Congressional Committees Research Articles

Bread and Roses: Women Workers and the Struggle for Dignity and Respect

When workers walked out of the Lawrence, Massachusetts mills on January 12, 1912, calling “short pay, all out,” their strike was later called the Bread and Roses strike. Though Congressional Committee investigated food budgets of the strikers and found that the 32 cents the owners had docked their pay (because of legislation reducing hours) was about two weeks of bread, the memory of the strike has been more iconic: “The strikers wanted not only decent pay, but a chance to enjoy the good things of life. They carried signs saying, ‘We want bread and roses too!' ” Thus, states one of the 252,000 entries that Google reports using the phrase “bread and roses strike.” Many sources repeat the inspiring observation. The workers, the legend goes, usually identifying the women, asserted their aspiration for what the poet James Oppenheim called “art and love and beauty” that their “drudging spirits” lacked. Some versions refer to the slogan on picket signs and some to banners. That this is probably legend and not something that actually happened tells us much about the importance of dignity and respect in working class struggles—and the role of women workers in them.

Does it help to have friends in high places? Bank stock performance and congressional committee chairmanships

Does a politician with power in the U.S. Congress positively affect the value of firms headquartered in their home state? We investigate this question by examining the profitability and stock performance of commercial banks. Banks can be enormously influenced by the political and regulatory environment. We find that banks headquartered in states where a Senator or member of the House of Representatives serves as the chairman on their respective banking committee in Congress outperform banks headquartered in other states. In addition, we find that this “chair effect” is more pronounced when the committee chairs are strongly aligned with other politicians in Congress, when they are more experienced, and when banks are clustered in the home state, suggesting that the potential benefits generated from chairmanship are in more demand. Overall, our results suggest that there are some important value implications of a local politician’s power in Congress.

Higher Education and Congressional Influence on Administrative Decisions: An Examination of NSF and NIH Research Grant Funding to Four‐Year Universities

ObjectiveThis study examines grant funding to four‐year universities to determine if institutions with more powerful congressional delegations receive more in research funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF).MethodsWe analyze grant awards to public and private not‐for profit universities from 2000 through 2009. We employ panel‐corrected standard errors with panel‐specific AR1 terms to determine the influence of representation on key congressional committees, in conjunction with institutional characteristics, such as size and mission, in shaping institutional success in securing grant revenues.ResultsTime series, cross‐sectional analysis suggests that members of the U.S. House and Senate may be able to influence the allocation of seemingly merit‐based grants and contracts made by the NIH and the NSF.ConclusionWe find some evidence that congressional‐bureaucratic relationships impact grant receipts, though the effects are moderate in magnitude.

ESA and Scientific Publishing—Past, Present, and Pathways to the Future

The leadership of the Society recognizes the potential of new trends toward open access (OA) publishing and the value of having the papers published in ESA journals freely accessible to the widest possible audience. However, because fully OA journals do not charge for subscriptions, applying such a model to the ESA journals would require major changes in the financial basis and the operations both of the ESA journals and of the Society’s activities more broadly. For most of our history, library subscriptions have paid for copyediting, typesetting, archiving, distribution, and other publication services, allowing us to keep charges to authors at a relatively low level. Subscription fees have also partially defrayed the costs of outreach, education, and scientific meetings, providing stable core funding to complement membership fees, the annual meeting, donations, and grants.

Who Walks the Watchdog? Bureaucratic Oversight and the Government Accountability Office

