feature of the relationship between the
funding agencies and the HEP community and provide another mechanism for
direct feedback to be provided by community members. At these meetings, the
program managers describe current funding opportunities, changes in funding
opportunities compared to previous years, and present the overall state of
funding for HEP, and PIs are given an opportunity to directly provide feedback
on the granting process or any other topics to the funding agencies.
Participation in these meetings is generally restrictive enough that it
excludes individuals (e.g. early career community members applying for faculty
positions) that may be interested in attending and could benefit.
Simultaneously these meetings are well-attended enough to potentially
disincentivize attendees from providing negative feedback because of how they
may be perceived negatively by other community members, thereby adversely
impacting their potential for career advancement. We note that many PIs
additionally organize one-on-one meetings with their program managers before
submitting grant applications and that program managers organize community
meetings, at APS DPF for example.

The merit and comparative grant review processes internal to the funding
agencies also provide feedback mechanisms. DOE and NSF review panels provide
explicit avenues for soliciting feedback from grant applicants and grant
reviewers as part of their processes. However, we note that both applicants
and reviewers may not feel comfortable giving negative feedback to the funding
agencies because they may believe that it will negatively impact their current
and future grant applications, respectively. Input received is shared with the
Office of HEP, in the case of DOE grant reviews, and with the NSF Physics
Division, in the case of NSF grant reviews. Larger-scale aspects of the
application and review processes are managed at the agency or executive branch
level, which may raise the bar for feedback to propagate up and for responses
to propagate back to the HEP level. Additionally, DOE and NSF are distinct
agencies with distinct granting processes, structures, and requirements.
Feedback leading to change in one agency may not effect change in the other.
For example, NSF explicitly solicits applicants to comment on their outreach
activities, while the DOE does not. Finally, we note that the feedback
mechanisms built into both agencies’ review processes do not provide a means
to supply feedback anonymously.

Snowmass also provides a mechanism for community feedback to be provided to
the funding agencies, and the Community Engagement Frontier (CEF) in this
current Snowmass cycle has taken advantage of this opportunity to generate
critical feedback and recommendations. As discussed earlier in this report,
there is reasonable concern that the impact of these recommendations will be
minimized by the lack of an infrastructure designed to receive them. While the
P5 panel is charged with distilling the physics recommendations of Snowmass
into an actionable plan, there is no comparable entity in place to advance CEF
recommendations.

###  8.2 Steps to Improve Communication with the Funding Agencies

Throughout the proceedings of CEF06, many community members expressed their
feeling that there are limited mechanisms available for them to provide
feedback to the funding agencies or that the existing tools are insufficient
(as noted above). The deficiencies in available communication mechanisms all
arise from a small number of underlying issues that should be addressed
directly.

The power dynamics between researchers and representatives of the funding
agencies, as well as, between researchers of different career stages poses a
fundamental barrier to the free exchange of constructive criticism. It is
important to recognize that these power dynamics are especially acute for
researchers that are members of marginalized communities. A key element of a
solution to this problem is to provide anonymous methods for feedback. Another
element that should be considered is the utilization of existing community
resources (e.g. user groups, the DPF executive committee, and collaboration
spokespeople) to facilitate communication between individual community members
and the funding agencies.

CEF06 Recommendation 7.1 – DOE and NSF should work to reduce barriers created
through the perceived power dynamic between community members and funding
agency representatives. Simple communication paths should be created and
widely advertised within the research community, including mechanisms that
enable anonymous feedback.

It is important for early-career members of the community to fully participate
in the long-term planning of our field, yet few dedicated channels exist to
facilitate their communication with the funding agencies. Early-career
researchers are less likely to be aware of existing communication channels,
and in many cases the failings of the available channels (as noted above) pose
even greater barriers to them. Many graduate students and postdocs would
benefit from opportunities to interact directly with representatives of the
funding agencies and to learn about how funding for HEP works. The postdoc-to-
faculty transition is one example of a topic which is uniquely relevant to
both early-career researchers and the funding agencies. We encourage the
funding agencies to expand access to all existing communication channels to
all members of the research community.

