President Bush ordered today that the President’s Council of Advisors for Science and Technology shall now serve as the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC), answering the question about what would become of PITAC after the President allowed that committee’s charter to expire last June. I’m not sure how the new responsibilities will be handled by PCAST — presumably the committee will be expanded somewhat to handle the load, but we’ll see.
I’m of two minds about the move. On the one hand, the membership of PCAST is top-notch. Having advisors of that stature become interested and invested in some of the issues of great concern to the IT community (like the overall level of federal support and the changing landscape for computing research) would add even more weight to our position. But I’m worried that the committee, which has a much broader charter than PITAC’s narrow focus on IT issues, won’t be able to examine the issues with the same depth that an independent IT advisory committee may have.
Anyway, we’ll keep a close eye on developments and report them here.
Update: (five minutes after I posted above) The National Coordinating Office for IT is calling this an elevation of the role of external information technology advice in the White House. Here’s the OSTP press release. (pdf)
The release points out that PCAST is also the National Nanotechnology Advisory Panel and that the committee established a “technical advisory group” comprising of “about 50 top government and private sector nanotechnology scientists” that has proved “highly beneficial” to PCAST’s NNI assessments. They plan to do something similar for IT.
As more details are revealed, I’m thinking the positives outweigh the negatives. …
On September 15th, the Senate approved the FY 2006 Commerce, Science, Justice appropriations bill (its version of the House’s Science, State, Justice, Commerce bill, which the House approved back in June), approving funding for a number of science agencies for the coming year. As we noted back in June, the Senate indicated it was going to be less generous than the House for some key science agencies, and that indication held true. With the Senate’s action, we now have a substantial piece of the puzzle that is the annual appropriations process for science, so it seems like an appropriate time to summarize where we stand. After the agency-by-agency summaries, see the “outlook” section for the reasons why things will probably get even worse.
NSF:
(in millions of dollars) |
||||||
Budget Request |
House |
Senate |
FY05 (%) |
FY05 (%) |
||
| Research and Related Activities | 4,220.6 | 4,333.5 | 4,310 | 4,345.2 | 2.1% | 3.0% |
| MREFC | 173.7 | 250 | 193.4 | 193.4 | 11.3% | 11.3% |
| Education and Human Resources | 841.4 | 737 | 807 | 747 | -4.1% | -11.2% |
| Salaries and Expenses | 223.2 | 269 | 250 | 229.9 | 12.0% | 3.0% |
| National Science Board | 4 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 0% | 0% |
| Office of the Inspector General | 10 | 11.5 | 11.5 | 11.5 | 15% | 15% |
| Total NSF | 5,472.9 | 5,605 | 5,643.3 | 5,531 | 3.1% | 1.1% |
While the Senate increase of 1.1 percent for FY 2006 would be well below the expected rate of inflation over the next year (meaning its increase is actually a small cut in real-dollar terms), even the slightly-more-reasonable increase approved by the House would still be a decline in real dollars of $114 million over the FY 2004 level, marking the second straight year of real-dollar budget cuts to the only federal agency focused exclusively on basic research.
NIST:
(in millions of dollars) |
||||||
Budget Request |
House |
Senate |
FY05 (%) |
FY05 (%) |
||
| STRS (NIST Labs) | 378.7 | 426.3 | 397.7 | 399.9 | 5.0% | 5.6% |
|
65.4 | |||||
| Industrial Tech Services | 247.9 | 46.8 | 106 | 246 | -57.2% | -0.8% |
|
107.5 | 46.8 | 106 | 106 | -1.4% | -1.4% |
|
0 | 140 | ||||
| Construction of Research Facilities | 72.5 | 58.9 | 45 | 198.6 | -37.9% | 173.9% |
| Total NIST | 699.1 | 532 | 548.7 | 844.5 | -21.5% | 20.8% |
These numbers are subject to significant change during conference, as conferees will have to reconcile the $140 million discrepancy between the House and Senate numbers for NIST’s controversial Advanced Technology Program. Unfortunately, either NIST Labs or construction of research facilities will likely bear the brunt of the reconciliation.
(in millions of dollars) |
||||||
Budget Request |
House |
Senate |
FY05 (%) |
FY05 (%) |
||
| Office of Science | 3,599.9 | 3,462.7 | 3,666 | 3,702 | 1.8% | 2.9% |
|
1,104.6 | 1,146 | 1,173.1 | 1,241 | 6.2% | 12.3% |
|
232 | 207 | 246 | 207 | 6.0% | -10.8% |
NASA:
(in millions of dollars) |
||||||
Budget Request |
House |
Senate |
FY05 (%) |
FY05 (%) |
||
| Science, Aeronautics and Exploration | 7,806.13 | 9,661 | 9,725.8 | 9,761 | 24.6% | 25.0% |
| Exploration Capabilities | 8,358.4 | 6,763 | 6,712.9 | 6,603 | -19.7% | -21.0% |
| Office of the Inspector General | 31.3 | 32.4 | 32.4 | 32.4 | 3.5% | 3.5% |
| Total NASA | 16,195.8 | 16,456.4 | 16,471.1 | 16,396.4 | 1.7% | 1.2% |
| 3 Includes $126.0 million in supplemental appropriations Note: NASA moved some programmatic funds between the Science and the Exploration Capabilities account for FY 06, resulting in the big net changes shown in the figures above. | ||||||
It’s not clear yet how how supercomputing at NASA Ames would be further affected by these numbers….