Created in 1921 and strengthened after Watergate, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) is Congress's primary watchdog agency over the administrative state. The GAO investigates, culls, and synthesizes stances on a multitude of policy programs and expenditures on its own initiative, by legislative mandate, and at the request of congressional committees and individual members of Congress. This paper examines how members of Congress use the GAO to advance their own policy preferences and how the GAO makes strategic auditing decisions on its own. From a simple model supplemented by interviews of GAO officials, I generate several testable empirical propositions. First, in periods of divided government, members and committee chairs should request more GAO investigations; in periods of united government, members of the minority party should request more GAO studies. Second, members of Congress may use the GAO to increase their chances of being reelected. In particular, Senators facing reelection sooner should request more studies than Senators facing reelection in a later cycle. Third, if the GAO is concerned about how it is perceived by its sponsors in Congress, it should make fewer recommendations when its work is not congressionally requested. I test these propositions using information from the GAO Documents Database, which I constructed from details on all published GAO reports and testimony to Congress, for 1986-1997. I find some support for the institutional theory of how Congress uses the GAO. House committee chairpersons are more likely to request a GAO investigation when there is divided government. A change from united to divided government corresponds to a 5.68 percent increase in the probability that a House committee chairperson will join a request. House committee ranking minority members are less likely to turn to the GAO when there is divided government. A shift from united to divided government leads to a 2.16 percent decrease in the probability that a House committee ranking minority member will sign onto a request. It also appears that Senators facing the voters in the next election request more studies than other Senators. Finally, the GAO seems to issue recommendations carefully. It makes more recommendations to Congress when a study is requested but makes more recommendations to agencies when a study is self-initiated, perhaps anticipating that Congress will call for agency changes when an investigation is requested.

Tom Clark under Fire: The Consequences of Congressional Investigations of Supreme Court Justices

Tom Clark under Fire: The Consequences of Congressional Investigations of Supreme Court Justices CRAIG ALAN SMITH Introduction President Harry Truman’s nomination of Attorney General Tom Clark to the United States Supreme Court on August 2, 1949, following the unexpected death of Justice Frank Murphy, was regarded as a political appointment, one bom offriendship or loyalty rather than ability or stature. Though not a complete surprise—the Attorney General’s office was then regarded as a stepping-stone to the Court—news commentators expected Truman to choose a Catholic to replace the only Catholic Justice.1 When the United States Senate confirmed Clark’s nomination (73 to 8), Republicans cast all the “nay” votes. Opposition leader Homer Ferguson drew attention to numerous suspect instances while Clark served as Attorney General, but the most compelling reason for some Senators to vote against Clark was his failure to testify at his own confirmation hearing. Calling the nomination “transparently political,” Fergu­ son made no effort to hide his displeasure that Clark was not called for questioning, and when the Judiciary Committee approved Clark’s nomination (9 to 2) without inviting Clark to testify, the two “nay” votes princi­ pally protested his absence at the hearings. From the floor of the Senate, Robert Taft called Clark’s nomination “outrageous” because the Committee reported it favorably without Clark’s testimony.2 By the time of Clark’s nomination, a nominee’s personal appearance before the Judiciary Committee was not a wellestablished practice, but neither was it unprecedented. In 1925, Harlan Stone became the first Court nominee to testify, but the next five nominees were not invited. Not long after 140 JOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY President Franklin Roosevelt’s failed Court “packing” plan, the Committee heard from five successive nominees, including Attor­ neys General Frank Murphy and Robert H. Jackson. Clark’s nomination, on the other hand, followed five successive nominees who were not invited, thereby blunting Taft’s charges.3 The first and only nominee (to date) to refuse to testify was Appeals Court Judge Sherman Minton, who Truman nomi­ nated shortly after Clark following the unexpected death of Justice Wiley Rutledge. As a Senator, Minton had defended Roose­ velt’s Court “packing” plan, but, as a nominee, Minton refused to testify based upon the separation ofpowers,4 a view Clark later adopted when Congress sought testimo­ ny about his work as Attorney General. Whether Clark should testify or whether he could refuse once he was on the Court became increasingly contentious for the next four years. Clark’s absence at his confirmation hearings did not halt further inquiry into his Justices Felix Frankfurter and Stanley F. Reed appeared as character witnesses at the first perjury trial of Alger Hiss (above), a former State Department employee suspected of spying for the Soviets and accused of lying in his testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee. Frankfurter and Reed were subpoenaed to testify, but some news accounts reported that their trial appearances were voluntary, leading to congressional proposals prohibiting Supreme Court Justices from serving as character witnesses. Justice Department service. He was subjected to incessant probing by congressional com­ mittees investigating old Justice Department cases. It is doubtful any sitting Justice faced such protracted investigations oftheir off-thebench record until the failed 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas for Chief Justice and his subsequent resignation eight months later. Tom Clark endured threats ofimpeachment or requests for his resignation, demands for his testimony, and intense public scrutiny of his conduct as Attorney General. This essay examines congressional efforts to compel Clark to testify and whether his refusal based on the separation ofpowers was convincing. It highlights news coverage of these investiga­ tions and compares it to secondary historical scholarship, much of which overlooked Clark’s part in Truman administration scan­ dals or their implications for future congres­ sional inquiries of sitting Justices. On several occasions congressional committees consid­ ered or expected Clark’s testimony on matters unrelated to his judicial duties, and each time Clark avoided appearing before lawmakers. Historical circumstances made it possible for Clark to maintain the separation of powers, but questions over whether Congress could compel a Justice’s testimony or whether a...