CEF06 Recommendation 7.2 – DOE and NSF should take actions to facilitate
communications with HEP researchers at all career stages, with an emphasis on
expanding resources available to early-career researchers.

The specifics of the granting processes at DOE and NSF was a recurring topic
through the proceedings of multiple topical groups in CEF. Many community
members have opinions about how these processes could be improved but feel
that there are insufficient channels available to them to provide feedback on
this topic to the funding agencies. Additionally, there is broad confusion
about which aspects of the granting process are mandated by the agencies or
executive branch and which are legislated by Congress. Within the proceedings
of CEF06, the granting process was discussed in a number of contexts,
including DEI and accessibility, marginalized communities, and the emphasis
placed on community engagement activities in grant applications. A detailed
summary of these discussions can be found in Section 2.4 of Ref. [5] and
Section 7.2 of Ref. [3] discusses empirical findings of bias in the grant
review process. We recommend that the funding agencies facilitate dedicated
conversations in this area with the HEP community, so that these opinions can
be conveyed directly.

CEF06 Recommendation 7.3 – DOE and NSF should facilitate dialogue with the HEP
community about their granting processes and provide explicit opportunities
for feedback in this area to be provided by community members.

##  9 Expanding the Scope of HEP Government Engagement

The proceedings of CEF06 provided a unique opportunity for the policy-minded
subset of the HEP community to reflect on how we, as a community, engage with
the government at all levels. Critically, these conversations occurred outside
the scope of a particular year’s advocacy activities, which provided the space
for longer-term, bigger-picture, and farther-reaching ideas to be discussed. A
high-level summary of these discussions is presented below along with targeted
suggestions for how to continue exploring these ideas. A more complete summary
of the discussion about these topics and others is available in Sections 3-5
of Ref. [5] and Section 7 of Ref. [3].

###  9.1 Executive Branch Engagement

As part of the annual community-driven advocacy activities, community members
meet with two agencies within the Executive Office of the President (EOP): the
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB). OSTP’s role is to advise the President and others within EOP
on science and technology policy matters. OMB’s role is to allocate funding to
executive branch agencies in line with Congress’s authorizations and
appropriations bills. OSTP and OMB release an annual joint memorandum of their
budget priorities – this document serves as a driver of the conversation
between representatives of the HEP community in the meetings with these
agencies. In these meetings the details and justification for the HEP
appropriations requests are discussed, and community members provide a summary
of our field’s status and top priorities for the coming year. The staffing
within these agencies is often tied to a specific Administration, so there is
generally high turnover. Thus, meeting regularly with the agencies provides a
good opportunity to inform new staff about HEP priorities. The meetings also
provide an opportunity to learn about the current Administration’s priorities
and to discuss the content of the preceding year’s joint memorandum.

While these meetings in principle cover the same topics as the meetings
between community members and Congressional staff, there are important
differences reflective of the distinct priorities of the executive and
legislative branches of the federal government. At present, our strategy is
not optimized to fully account for these differences, though there are well-
defined steps that could be taken to make this optimization and thereby
increase the impact of this effort.

The annual advocacy trip to Washington, D.C. is timed to have maximal impact
on the Congressional stage of the budget cycle, meaning that these meetings
with OSTP and OMB occur after the time that would have the maximal impact on
the executive stage of the budget cycle (i.e. when the President’s Budget
Request is being developed). Given sufficient resources, or perhaps by
transitioning to a virtual model for these executive branch meetings, our
community could meet with both legislative and executive branches at the
optimal times for each.

The materials used in these meetings are currently the standard HEP
communication materials described in Section 6, which are targeted primarily
at a general audience, rather than at policy experts. Additionally, the
development of a strategy for these meetings is generally done within a subset
of the “DC trip” organizers without additional input from government relations
experts beyond what has been collected already for the Congressional advocacy
effort. The production of new outreach materials and messaging points targeted
specifically at the executive branch agencies, along with specific training on
the role of these groups provided to meeting attendees, would significantly
benefit our engagement in this area.

