When San Antonio-based software engineer Nikhil Jathar first traveled to Washington, D.C., in the spring of 2025 to advocate for federal support for technology education and research funding, he experienced a profound sense of awe. Having recently settled in the United States after moving from India, Jathar received an invitation to participate in the annual Congressional Visits Day organized by IEEE-USA.
"My first reaction was, ‘Wow, I get to visit Congress,’" recalls Jathar, who serves as the chief technology officer of AvanSaber, a business software company he cofounded in 2014. At the time of his initial invitation, he did not hold a specific lobbying position on behalf of his own firm. However, the prospect deeply intrigued him. The invitation is regularly extended to all U.S. members of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). As he began reading more about what congressional visits entail, his motivation crystallized. He realized that this was an opportunity he needed to pursue to see where it might lead.
Congressional staffers frequently emphasize that they welcome the technical knowledge, real-world experience, and fresh perspectives that engineers like Jathar and other visiting professionals bring to Capitol Hill from outside the Washington beltway. At the same time, experts note that it is equally vital for these visiting constituents to be clear and focused on what they are advocating for during their limited time with lawmakers.
A staffer for the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to internal office media policies, shed light on how policies take shape in the nation’s capital. Ideas for new legislative initiatives originate from a wide variety of sources, the staffer explained. They can begin at the legislator or staff level, emerge as a direct request from a constituent, or address pressing needs within a specific industry. Ultimately, it falls upon congressional offices to evaluate these competing demands and determine what would provide the greatest public good.
"For instance, if you leave it to the lobbyists, they’re understandably going to do what’s in their clients’ interests," the House Science Committee staffer noted.
For engineers working across the United States, speaking directly with elected representatives and their staff represents a highly effective method for shaping key technology and science policies. Yet, as Jathar discovered over the course of two distinct visits to Capitol Hill, making an impact requires careful preparation, a clear understanding of legislative mechanics, and the right strategic approach.
Mapping Your Way Into Washington
The United States Congress operates with the fundamental mandate of acting on behalf of the American people, and it enforces specific rules regarding how citizens and organizations can lobby its members. Federal regulations draw a clear legal distinction between broader public advocacy—such as conversations between everyday constituents and their elected federal representatives—and professional lobbying, which is carried out by paid agents and governed strictly by the Lobbying Disclosure Act.
Many professional scientific and engineering organizations, including the IEEE, regularly coordinate congressional visits for their members. Because these organized delegations can sometimes intersect with complex federal lobbying rules, organizers briefed Jathar on the boundaries of his participation. He was explicitly told that he would be representing the organization rather than expressing solely his own personal views. Consequently, he needed to adhere closely to the core talking points that IEEE-USA had prepared for all its participating members, ensuring a unified message across multiple congressional offices regardless of each engineer’s individual specialty.
During Jathar’s inaugural visit to Washington, those organizational talking points focused heavily on advocating for crucial federal investments, including funding for smart grids, the authorization of vital Department of Energy research programs, and robust financial support for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. This highlights one of the inherent trade-offs of gaining legislative access in Washington. The official priorities promoted by IEEE-USA did not all overlap directly with the day-to-day work of Jathar’s software company, but they served as broad, foundational enablers for the entire science and technology sector. As Jathar notes, funding for STEM education remains a cause deeply close to his heart.
While anyone is entirely free to approach their elected representatives in Washington to advocate for their own personal priorities, Jathar points out a practical reality of Capitol Hill. Given how intensely pressed for time congressional staff members are on any given day, they are significantly more likely to prioritize scheduling a meeting if it represents the views and concerns of a much larger body of constituents.
"I could have gone outside the IEEE structure," Jathar says, but congressional staff "are more likely to listen if you are part of a much bigger organization."
For his first congressional visit, event organizers assigned Jathar to meet with the offices of several federal representatives from both political parties, chosen primarily based on his home district in Texas. His schedule included appointments with the offices of Representative Greg Casar, a Democrat from Texas; Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Democrat from Texas; and Representative Barry Moore, a Republican from Alabama.