Rooting Out Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

Scholars have long bemoaned congressional disinterest in oversight. We explain varied congressional attention to oversight by advancing the contingent oversight theory. We show how the structure of congressional committees, partisan majorities, and theories of delegation together explain when, why, and for how long Congress investigated executive branch malfeasance between 1947 and 2004. Divided government, partisan committees, and committees characterized by broad statutory discretion generate more investigations, whereas distributive committees and unified government dampen Congress’ investigatory vigor. The conduct of oversight depends on more than a desire to produce good government or the incentive structures faced by individual members of Congress.

Congressional parties, institutional ambition, and the financing of majority control

With the need for ever increasing sums of money to fuel the ongoing campaign for majority control, both Republicans and Democrats have made large donations to the party and its candidates mandatory for members seeking advancement within party and congressional committee hierarchies. Eric S. Heberlig and Bruce A. Larson analyze this development and discuss its implications for American government and democracy. They address the consequences of selecting congressional leaders on the basis of their fundraising skills rather than their legislative capacity and the extent to which the battle for majority control leads Congress to prioritize short-term electoral gains over long-term governing and problem-solving.

Gender, Race, Ethnicity, and Political Representation in the United States

In the Concept of Representation, Hanna Pitkin (1967) argues that legislators should be judged by their actions—substantive representation—and not just their closeness in characteristics to their constituents—descriptive representation. Pitkin's theoretical framework is the standard that political representation scholars use when evaluating whether the presence of women or racial and ethnic minorities in legislatures results in greater responsiveness to female or minority interests. Do female legislators better represent the interests of women in U.S. congressional committee hearings on domestic violence than male legislators? Are minority legislators more active in advocating for minority interests than white legislators in hearings relating to racial profiling? Although Pitkin is skeptical that descriptive representatives alone improve legislators' responsiveness to the interests of constituents that they descriptively represent, extensive normative and empirical analyses focusing on race and gender have demonstrated that it is not a question of whether descriptive representation matters, but rather when and how it matters to improving substantive representation (see, for example, Bratton 2005; Canon 1999; Casellas 2011; Gamble 2007; Gay 2001; Grose 2011; Haynie 2001; Lublin 1997; Mansbridge 1999; Tate 2003; Thomas 1994; Whitby 1997).

Appointee Confirmation and Tenure: The Succession of U.S. Federal Agency Appointees, 1989–2009

This article analyzes the confirmation and tenure of 2,300 Senate‐confirmed, presidential appointees to U.S. government agencies between 1989 and 2009, linking patterns of appointee confirmation and tenure to institutional politics, appointee independence, and agency context. Consistent with prior research, the authors find that nominees of new, powerful, and popular presidents enjoy expedited Senate confirmation. Contentious congressional committee oversight, by contrast, tends to delay confirmation and reduce tenure. Agency heads and positions insulated from removal, such as for fixed‐term positions and inspectors general, increase tenure. Extending empirical research, the analysis highlights program‐ and agency‐level variations that speak to the many contingencies shaping appointee politics. Appointee positions associated with national security and broad statutory discretion receive expedited confirmation. Agencies with more professionals are associated with increased tenure, whereas agencies with more appointees among managers see shorter tenures. The results speak to scholarship on appointee politics and to public knowledge about the role of appointments in American government.