The impact of community interactions with executive branch agencies can be
high. Prior to the development and successful implementation of the 2014 P5
report, it was feedback from these agencies about the importance of unity in
our field that led the HEP community to rally around the 2014 P5 plan. The
2013 Snowmass process, the 2014 P5 report, and the robust community unity
around its implementation were direct responses to this feedback, and have
been perceived positively. While it is difficult to isolate and quantify the
impact of the community response to this feedback, we do know that OHEP
funding in the President’s Budget Request increased between 2015 and 2017 (see
Fig. 1).

CEF06 Recommendation 8 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group should work to
improve HEP community engagement of the executive branch, especially OMB and
OSTP.
0.5pt2pt Steps should be taken to optimize community-driven advocacy targeted
at these groups and to separate the logistics of this effort from the
community-driven advocacy targeted at Congress. Meetings with these agencies
should be timed for maximum impact on the development of the President’s
Budget Request. Specialized outreach materials and messaging points should be
developed, and HEP community members meeting with these agencies should
receive specialized training.

###  9.2 State and Local Government Engagement

There is currently no HEP community-driven advocacy or systematic engagement
of government bodies in the U.S. below the federal level, i.e. at the state
and local levels. Yet, the relationships between HEP institutions and
facilities and their state and local governments are important. These
institutions and facilities in many cases do have formal relationships with
their government representatives at all levels, ranging from governors to
aldermen. An example of a group with the express purpose of facilitating this
type of relationship is the Fermilab Community Advisory Board, that “provides
ongoing advice and guidance related to the future of the laboratory. The Board
gives feedback on proposed new projects, reviews planned construction
activities, advises Fermilab on all forms of public participation, and acts as
a liaison with local organizations and communities.” [31]. Strong
relationships between HEP facilities and their local communities are highly
beneficial to both the HEP community and to the general public – this is
expanded on in Section 3 of Ref. [32] and in Ref. [33].

During the proceedings of CEF06, the potential for expanding HEP community-
wide advocacy to the state and local levels was discussed. There are many
cases where existing tools and resources could be adapted to such new
engagement with minimal effort. There is precedent from localized examples
which indicates that increased engagement between the HEP community and state
and local government officials has been beneficial. We recommend that steps be
taken to develop a standard HEP community approach to engaging state and local
governments. An effort should be undertaken to understand the potential direct
impacts and the resources needed for the organized engagement of state and
local governments relevant for key HEP facilities, including Fermilab, SLAC,
BNL, and SURF.

CEF06 Recommendation 9 – The HEP Congressional advocacy group and APS DPF
executive committee should facilitate discussions to explore the potential
advantages to systematic engagement of local and state governments.
0.5pt2pt The goal of these discussions should be understanding the potential
costs and benefits of allocating resources for such activities. Specific
locations of particular relevance to HEP activities should be identified to
guide these discussions.

###  9.3 Rethinking Basic Research in the U.S.

The majority of conversations that occurred throughout the proceedings of
CEF06 were focused on the potential for directly expanding existing HEP
community government engagement activities to increase their collective depth
(e.g. investing additional resources in the annual D.C. trip) and breadth
(e.g. exploring options for improved communication with the funding agencies).
However some time was also spent discussing the role that the HEP community
could play in broader movements within the U.S. scientific community related
to fundamental aspects of how research is funded and prioritized in this
country. While we do not assert any specific recommendation in this area, we
feel that the ideas themselves merit broader dissemination and hope that they
can be robustly discussed within the community in the future. Two examples of
such topics are discussed below.