Meeting with a congressional staffer or a senior policy advisor from an office can often be more productive than meeting with the elected member of Congress themselves, according to Jathar. Staff members tend to relate closely to granular policy issues because a representative must balance dozens of high-level legislative matters simultaneously, whereas a staffer can afford to focus much more deeply on specific policy details.
A typical Capitol Hill meeting of this nature generally lasts anywhere from 15 minutes to an hour. Recognizing this tight constraint, Jathar learned to keep his communication simple, direct, and concise. First and foremost, an advocate is dealing with a very small window of time, he stresses. It is essential to have everything prepared to present in clear bullet points rather than dense technical jargon. Advocates can always elaborate and bring out the complex details later if the staffer asks follow-up questions. Furthermore, simple visual aids, such as organized one-page information handouts, can be immensely helpful when attempting to communicate numeric data or technical concepts quickly.
The staffer for the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology echoes this sentiment, emphasizing that successful meetings depend on mutual preparedness. "I prefer meetings where people know what they want and know what we’re doing in Congress," the staffer says.
Beyond having a well-defined request, the staffer advises engineers and other technical advocates to maintain a clear awareness of the congressional calendar. Advocates should ask themselves crucial timing questions: Is Congress currently in the midst of appropriations season, and when is the next federal budget cycle being established? How far along is a specific piece of legislation in the committee or floor process, and what changes are actually realistic to achieve at that particular stage?
During his 2025 rounds on Capitol Hill, Jathar experienced firsthand the importance of understanding jurisdiction and preparation. When visiting one of the three congressional offices on his schedule, the staffer politely pointed out that the legislator they worked for did not sit on the specific committee holding jurisdiction over the IEEE-USA talking points being discussed.
"They explained that there are only certain things [the legislator] can do on that issue and that there are other people we need to talk to, to achieve more," Jathar recalls.
Shortcuts to Influence
Earlier this year, Jathar decided to return to Capitol Hill to apply his newly acquired knowledge, once again participating within the structured framework of an IEEE-USA delegation. This time, however, he was able to offer something else that legislative staffers actively seek from visiting engineers: authoritative, real-world technical expertise.
"When I introduced myself as a software developer to one staffer, his first question was, ‘Do you think AI will replace coders?’" Jathar says.
The conversation evolved into a dynamic back-and-forth exchange, with the congressional staffer posing a series of questions to Jathar and his fellow engineering companions. Jathar took the opportunity to explain that his company had developed an open-source business-management software platform called ERPClaw, which is explicitly designed to integrate with artificial intelligence agents such as OpenClaw. That technical discussion naturally pivoted toward a broader conversation regarding the critical role of open-source software in artificial intelligence—a topic that directly aligns with one of IEEE-USA’s ongoing policy proposals aimed at democratizing artificial intelligence technology.
By grounding the conversation in his own professional expertise, Jathar successfully aligned his organization’s broader advocacy goals with his personal technical background and the specific areas of interest held by the congressional staffer.
While it is often too early to predict the precise legislative impact that an individual advocacy meeting might yield, these are precisely the types of informed, relevant proposals that legislative staffers actively look for.
"The people who build trust have more cachet with congressional staff because they’ve asked for something that’s reasonably thought out," the House Science Committee staffer explains. In turn, when constituents establish that trust, congressional staffers are better equipped to advocate effectively within their own offices for policies brought to them by reliable sources.
Building that trust often stems from speaking passionately about issues that matter deeply to the advocate. Interestingly, the House Science Committee staffer once walked the halls of Congress as an outside advocate before eventually transitioning to the legislative side of the table. During that earlier advocacy visit, much like Jathar’s first experience, the professional society organizing the trip provided a pre-scripted pitch.
"I was making a pitch that was given to me without a lot of personal buy-in," the staffer reflects, adding that advocates ultimately "should feel emotionally connected to any issue you’re advocating for."
Jathar’s steadfast support for the open-source software movement stems from that exact kind of personal conviction. The open-source model provides smaller technology companies with a stable foundation that they can readily adapt and build upon, while simultaneously enabling a global community of developers to extend and improve that initial work.
"We can progress a lot faster," Jathar says. "I’m not doing it only because it’s good for my business, but because I feel it’s good for any technological advancement."