Avoid Chinese equipment firms, says Congress

A US Congressional committee has concluded that Chinese network and mobile equipment manufacturers Huawei and ZTE are not to be trusted and that their products may be used for cyber-espionage.

James Couzens, Andrew Mellon, the 'Greatest Tax Suit in the History of the World,' and Creation of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Its Staff

In early 1924, James Couzens was a Republican Senator from Michigan and reportedly the richest member of Congress. Andrew Mellon was beginning his fourth year as Secretary of the Treasury — a service that would eventually span 11 years under three Republican Administrations — and one of the wealthiest persons in the entire country. This article describes how a feud between these two men, an ensuing investigation led by Couzens of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) (predecessor to the modern-day IRS), and a tax case against Couzens that was described as the “greatest tax suit in the history of the world,” helped lead to creation of the U.S. Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and its staff. The events — filled with political intrigue, backstabbing (real or imagined), and unintended consequences — antagonized Congress’s relationship with the executive branch, but improved cooperation between the House and Senate, and both were instrumental in the JCT’s creation. The story also helps to explain certain of the unique characteristics of the JCT and its staff since their formation. Finally, the article describes how creation of the JCT became entangled with two of the most contentious tax issues of the day — the publicity of tax return information and the depletion allowance for oil and gas production — and played a role in changing the law in both areas. Although the feud and its aftermath were direct factors in the JCT’s creation, the development of the modern income tax during roughly its first decade was an essential ingredient. The decisions made by Congress, the Treasury, and the BIR during that period, and their later understanding (or misunderstanding) of the law and its effects, set the stage for the feud and subsequent events. Thus, in addition to detailing the largely untold story of the origins of an important Congressional committee and its staff, this article explains and analyzes key, early portions of our nation’s 100-year-old law as well as the sometimes flawed decision-making process — involving an intriguing mix of policy, politics, and personality — that helped produce this new institution of government.