First, federal funding for scientific research in the U.S., despite growing in
absolute terms, has not kept up with economic growth or with international
trends. This is reflected in funding for research and development (R&D) in the
U.S., which has been decreasing as a fraction of GDP for over thirty years,
while investments into research have drastically increased in foreign nations
such as China [3]. These facts, along with the known substantial economic
returns from investments in science funding [28, 29], merit consideration of
substantially expanding the funding for scientific research beyond present
levels. As noted earlier (see Section 7.2), HEP community-driven advocacy
already includes implicit support of basic research as a national priority,
though present activities fall far short of the dramatic increase in
investment in this area that is advocated by others.

Second, the processes used by funding agencies to award grants to researchers
are known to be imperfect. HEP community members are aware that the
bureaucracy involved with applying for and managing grants consumes
substantial resources – this is a trend that has been studied and well
characterized within the broader scientific community [34, 35, 36, 37].
Studies of granting processes have additionally shown significant biases
inherent in the peer-review systems used to review grant applications [38, 39,
40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49]. Proposals of alternate schemes that
could be implemented to award grants exist, including equally dividing all
available funds amongst the pool of all eligible researchers [50] and
lotteries to randomly award grants amongst eligible applicants [51, 52, 53].
HEP community-driven advocacy presently do not include any conversations with
Congressional offices about the inner workings of the funding agencies, beyond
the highest levels of how funding is distributed to support HEP research.

Both of these examples are topics which should be widely and openly discussed
within the HEP and U.S. research communities. Advocating for such big picture
changes in how science works in the U.S. is an area where the HEP community
could assume a leading role in the broader scientific community by leveraging
our significant expertise in government engagement and in particular in
interacting with Congress. These topics and others are discussed in greater
detail in Section 7 of Ref. [3].

##  10 Conclusion

We have presented a summary of the findings and recommendations of the
Snowmass group focused on Public Policy & Government Engagement, Community
Engagement Frontier topical group #6 (CEF06). The charge of CEF06 was to
review how the HEP community engages with government at all levels and all
related topics. Among the topics investigated were how public policy impacts
members of the HEP community and the HEP community at large and the issue of
awareness within the HEP community of direct community-driven engagement of
the U.S. federal government. The proceedings of CEF06 through 2020 and 20221
culminated in three Snowmass contributed papers [3, 4, 5]. The contents of
these papers are summarized in this report and distilled into 9 major
recommendations and 18 additional subrecommendations.

The authors of this report, the conveners of CEF06, would like to thank all of
the HEP community members who participated in the proceedings of our group,
and to all community members that participated in the efforts of the Community
Engagement Frontier overall. Work in this area is woefully undervalued, but
critical for the survival of our field. We would specifically like to thank
the conveners of the Community Engagement Frontier who have dedicated
themselves for the past three years to this important work and who have
championed the value of community engagement activities throughout the entire
Snowmass process.

