House Passes CJS Spending Bill: Amendments Eliminate NSF Political Science Program and American Community Survey

On May 10, the House of Representatives, by a vote of 247-163, passed the FY 2013 Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations bill.   Among the 36 successful amendments added to the bill, the House voted to prohibit the National Science Foundation from spending funds "to carry out the functions of the political science program." In addition, the House passed amendments to make the American Community Survey (ACS) voluntary and then to eliminate it altogether.

The Flake Amendment on Political Science

Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) offered the amendment regarding NSF's political science program. A day earlier he had offered an unsuccessful amendment to reduce overall NSF spending by $1.2 billion, taking the funding back to FY 2008 levels. The new amendment, which did not seek to reduce NSF's budget, succeeded on a roll-call vote of 218-208. Five Democrats joined 213 Republicans in favor, while 27 Republicans voted with 181 Democrats to keep the program. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), Chair of the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, voted with the majority.

In offering his amendment, Flake noted that he had an advanced degree in political science (an M.A. from Brigham Young), and he agreed "that such research has its benefits." He added: "The work of political scientists advances the knowledge and understanding of citizenship and government, politics, and this shouldn't be minimized." However, he argued, "they should not be subsidized by the National Science Foundation."

He claimed that most of the grants from the program "were directed to universities with endowments greater than $1 billion." Flake further declared: "Would those who would oppose this amendment have believed that Harvard and Yale would have to close their political science departments if Federal grants are not available for this program?"

As happens often with these kinds of amendments, Flake then found some grants with which he could mock the program. Setting himself up as a one-man merit review panel, Flake decided he didn't like a grant to Mark Borusk of Dartmouth for $700,000 to in Flake's words "develop a new model for international climate change analysis." Borusk is developing an Agent Based Modeling approach, (to study real-time interactions and decisions), that affect the outcome and implementation of international climate agreements. He will examine the "complex interplay of stakeholders at multiple levels who have limited ability to make optimal decisions and have differing beliefs, power, and incentive structures."

Another grant Flake didn't like was $600,000 awarded to Lanny Martin of Rice University "to try to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do." What Martin's project will examine is the impact of public opinion in multiparty parliamentary democracies where incentives encourage government parties to tailor policy to the wishes of narrow constituencies, whose policy views may or may not accord with those of the majority of voters.   Martin seeks to study, what effect, if any, does public opinion have on democratic governance in these countries?   If public sentiment changes direction, he asks, will the actions of elected officials follow?   There are many examples of this currently occurring throughout Europe.

A third grant not meeting Flake's merit review standard was $301,000 awarded to Jennifer Lawless of American University, who is concerned about the continuing low numbers of women in political office. She explains that "political scientists have come to conclude that the gender gap in political ambition is one of the most prominent explanations for women's under-representation, and that gender differences in interest in running for office are set in place prior to adulthood."   Her study will examine socialization impacts in school on political ambition.

A final grant Flake criticized was $200,000 to Robert Van Houweling of UC Berkeley that would analyze, in the congressman's view, "why political candidates make vague statements." The grant will allow Van Houweling to systematically examine how and on what issues candidates take ambiguous positions and to conduct an experiment on the consequences for voters of this vagueness.

Representative Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Ranking Member on the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee, tried to respond to Flake. He cited the political science program's 30 year history at NSF and noted that it is a very small portion of the overall NSF budget. He argued that: "It is important that we understand the political dynamics, radicalization of populations around the world, how political parties operate in the former Soviet Union, all of the other issues that are being studied" by the program. He also indicated that these awards passed through NSF's merit review system. Finally, he expressed his frustration with not just this attack on NSF, but a general feeling about what many of the Republican attacks on climate change science and other research pursuits are really about. Fattah declared: "Now, there's some advantage, I guess, politically to appear to be anti-intellectual, to have some desire to know little or less about what's going on in the world about us. But it is not worthy of a great Nation."

The House also adopted an amendment sponsored by Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN) that prohibited spending for a $10 million climate change education program at NSF.

Despite the attack on political science and the Cravaack Amendment, except for another very small reduction in NSF's administrative accounts, the full House maintained the funding level for FY 2013 recommended by the Appropriations Committee, close to almost $300 million above FY 2012 level.

The Webster Amendment on ACS

As trust in the American government remains low, the willingness of some of its citizens to cooperate with its instruments of information collection, such as surveys, also declines.   Thus, the American Community Survey (ACS)-which was inaugurated in 2005 to replace the long form of the decennial census, and required citizens to respond or face fines-became a target of attack.

Criticized as "intrusive" and asking Americans to respond to questions that were deemed "none of the government's business," Reps. Ted Poe (R-TX) and Trey Gowdy (R-SC) had already proposed legislation to make the ACS voluntary. They derided the mandatory requirement and its sanctions, even though they are rarely applied.