Federal Group Reviews Paperwork Burden in Schools

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderPolicy Analysis1 Sep 2012Federal Group Reviews Paperwork Burden in Schools Ingrida Lusis Ingrida Lusis Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.PA2.17112012.4 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Paperwork and other administrative burdens are a top concern of school-based speech-language pathologists and audiologists—as well as teachers and school administrators nationwide. And now an independent agency is recommending that the U.S. Department of Education do something about it. School districts and states that receive money from federal programs—including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), and school meal programs—must complete myriad forms and data reports to comply with federal regulations. In July 2011, a congressional committee asked the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate the paperwork burden. ASHA members have long indicated their concerns with paperwork and reporting requirements. In every ASHA survey [PDF] of school-based professionals since 2000 (conducted every two years), most SLPs (80%–88%) reported that a “high amount of paperwork” was their greatest professional challenge. Paperwork is listed as a top-level concern in ASHA’s 2012 public policy agenda, which calls for the association to “Develop paperwork reduction strategies in collaboration with critical stakeholders, including the educational community, disability advocates, parents/guardians/families, ASHA members and federal/state agencies.” The GAO, a nonpartisan agency that works for Congress to investigate how the federal government spends taxpayer dollars,reviewed the time and effort required in fiscal year 2011 to comply with the requirements of ESEA Title 1, IDEA Part B, and the National School Lunch and Schools Breakfast program. In its review, the GAO requested information from selected officials in three states and 12 school districts on the most burdensome requirement, the cost of complying with the requirements, and federal efforts already underway to reduce or eliminate onerous requirements. The report recommends that the Department of Education: Take additional steps to address duplicative reporting and data-collection efforts across programs. Work with stakeholders to identify unnecessarily burdensome statutory requirements and develop legislative proposals to help reduce or eliminate the burden. In the study, key stakeholders identified 17 federal requirements as complicated, time-intensive, or both. GAO also reported that several of these “most burdensome” requirements ask for duplicative data. Many of those 17 may have an impact on SLPs and audiologists in the schools: ESEA, Title I Part A (assistance to local educational agencies and schools with high numbers or high percentages of children from low-income families) Academic assessments Adequate yearly progress data collection and reporting Alternative assessments Provision of services to eligible private school children State and district report cards Supplemental education services (SES) 20% obligation SES provider approval and monitoring IDEA, Part B (assistance for education of all children with disabilities) IDEA indicators Individualized education program (IEP) processing Transition from Part C to Part B Although stakeholders named these requirements as burdensome, they also identified some benefits for the data collection, including those related to IEP processing and to SES provider approval and monitoring. The report also found that states and school districts do not collect information about the cost to comply with federal requirements, and that some school districts have a difficult time distinguishing federal requirements from state requirements and, therefore, may not be able to track costs separately. To ensure that concerns of school-based SLPs and audiologists are addressed in Department of Education changes, ASHA has established an internal team to examine paperwork burden complexities and to develop legislative, regulatory, and practice strategies to help address this issue. ASHA conducted focus groups at the 2012 Schools Conference to gain a better understanding of the issue and its complexities, and is meeting with other provider groups and stakeholders to develop a comprehensive solution to this growing problem. Author Notes Ingrida Lusis, director of federal and political advocacy, can be reached at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 17Issue 11September 2012 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Sep 1, 2012 Metrics Downloaded 116 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2012 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

Employers United: An Empirical Analysis of Corporate Political Speech in the Wake of the Affordable Care Act

Is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) bad for business? Did the countries' most prominent companies game the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) disclosure process to make negative political statements about ObamaCare? Immediately following the ACA's enactment on March 23, 2010, a number of companies drew scrutiny for issuing SEC filings writing off millions – and in AT&T's case, one billion dollars – against expected earnings for 2010 alone, based on a single, discrete tax-law change in the ACA. Congressional and Administration officials accused the firms of being irresponsible and using big numbers to exaggerate the health reform's burden on employers. To further test the suggestion that these disclosures were politically motivated, we searched all publicly filed SEC real-time and scheduled filings for the quarter following the ACA's enactment. We identified 147 firms that issued SEC disclosures relevant to the tax-law change, writing off a total of five billion dollars. Our deeper analysis of these data amplifies the congressional committee's conclusion that the firms' disclosures were consistent with SEC requirements and financial accounting standards. A handful of firms account for the bulk write-offs, but the only evidence of political speech was by politicians. The episode has significant implications for government regulation of corporate speech and the integrity of the securities disclosure system, particularly as the remaining portions of the ACA are implemented.

Nursing Testimony Before Congress, 1993-2011

This article describes nurses' testimony before congressional committees between 1993 and 2011. We address three questions: (a) How have trends in nurses' testimony changed over time? (b) What do data reveal about nursing's engagement with health policy issues on the congressional agenda? (c) How might the findings be useful in implementation of health care reform and the Institute of Medicine report on the Future of Nursing. Using LexisNexis® Congressional online database, we identified 434 nursing testimonies presented at congressional hearings. Descriptive statistics were used to examine characteristics of the nurse expert witnesses and the testimonies topics on which they testified. Nurses most frequently testified on workforce issues (36%), followed by access and coverage (14%). The majority of the nurse witnesses had graduate degrees 65% and lived and worked in fewer than 10 states. Nurses appeared before House or Senate appropriations committees 38% more often than before any other congressional committees. Our findings point to the need for additional research, especially given the crescendo of calls for nursing to step up to the political table. The article concludes with implications for future research and policy action.