## References

  * [1] M. Bardeen, D. Cronin-Hennessy, H. White and K. Yurkewicz, _Communication with U.S. Policy Makers and Opinion Leaders_ , https://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C1307292/docs/CommunicationEducationOutreach/PolicyMakers-51.pdf, 2013\.
  * [2] _CEF06 Indico page_ , https://indico.fnal.gov/category/1160/.
  * [3] M. Carneiro et al., _Snowmass ’21 Community Engagement Frontier 6: Public Policy and Government Engagement: Congressional Advocacy for HEP Funding (The “DC Trip”)_ , 2022.  https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.00122.
  * [4] R. Diurba et al., _Snowmass ’21 Community Engagement Frontier 6: Public Policy and Government Engagement: Congressional Advocacy for Areas Beyond HEP Funding_ , 2022.  https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.00124.
  * [5] R. Diurba et al., _Snowmass ’21 Community Engagement Frontier 6: Public Policy and Government Engagement: Non-Congressional Government Engagement_ , 2022\.  https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.00125.
  * [6] DOE OS, _HEPAP charge_ , https://science.osti.gov/hep/hepap/-/media/hep/pdf/files/pdfs/HEPAP_Charter_2021_signed.pdf.
  * [7] P5 sub panel, _2013 P5 Report_ , https://science.osti.gov/-/media/hep/pdf/files/pdfs/p5report_final.pdf.
  * [8] P5 sub panel, _2008 P5 Report_ , https://science.osti.gov/-/media/hep/pdf/files/pdfs/p5_report_06022008.pdf.
  * [9] DOE OS, _2013 P5 Charge_ , https://science.osti.gov/-/media/hep/pdf/files/COV/P5_Charge_2013.pdf.
  * [10] J. Siegrist, _DOE presentation HEPAP March 2022_ , 2022.  https://science.osti.gov/hep/hepap/Meetings/202203.
  * [11] APS Division of Particles and Fields, Fermilab Users Executive Committee, SLAC Users Organization, and the U.S. Large Hadron Collider Users Association, _U.S. Particle Physics Progress and Priorities_ , March, 2022.  https://www.usparticlephysics.org/.
  * [12] Justin Vasel, _HEP Takes The Hill: A Case Study in 21st-Century Advocacy_ , https://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR19/Session/B13.5.
  * [13] M. Buamer, _US HEP grant info per congressional district_ , https://github.com/mbaumer/us_hep_funding.
  * [14] HEPAP, _2017 HEPAP meeting_ ,  https://science.osti.gov/hep/hepap/Meetings/201706.
  * [15] HEPAP, _2017 HEPAP meeting_ ,  https://science.osti.gov/hep/hepap/Meetings/201805.
  * [16] HEPAP, _2017 HEPAP meeting_ ,  https://science.osti.gov/hep/hepap/Meetings/201905.
  * [17] HEPAP, _2017 HEPAP meeting_ ,  https://science.osti.gov/hep/hepap/Meetings/202007.
  * [18] HEPAP, _2017 HEPAP meeting_ ,  https://science.osti.gov/hep/hepap/Meetings/202111.
  * [19] APS Division of Particles and Fields, Fermilab Users Executive Committee, SLAC Users Organization, and the U.S. Large Hadron Collider Users Association, _U.S. Particle Physics: Building for Discovery_ , March, 2022.  https://www.usparticlephysics.org/.
  * [20] _Snowmass Community Engagement Frontier topical group for Diversity & Inclusion_, 2022.  https://snowmass21.org/community/diversity.
  * [21] M. Ambrose, _House passes COMPETES Act, setting up negotiations with Senate_ , Feb, 2022.  https://www.aip.org/fyi/2022/house-passes-competes-act-setting-negotiations-senate.
  * [22] Bill Foster, _Foster, Johnson introduce legislation to keep STEM graduates in America_ , Oct, 2019.  https://foster.house.gov/media/press-releases/foster-johnson-introduce-legislation-to-keep-stem-graduates-in-america.
  * [23] APS Government Affairs, _How International Students and Researchers Benefit the United States: Their Experiences, Their Stories_ , Nov, 2022.  https://www.aps.org/policy/analysis/intl-benefits.cfm.
  * [24] APS Government Affairs, _Impact of US research security policies_ , Dec, 2021.  https://www.aps.org/policy/analysis/rsrch-scrty.cfm.
  * [25] Will Thomas, _US research security campaign under strain as cases falter_ , Jan, 2022.  https://www.aip.org/fyi/2022/us-research-security-campaign-under-strain-cases-falter.
  * [26] B. Lindsey and S. Hammond, _Faster growth, fairer growth: Policies for a high road, high performance economy_ , 2020.  Niskanen Center, https://www.niskanencenter.org/faster-growth-fairer-growth-policies-for-a-high-road-high-performance-economy/.