There was a hearing on the bill earlier in the year, before the Gowdy-chaired Subcommittee on Health Care, District of Columbia, Census and the National Archives of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. At the hearing, witnesses from the American Enterprise Institute, the National Association of Realtors, and the Greater Houston Business Partnership all agreed that the costs in terms of statistical efficacy of making the ACS voluntary were great. Census Director Robert Groves warned the Subcommittee that a voluntary ACS would lead to higher costs to conduct the survey and make more difficult using the ACS as a test-bed for new approaches to the 2020 decennial. These new approaches are designed to meet the oft-stated order from Congress to reduce the cost of the 2020 count.

Seizing the chance to legislate on an appropriations bill, Poe and Gowdy introduced an amendment to the CJS bill to make the ACS voluntary. After the debate that focused on intrusiveness vs. the need for data collection on which to make informed public policy, with Rep. Fattah again holding down the fort for the ACS virtually alone, the amendment passed on a voice vote.

For Rep. Daniel Webster (R-FL), voluntariness was not enough; why not simply abolish the ACS. Webster based his argument on the notion that the ACS was unconstitutional. Despite the fact that, as Rep. Norm Dicks (D-WA), Ranking Member of the full Appropriations Committee pointed out, the ACS is authorized by law and has been upheld by the courts. Dicks informed the House that: "The ACS is authorized under Title 13, U.S. Code, the Census Act. On numerous occasions, the courts have judged that the Constitution gives Congress the authority to collect data on characteristics of the population in the census. As early as 1870, the Supreme Court characterized as unquestionable the power of Congress to require both an enumeration and the collection of data in the census."

Webster reiterated the "invasion of privacy" argument and the criticism of the 48 questions on the survey.   His colleague Rep. James Lankford (R-OK), suggested folks getting the ACS in the mail would think: "Is this real or is this a scam artist trying to steal my information?" Fattah, calling the ACS "absolutely vital," countered that many of the same questions on the ACS are required by banks for people trying to get mortgages and that most people cooperate and fill out the ACS.

In a statement submitted to the Congressional Record, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) lashed out at the GOP majority before explaining the importance of the ACS: "Some have labeled the Majority the do nothing party. This amendment would make them the 'know nothing party.' The ACS is the only source of national, annual socioeconomic, housing, and demographic data. It is used by Congress to help allocate $450 billion a year in federal grants to state and local governments, including the distribution of funds for veterans' job training programs and for improvements to low-income schools. The business community uses the ACS to help guide investment decisions like location and expansion plans. Congress has required, directly or indirectly, all of the data gathered in the ACS. The ACS passed with bipartisan support under the previous Administration to ensure greater accuracy and streamline the decennial census."

The vote was 232 to 190 in favor of abolishing the ACS so that the government can make decisions about policy and allocations of funds without a significant source of information.

Other successful amendments that affected Census funding included a $4 million reduction in Periodic Censuses and Programs to pay for increased funding for Drug Courts, offered by Rep. Gerald Lynch (D-MA), and a $20 million shift, proposed by Rep. Corrine Brown (D-FL), from the Census Periodic account to increase funding for State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance. Another amendment, sponsored by Rep. Michael Michaud (D-ME), that would have cost the Bureau $38 million to increase funding for the Economic Development Administration, was unsuccessful.

Furthermore, an amendment to reduce all accounts in the bill by one percent, introduced by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), failed as did an amendment offered by Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) that would have reduced by 12.2 percent spending for all accounts in the bill with the exception of the FBI, NASA, and the U.S. Marshals Service.

What's Next

The CJS bill that emerged from the Senate Appropriations Committee may come to the Senate floor the week of May 14. Although nothing is definitive, in 2009 Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) offered an amendment to abolish NSF's Political Science program. With strong support from CJS Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Coburn's amendment was defeated by a vote of 36-62. The chances of Coburn or someone else offering another such amendment in 2012 are considered high. Like the House under its Open Rule, the Senate allows its members to offer amendments at any time during consideration of the bill without making them public beforehand.

With regard to the Census, the Senate has come in with a higher funding recommendation number and the Chair appears to oppose any attempt to abolish the ACS.

Another factor is that the House loaded its bill with amendments restricting the Justice Department's ability to intervene in court cases regarding the Affordable Care Act and state immigration laws as well as others that restrict the Administration's ability to make policy. The Administration would regard these as veto bait in addition to its already stated veto threat based on the House disregarding the discretionary spending number set in last year's budget agreement.

For the link to the debate and roll call votes on the Flake and Webster amendments go to:

www.cossa.org.