The debate saw dozens of amendments on a broad array of topics, given the bill's wide-ranging jurisdiction.  A number of amendments were approved that would impact social and behavioral science if the bill were to be enacted into law:

• An amendment offered by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), Chairman of the House Science Committee, reduces the amount in the bill for NSF's Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account (the account that funds NSF's science directorates) by $15.35 million and then adds the funds back in to the R&RA account.  Smith stated on the floor that by reducing the R&RA account by $15.35 million and adding it back in, he intends for NSF to take the funding away from SBE and reallocate it to "physical science and engineering."  This maneuver is largely symbolic as the CJS appropriations bill does not appropriate specific funding levels for NSF's individual science directorates.  Smith called this the "first step" in efforts to cut SBE funding.  The amendment was approved by a vote of 208-201, with a number of Republicans changing their vote from yea to nay at the very end.  Five Democrats voted in favor of the amendment and 18 Republicans voted against it. 
• An amendment by Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) was adopted by voice vote making the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) voluntary, which advocates hope will be removed in conference with the Senate. 
• Several amendments were approved that would use the Census Bureau budget as an offset for increases to other programs.  In total, Census would be reduced by at least 20 percent following the cuts approved during the Committee markup and on the House floor. 

Several Democratic Members came to the House floor to speak in defense of the social and behavioral sciences, including Reps. Chaka Fattah (D-PA), David Price (D-NC), Rush Holt (D-NJ), and Daniel Lipinski (D-IL). 

The Senate CJS Appropriations Subcommittee has scheduled a markup of its FY 2015 CJS Appropriations bill for June 3 with a full committee markup on June 5; the bill has not yet been released. 

You can continue to follow COSSA's real-time coverage of the FY 2015 appropriations process by following us on Twitter @COSSADC and #Stand4Science. 

It is unclear if or when the FIRST Act will be brought to the House floor for a vote as the legislation has become increasingly partisan and divisive in recent weeks.  Regardless, the bill is largely viewed as a non-starter in the Senate, which is still reportedly preparing its version of America COMPETES reauthorization legislation. 

The quality of health care in America is only fair, but it is slowly improving.

• On average, Americans received 70 percent of recommended health care services.
• Areas that are showing most improvement are hospital care, measures reported publicly by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and adolescent vaccines.
• Areas that are lagging behind include ambulatory care, diabetes care, and maternal and child health.

Americans' access to health care is also fair, but it has gotten worse over time.

• Twenty-six percent of Americans reported difficulty in accessing health care (compared to 24 percent in 2002).
• Improvements were reported in people's ability to access their health care provider by phone, but those with private insurance reported having more difficulty accessing health care services.

The state of health disparities in the U.S. is poor, and it has not changed.

• Improvements have been seen in HIV and patients' perception of care.
• However, disparities are widening in cancer screening and maternal and child health. 

• The preliminary number of births in 2013 was just under 4 million, slightly more than in 2012.
• The teen birth rate reached a historic low, down 10 percent from 2012.
• The birth rate for women aged 20-29 declined in 2013, but rose for women aged 30-49. 

In collaboration with the Department of Justice's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), OMH is soliciting applications for Minority Youth Violence Prevention: Integrating Public Health and Community Policing Approaches. Funding will support "program interventions developed through adaptations, refinements, and modifications of promising violence prevention and crime reduction models that are tailored to at-risk minority male youth (ages 10-18) and integrate a problem-solving approach." The full solicitation is available here. Applications are due by June 13, 2014.

OMH is also seeking applications for its Youth Empowerment Program II, which seeks to use evidence-based practices to address unhealthy behaviors in at-risk minority males (10-18 years). The program aims to "demonstrate the effectiveness and efficiency of strategic partnerships in improving the health status of at-risk minority male youth by addressing youth violence and the resolution of conflicts in a nonviolent manner, low educational attainment, school suspensions and dropout, refusal skills with respect to reduction in substance abuse, counseling and behavioral health, cultural beliefs associated with sexual risk behavior among males, and enhancing the community's capacity to facilitate and sustain mentoring support services for at-risk minority male youth." More information is available here. Applications are due by June 13, 2014. 

Stegmaier and Lewis-Beck stated that election forecasting is a public good; it helps inform voters and engage the public in the political discussion.  Recognizing its growing importance, campaigns and interested observers have honed their forecasting techniques to create better forecasts.  Dickinson provided his take on the 2012 election and why some forecasts succeeded while others failed.  Despite many media narratives, the traditional axioms of political science, such as "incumbents usually win," had the most influence in predicting the winner of the election.

Vavreck, who writes for the political science-oriented Monkey Cage blog at the Washington Post, discussed her research in terms of election forecasting.  She analyzed the last 16 presidential elections, and learned that 75 percent of the winners won because of economic conditions.  Thus, she argued, economic conditions are the most important indicator in predicting the winner of an election, but campaigns also matter because if a candidate doesn't adequately stress the economy their opponent could still win. 

Linzer argued, however, that 16 elections is simply not a large enough sample from which to produce accurate predictions, which explains why many forecasts are wrong.  He emphasized the importance of stating the uncertainty inherent in these forecasts, and believes that the science and technology around forecasts will continue to improve.  Finally, Blumenthal, who writes about polling and forecasts for the Huffington Post, suggested that the controversy around forecasting is caused by the public's misunderstanding of the difference between forecasting and polling.  Polling, he said, is a snapshot of a moment in time whereas forecasting is a combination of many factors. 

Rep. Scott and Laub's opening remarks stated, in no uncertain terms, that current policy, and the uniquely high levels of incarceration it has led to, is dangerous to society and leads to more crime than it prevents.  Wilderman looked at some research behind this claim.  Specifically, there are many obvious and subtle "collateral consequences" to incarceration, such as the effects it has on children whose mothers or fathers spend long periods of time in prison; the effects incarceration has on communities through negatively affecting public health or through increasing crime rates; and the monetary costs to those incarcerated, their families, and to the American taxpayer.

Martin spoke in more detail about how incarceration has failed individuals because of the perverse incentives it creates.  Our current system, he said, makes it so difficult for individuals to reenter society once released that it should be no surprise that many of them find themselves back in prison.  This is due to many reasons, such as massive debts accrued while in prison, the difficulty in finding jobs either due to lack of qualifications or through employer discrimination, or through societal alienation caused by serving time in prison.

Western, who recently collaborated with the National Academies on a report, Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration, detailed their research findings.  Notably, 37 percent African-American men aged 20-39 who dropped out of high school are currently incarcerated.  This rate is 100 times higher than college-educated white males.  Two million children have a parent who is incarcerated.  Moreover, there is no strong evidence in the research that incarceration reduces any crime.  As such, the National Academies report recommends a reexamination of the values that affect currently policy:  (1) parsimony; (2) proportionality; (3) citizenship; and (4) social justice.  To effect these changes in values, policy changes could include sentencing reform, improving the conditions of confinement, and increasing employment opportunities.

Finally, Rep. Richmond spoke about some of the troubles facing his native Louisiana in terms of high rates of incarceration in the context of a larger, broken system.  Legislation and policy, he said, are often in a rush to deal with a specific problem and, in doing so, bigger mistakes are made.  Positive policy changes must seek to change the mindset of people once they are released from penal institutions.