Issue 15 (July 23)

Over the last several weeks, appropriators in the House of Representatives have been considering funding legislation for fiscal year (FY) 2025, which beings October 1.

This is the first appropriations cycle under the leadership of Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole (R-OK). As previously reported, the year began with an understanding that the FY 2025 appropriations process was going to be an especially difficult one. Thanks to strict budget caps set last year for FY 2024 and FY 2025, discretionary spending is once again on the chopping block. The caps as currently set have the potential to further decimate agency budgets, especially given the cuts many received in FY 2024.

Making things worse, the subcommittee allocations that were approved by the House in May set the stage for additional, disproportionate reductions to nondefense discretionary accounts, which include science agencies, while allowing defense spending to increase. COSSA’s full analysis below details the House’s plans for FY 2025 funding for federal science agencies.

Read on for details of the House’s FY 2025 CJS and LHHS appropriations bills as approved by the House Appropriations Committee. The numbers included below are subject to change through amendment.

Stay tuned to COSSA’s coverage for the latest developments.

In early June, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), in partnership with the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) Chair Robert Aderholt (R-AL), released a framework outlining potential reforms for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (see previous COSSA coverage). Since this framework was released, there has been a lot of conversation about the future of NIH and what this framework would look like in action.

On August 29 at 12pm EST, join COSSA Staff for an informal conversation about recent developments and the proposed framework. Keep an eye on your inbox for the link to RSVP.

The House and Senate appropriations process is well underway for fiscal year (FY) 2025, with the House having completed and passed all twelve bills through the House Appropriations Committee, and looking to pass all twelve on the floor before August recess begins (see previous COSSA coverage). On the other side of the Capitol, the Senate is pushing forward with their respective bills, having released subcommittee allocations and passing three of its bills through the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 11.

The House is rumored to vote the week of July 29 on the two bills that fund federal science agencies. However, House passage is not assured since the chamber has already struggled to get earlier bills over the finish line. COSSA recently prepared an analysis of the House Commerce, Justice Science (CJS) and Labor, Health and Human Services, Education (LHHS) bills (available here).

On July 11, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved their 302(b) subcommittee allocations, which set the top line budgets for each of the 12 appropriations bill. The Senate CJS bill would be allocated 11.6 percent less than the House bill while the Senate LHHS bill would be allocated 6.9 percent more than its House counterpart. However, Senate Appropriations Chair Patty Murray (D-WA) and Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-ME) have indicated that they intend to supplement with emergency funding, providing an additional $13.5 billion to nondefense programs and $21 billion to defense programs. Senate Appropriators will mark-up the CJS bill on July 25 (watch live here); however, with August recess on the horizon, it is unlikely that the Senate will have time to schedule floor votes for all twelve bills.

With the discrepancies between the House and Senate allocations, coming to an agreement before FY 2025 begins on October 1 will be challenging. Paired with a contentious election season where the House and one third of the Senate will be embarking on the campaign trail in October, it’s unlikely that the chambers will finish the budget under regular order this year.

Stay tuned to COSSA’s continued coverage on the appropriations process.

The Census Bureau, is requesting public input on the timeline of introducing the new race and ethnicity standards to the American Community Survey (ACS) outlined in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Statistical Policy Directive No.15 (SPD 15) (see previous COSSA coverage). The request for information (RFI) is seeking to understand the impacts of implementing the new standards in 2026, for dissemination of the ACS in 2027, versus 2027, for dissemination of the ACS in 2028.

Comments can be submitted here, or emailed to acso.pra@census.gov with the subject line “ACS SPD 15,” prior to the August 12 deadline. 

On July 9, the Biden Administration issued a memorandum on Guidelines for Research Security Programs at Covered Institutions. The document provides guidance to federal research agencies as they implement research security certification requirements set by National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM)-33, the hallmark research security policy that has been in development since early 2021, and the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. Under these acts, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) is responsible for “developing a ‘standardized requirement’ for ‘uniform implementation’ across federal research agencies.” This latest memo serves as that standardized requirement. 

Informed by input received from inside and outside the government, the guidelines include a standard definition of “covered institution,” which is an institution of higher education, a federally-funded research center, or a nonprofit research institution that receives more than $50 million per year in federal research funding. Under agency policies, covered institutions will be required to certify that they have research security programs in place that address cybersecurity, foreign travel, research security training, and export control training (the memo provides details on each). In addition, federal research agencies are required to ensure that research security programs at covered institutions “do not result in targeting, stigmatization, or discrimination against individuals on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, religion, sex… disability, or genetic information,” and allow for flexibility in developing institutional programs, reduce administrative burden, and minimize impact to smaller institutions.