Formaldehyde in textiles–what dermatologists need to know about the relationship to contact dermatitis: A review of the US Government Accountability Office's Report to Congressional Committees

does not contain recommendations. 1 However, pertinent information can be gleaned for dermatologists caring for patients with contact dermatitis that may be related to formaldehyde resins found in many types of textiles. The GAO report tested 180 items for formaldehyde release, using two different tests that have been developed and used by the textile industry. The most frequently used is the Japanese Industrial Standard L 1041 Test, which was developed to measure the amount of formaldehyde that may be released by clothing and other textiles that come into contact with the skin. The American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists 112 Test, which was developed to measure the amount of formaldehyde that may be released from clothing and other textiles during extended storage or hot and humid conditions, 2 is also used in 5 of the 14 studies analyzed in the GAO report. The United States does not have regulations on detectable limits for textiles made in this country, but the majority of items tested would have met the American Apparel and Footwear Association’s most stringent regulations in other countries. 3 Of the 180 items tested, 10 exceeded the acceptable limits defined as less than 75 ppm for products that come into direct contact with the skin, as minimum elicitation thresholds may be as low as 30 ppm in some individuals. Of these, half indicated ‘‘easy care’’ characteristics such as: wrinkle free, stain resistant, and no iron. As expected, all were either 100% cotton or a cotton/polyester or cotton/nylon blend. The most problematic items were adult pillowcases (3/12 released excessive formaldehyde), and men’s and boy’s dress shirts (3/15). Additional itemstestingpositiveincludedapairofmen’skhakis, a child’s hat, a crib sheet, and a pair of US military combat pants. A total of 25 additional items released formaldehyde at a level that was below the lowest acceptable limit, and 145 items released no detectable formaldehyde.

A Congressional counterpoint: Challenging the Reagan Administration on the safety of blood and blood products

When the US Centers for Disease Control met a hard wall of political restraint in attempting a full response to the emergency of AIDS in the early 1980s, it was possible to move toward protection of blood and blood products from the legislative branch of government instead - despite resistance from the Red Cross, blood banks, and the Reagan Administration. A Congressional creation, the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA), received a request from the author, made on behalf of his employer, the Chairman of a Congressional Committee and a Member of the OTA Congressional Board. He asked the OTA to assess US blood policy in light of scientific and technological developments - most importantly the new disease, AIDS. The OTA issued its report in January 1985. In 1995, a new Republican majority in both legislative chambers eliminated the OTA - and thus a valuable source of policy analysis of scientific issues independent of the executive branch.

NIH Austerity?