  * [27] G. Viglione, _China is closing gap with United States on research spending_ , _Nature News, 10.1038/d41586-020-00084-7_ (2020) .
  * [28] A.J. Salter and B.R. Martin, _The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review_ , _Research Policy_ 30 (2001) 509.
  * [29] B.F. Jones and L.H. Summers, _A calculation of the social returns to innovation_ , _NBER_ (2020) .
  * [30] _AAAS Government Relations_ ,  https://www.aaas.org/programs/office-government-relations.
  * [31] _Fermilab Community Advisory board_ , https://www.fermilabcommunity.org/.
  * [32] K. Bloom, V. Boisvert and M. Headley, _Report of the topical group on environmental and societal impacts of particle physics for snowmass 2021_ , 2022\.  DOI.
  * [33] R. Zens, M. Headley, D. Wolf, A. Markovitz, F. Dukes, J. Tang et al., _Societal impacts of particle physics projects_ , arXiv 2203.07995.
  * [34] A.N. Link, C.A. Swann and B. Bozeman, _A time allocation study of university faculty_ , _Economics of Education Review_ 27 (2008) 363.
  * [35] B. Bozeman, _Bureaucratization in academic research policy: perspectives from red tape theory_ , Nov., 2015.  DOI.
  * [36] National Science Board, _Reducing investigators’ administrative workload for federally funded research_ , 2014.  https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2014/nsb1418/nsb1418.pdf.
  * [37] S.L. Schneider”, _2018 faculty workload survey_ , https://thefdp.org/default/assets/File/Documents/FDP%20FWS%202018%20Primary%20Report.pdf, Sep, 2020.
  * [38] S. Cole, J.R. Cole and G.A. Simon, _Chance and consensus in peer review_ , _Science_ 214 (1981) 881.
  * [39] N. Graves, A.G. Barnett and P. Clarke, _Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis of scores by members of grant review panel_ , _BMJ_ 343 (2011) d4797.
  * [40] F.C. Fang, A. Bowen and A. Casadevall, _NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity_ , _eLife_ 5 (2016) .
  * [41] E.L. Pier, M. Brauer, A. Filut, A. Kaatz, J. Raclaw, M.J. Nathan et al., _Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications_ , _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_ 115 (2018) 2952.
  * [42] D.K. Ginther, W.T. Schaffer, J. Schnell, B. Masimore, F. Liu, L.L. Haak et al., _Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards_ , _Science_ 333 (2011) 1015.
  * [43] L.A. Tabak and F.S. Collins, _Weaving a richer tapestry in biomedical science_ , _Science_ 333 (2011) 940.
  * [44] H.O. Witteman, M. Hendricks, S. Straus and C. Tannenbaum, _Are gender gaps due to evaluations of the applicant or the science? A natural experiment at a national funding agency_ , _The Lancet_ 393 (2019) 531.
  * [45] National Science Foundation, _Impact of proposal and award management mechanisms_ , 2007.  http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2007/nsf0745/nsf0745.pdf.
  * [46] Ronald J. Daniels, _A generation at risk: Young investigators and the future of the biomedical workforce_ , _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences_ 112 (2015) 313.
  * [47] Michael Cooke, _High energy physics budget, early career, diversity and inclusion_ , https://indico.cern.ch/event/782953/contributions/3515782/attachments/1887846/3114603/2019-07-29_DOE_HEP_Budget_Early_Career_Diversity_and_Inclusion.pdf.
  * [48] M. Lauer, D. Roychowdhury, K. Patel, R. Walsh, K. Pearson, _Marginal returns and levels of research grant support among scientists supported by the National Institutes of Health_ , https://doi.org/10.1101/142554, May, 2017.
  * [49] S. Conix, A.D. Block and K. Vaesen, _Grant writing and grant peer review as questionable research practices_ , _F1000Research_ 10 (2021) 1126.
  * [50] K. Vaesen and J. Katzav, _How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?_ , _PLOS ONE_ 12 (2017) e0183967.
  * [51] S. Avin, _Funding science by lottery_ , in _Recent Developments in the Philosophy of Science: EPSA13 Helsinki_ , pp. 111–126, Springer International Publishing (2015), DOI.
  * [52] F.C. Fang and A. Casadevall, _Research funding: the case for a modified lottery_ , _mBio_ 7 (2016) .
  * [53] D. Adam, _Science funders gamble on grant lotteries_ , _Nature_ 575 (2019) 574.