NOAA:
(in millions of dollars) |
||||||
Budget Request |
House |
Senate |
FY05 (%) |
FY05 (%) |
||
| Operations Research and Facilities | 2,793.61 | 2,531.2 | 2,447 | 3,203 | 12.4% | 14.7% |
| Total NOAA | 3,925.12 | 3,581.2 | 3,429 | 4,476 | -12.6% | 14.0% |
| 1 Includes $24.0 million in supplemental appropriations 2 Includes $58.9 million in supplemental appropriations |
||||||
The House and Senate funding levels are so far apart for NOAA it’s hard to imagine where the final number will be after the conference, or what other agency funding will look like as a result. It’s possible that the Senate could back off the NOAA number and use the difference to increase funding for NSF (the Senate did include some glowing praise for NSF in its report, just no significant funding), but it’s unclear anyone knows what the final outcome will be.
In theory, with the Senate’s consideration of the Commerce, Science, Justice bill we should have a more complete view of how federal science agencies should fare in the FY 06 appropriations process. But in reality, even with the Senate and House numbers, there are other factors at play that make predicting a “final” number impossible at this point.
The most significant “X” factor is the impact of the federal response to Hurricane Katrina — ultimately expected to exceed over $200 billion in emergency spending. As that number grows, so does the chorus of voices calling for other cuts in federal spending to mitigate the blow to the budget (including efforts in the blogosphere gaining some attention). The House Republican Study Committee — which numbers about 100 GOP congressmen — has already announced “Operation Offset,” a list of budget cuts (pdf) that could be used to help offset the predicted spending. Included in the recommendations are cuts to the NSF Math and Science Program (saving $188 million this year), canceling NASA’s Moon/Mars Initiative (saving $1.5 billion), and eliminating ATP and MEP ($140 million and $110 million respectively).
While it’s not likely that budget cuts will happen line-by-line as the RSC suggests, it’s possible that the leadership could adopt an across-the-board recision to all federal agencies as they did last year — which cost NSF (and every other Science agency, save NASA’s shuttle and moon/mars program) 2% of their FY 05 appropriation. Another slightly less likely possibility is that the appropriators decide to punt on FY 06 funding and pass a Continuing Resolution that lasts the duration of the fiscal year, freezing funding across the board.
With ten appropriations bills still unfinished and the start of the 2006 fiscal year only 5 days away, Congress will have to pass a Continuing Resolution to keep the federal government operating after October 1st. The first CR will hit the House floor on Wednesday and will likely keep things running through early November, absent the resolution of all outstanding appropriations bills. Funding in the CR will be set at either the lower of the Senate or House approved levels, or at the current level, with no new starts (or programs cancelled). There is some interest within the congressional leadership for sidestepping some of the concerns about Katrina offsets and the effect on the budget reconciliation process by passing a CR that would be in effect for all of FY 06.
Any of the scenarios above puts science funding in jeopardy for FY 06 and would prove very difficult for the science community to combat. The decision will be purely political, based on the extent of the leadership’s fears that they’ll be punished by conservatives in the 06 elections for spending so freely.
That noted, the science community still needs to weigh in on the appropriations debate. CRA’s Computing Research Advocacy Network will be doing its part with an activity targeted at urging House members to support — at the very least — the increases they’ve already approved for NSF, NIST, and DOE Science (including ASC) in conference, and urging Senate members to the House number. If you haven’t yet joined CRAN, now’s your chance. CRAN members, keep your eyes peeled for the next CRAN alert, which will provide all the details.
The Globe and Mail has an interesting article today and the disconnect between the perception of the computing job market (bad) and the reality (good).
David Kellam can do but he’s opting to teach.
He graduated from Queen’s University last year with a degree in computing. But he’s turning away from the tech sector as a long-term career prospect. Instead, the 23-year-old went back to Queen’s and enrolled in the faculty of education.
“I see no need to get myself stuck in a grey box somewhere pounding out code that may or may not be used inside some whale of an application,” Mr. Kellam says.
He is among a growing number of North American students and grads steering away from tech-sector jobs, presuming the industry is still in a post-bubble slump, with little in the way of employment opportunities.
How wrong they are, according to industry experts, who point to strong evidence that the tech industry is on the rise again and facing a supply-and-demand hiring disconnect.
It’s a good read.
The article cites data from CRA’s Taulbee Survey. If you haven’t checked out the new CRA Bulletin (now in Blog form!), it’s compiled by CRA’s Manager of Membership and Information Services Jay Vegso, who along with Survey’s and Evaluation coordinator Betsy Bizot, helps pull together all the Taulbee data every year. Jay has a number of informative posts on the IT workforce debate, the Taulbee data, workforce projections, and overall high-tech employment. A worthy addition to your blog roll….