BioTechniquesVol. 53, No. 2 From the EditorOpen AccessNIH Austerity?Nathan S. BlowNathan S. BlowBioTechniquesSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:3 Apr 2018https://doi.org/10.2144/000113895AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInReddit With all the talk surrounding the importance of funding science, it's always surprising to see the turmoil when it comes to deciding on the budgets of major research funders every year. And 2013 will prove to be no different.In fact, the coming year might turn out to be one of the most anxiety-inducing thus far for the scientific research community. The reason for this enhanced concern is the possibility that a series of pre-programmed budget cuts (caused by sequestration) will happen if Congress cannot come to a resolution on how best to deal with the growing budget deficit.These cuts are not only a direct result of the desire to reduce our national debt, but also the inability of congressional committees to arrive at a consensus on how spending cuts should be implemented. This failure has triggered the possibility of a 7.8% cut in funding to all non-military governmental agencies—that would include major funders of scientific research such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). Even without cuts, NIH is still facing 0% growth in federal funding for 2013 (or negative growth when inflation is factored in) based on the current proposed budget. A 7.8% cut, however, would mean an immediate reduction in the number of external grants awarded and the possible closure of other projects and initiatives (by one account, the result would be 2300 fewer new and competing grants in 2013).Many predict that Congress will come to a resolution prior to the deadline and avoid such automatic across-the-board cuts. However, will this possibility be enough to calm the scientific community when it comes to the future of government-sponsored research funding? And more importantly, should it?The coming months will clearly prove challenging for the leadership of agencies such as NSF and NIH. How would NIH deal with the loss of nearly $3 billion from their budget (if a 7.8% cut is enacted)? Is the NIH already overextended? Obviously, it is important to advocate for more funding of science research, and clearly spell out to members of Congress and the general public the importance of basic research, but similar to many companies in this economically difficult time, it is also important to clearly understand fiscal limitations and make proper plans. The unprecedented growth of the NIH budget for many years resulted in incredible funding opportunities. But now, with the strong possibility of scaling back on the horizon, NIH will need to clearly prioritize funding opportunities and assess how funds are allocated if the agency is going to maintain a broad scientific mandate—not a simple task by any means.Much to their credit, leaders at NIH have already made strong steps in this direction. Earlier this year, the institute examined a plan to limit awardees to $1.5 million in federal grants in an effort to fund more applications. Such measures are becoming a necessity as the institute struggles to find the best mechanism to fund a growing number of research projects with less money.Basic research remains critical to advancing health and disease treatment in the US and throughout the rest of the world. With pharmaceutical companies and biotechnology firms reducing the size of their research and development efforts, the strain to support basic discovery efforts will inevitably fall back on government funding. In the end, whether or not NIH faces greater cuts at the start of 2013 remains to be determined by Congress, but what is needed now is seeing this as a moment in time for reflection and discussion on the future of science funding.As always, please share your thoughts with us by posting at our Molecular Biology Forums under “To the Editor” (http://molecularbiology.forums.biotechniques.com) or sending an email directly to the editors (bioeditor@biotechniques.com).FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Vol. 53, No. 2 Follow us on social media for the latest updates Metrics History Published online 3 April 2018 Published in print August 2012 Information© 2012 Author(s)PDF download

Looking at Congressional Committee Deliberations from Different Perspectives: Is the Added Effort Worth It?

This paper has two parallel aims — one methodological and one more substantive. With respect to methodology, the basic motivation of this paper is to assess the extent to which different automated content analysis software yield broadly similar results, when applied to the same corpora. The two corpora analysed here originate from our book (Deliberating Monetary Policy) that seeks better to understand deliberations on US monetary policy. In our book, we sought to capture the content and substance of the discourse in the House and Senate hearings on the Federal Reserve’s Monetary Policy Report over a 33 year period (1976-2008). Our empirical analysis of the textual data in Deliberating Monetary Policy employed Alceste as the automated content analysis software. This paper presents a specific challenge to the software by employing two other automated content analysis software on the transcripts of the congressional hearings — T-Lab and Dtm-Vic. These two software packages were chosen because they both employ methods and functions that approximate some of those found in Alceste and so provide enough common functionality to allow comparisons of the results, without in any way serving as actual replicas of Alceste. Here the task not only is to challenge the initial findings but also to push beyond them. In terms of substance, this paper also asks, what more can we learn from adding new methodological perspectives?

Mary Norton: "A Grand Girl"

£ £ E A R M A R Y , You are a grand gir l , Franklin D . I 1 Roosevelt wrote on White House stationary on June 1, * J 1942.1 The letter was addressed to Honorable Mary T . Norton,2 the first Democratic woman elected, after suffrage, to the House of Representatives. Norton, whose papers are housed in Rutgers University's Alexander Library, represented Jersey City and Bayonne in the House from 1924 to 1950. She was the first woman to serve on the New Jersey State Democratic Committee, of which she was chairwoman from 1932 to 1948. She became the first woman to co-chair the National Democratic Platform Committee in 1944 and, in 1948, the first woman to chair the Credentials Committee; in 1932, Norton became the first Democratic woman elected to a position on the Board of Chosen Freeholders in Hudson County, New Jersey; and in 1924 she was elected to the House of Representatives and was the first woman to chair a congressional committee—the House Committee on the District of Columbia, on which she served as Mayor of the District from 1931 to 1937. Norton was also the first woman to chair the House Labor Commit-