Federal research agencies are directed amend their research security polices to reflect the guidelines in the memo within six months (~January 2025), with the revised policies taking effect within six months after the final plans have been submitted to the White House. Stay tuned to COSSA’s coverage.

The Good Science Project, a non-profit that seeks to improve the funding and practice of research and development (R&D), is seeking proposals from the public on actionable steps that government leaders and policymakers can take to positively reform R&D. The Good Science Project was developed in 2022 by Stuart Buck following the COVID-19 pandemic highlighting the positives and negatives of the current science funding model within the federal government. To this end, the Good Science Project intends to publish a series of policy briefs from researchers and scientists on ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal R&D, including but not limited to identifying ways to improve innovation within federal R&D, to reduce administrative burdens on researchers, and to support the next generation of scientists.

Submissions should include a paragraph that details an evidence-based approach to R&D reform and, if accepted, applicants will expand upon their approach with a 3–4-page policy brief alongside the Good Science Project. Proposals can be submitted here. 

The Board on Science Education (BOSE) at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) is seeking nominations for experts to appoint to an ad hoc committee for the development of the new Consensus Study on Education for Thriving in a Changing Climate.  

NASEM has developed this new ad hoc committee in response to rising global climate change and an interest in understanding human decision-making in the face of this changing climate. The committee will “examine evidence relating to how education can play a role in helping individuals and communities understand and respond to the impacts of changing climate.” With the use of various educational activities, the committee will develop a research agenda and produce a final report, which is expected to address the following questions: 

• How can people promote “just, thriving, and sustainable communities in the face of a changing climate?” 
• How do cultural differences shape how people consider and respond to climate change, and how can education be constructed to be inclusive of these differences? 
• What strategies can help promote careers contributing to “just, thriving, sustainable” communities? 
• Which educational activities are most effective in providing necessary equitable learning experiences across different educational contexts and school subjects? What changes must be made in the education system to advance these educational approaches? 

Nominations are encouraged to be submitted by July 27, 2024. You can recommend an expert here. 

This article was contributed by COSSA Intern Rachel Bashe.

This fall, The American Academy of Political and Social Science (AAPSS), a COSSA member, will award the 2024 Daniel Patrick Moynihan Prize to acclaimed public interest attorney and scholar Bryan Stevenson. The annual Prize is intended to honor those who have “promoted the use of sound analysis and social science research in policymaking, while contributing to the civil discourse in society.”

Each year, the winner of the Moynihan Prize delivers the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Lecture on Social Science and Public Policy in Washington, DC. Stevenson will deliver this year’s lecture on November 18 and the lecture will be followed by a conversation between Stevenson and New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie.

If you are interested in the event, please fill out the form on the AAPSS site.

AAPSS has started considering nominees for next year’s Prize. You can submit a nomination for the 2025 winner here.

On July 22, the Population Association of America (PAA), in cooperation with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Statistical Association (ASA), Association of Population Centers, March of Dimes, Population Reference Bureau, and Society for Research in Child Development (SRCD), sponsored its annual in-person briefing on Capitol Hill, “Maternal Mortality in America: Understanding the Challenges and Crafting Population Based Solutions.” PAA, ASA, and SRCD are COSSA governing member organizations.

The briefing featured a panel of experts who addressed not only nuances in data regarding U.S. maternal mortality trends, but also addressed potential policy recommendations. The speakers’ presentations also underscored the integral role that Federal scientific and statistical agencies, including the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, play in supporting the population sciences. Individuals representing congressional offices, Federal agencies, and outside organizations were in attendance. 

The event was moderated by Dr. Mark Mather, Population Reference Bureau. The speakers, Dr. Robert Anderson, NCHS; Dr. Amanda Stevenson, University of Colorado-Boulder; and, Dr. Alecia McGregor, Harvard University, delivered a range of important messages, including:

• How the pregnancy check box that the NCHS adopted has changed our understanding of U.S. maternal mortality rates.
• How U.S. maternal mortality rates vary across different subpopulations, and how the U.S. rates compare to other countries.
• The impact that access to reproductive health services and race and environment have on maternal mortality outcomes.

During a robust Q&A segment, the panel received a variety of questions, including:

• How reliable are maternal mortality statistics from other countries?
• Can you predict how changes in laws governing access to reproductive health services will affect future U.S. maternal morality trends?
• Can you identify one social determinant of health most responsible for increased U.S. maternal mortality figures?

A recording of the briefing is available here.