At the end of last week, the Biden Administration released its long anticipated full Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) Budget Request. As we have done in years past, we’ll be writing a series of posts on the assorted agency budgets that are important to the computing research community. First up: the National Science Foundation.
NSF fares quite well in the President’s request, a stark change from previous years budget request. It’s worth noting that this fuller budget request is in line with the “skinny” blueprint that was released in April. Under the Administration’s plan, the agency would see a nearly 20 percent increase compared to FY21, in overall funding. NSF would go from $8.49 billion in FY21 to $10.2 billion in FY22, an increase of $1.7 billion.
A large part of that increase would go into Research and Related Activities (R&RA), the subaccount that contains the funding for research grants. R&RA would increase from $6.91 billion in FY21 to $8.14 billion in FY22, a plus up of $1.2 billion (or 17.8 percent). Education and Human Resources (EHR), the subaccount that contains the agency’s education programs, would also see an increase of $319 million, going from $968 million in FY21 to $1.29 billion under the President’s plan; that’s an increase of 33 percent.
FY20
FY21
FY22 PBR
$ Change
% Change
NSF Total
$8.28B
$8.49B
$10.2B
+$1.7B
+19.8%
R&RA
$6.74B
$6.91B
$8.14B
+$1.2B
+17.8%
EHR
$940M
$968M
$1.29B
+$319M
+33%
CISE
$996M
$1.01B
$1.12B
+$29M
+11%
TIP
NA
NA
$865M
—
—
The Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate (CISE), the home for most computing research support at NSF, would receive an 11 percent increase under the President’s plan, growing by more than $110 million over FY21. That increase would be roughly evenly divided across the directorate, with the Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure, Computing and Communication Foundations (CCF), Computer and Network Systems (CNS), and Information and Intelligent Systems (IIS) all receiving about 9 percent more in FY22 (or about $20 million), and the Information Technology Research (ITR) program receiving $29 million (or about 24.5 percent more than FY22). That ITR funding is requested to “support convergent activities that transcend the traditional disciplinary boundaries of individual NSF units.”
In addition to CISE support for the broad scope of the computing research fields – indeed, in FY21 the directorate estimates it is responsible for funding 87 percent of the federal funding for fundamental computer science research at U.S. academic institutions – the request notes major investments in Advanced Manufacturing, Advanced Wireless Research, Artificial Intelligence, and Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace, with significant increases in funding in FY22 for Climate: Clean Energy Technology, Microelectronics and Semiconductors, and Quantum Information Science. CISE support would continue for the AI Research Institutes program, which would grow from $25.5 million in FY21 to $30.5 million in FY22. Including support from other directorates, the AI Research Institutes program would grow to $69 million in FY22 (from $51 million).
Overall, the newly requested funding would allow CISE to fund an additional 440 research grants compared to FY21 (2,010 in FY21 vs. 2450 FY22 estimate), raising the overall funding rate from 24 percent to 27 percent.
In a briefing with CRA staff, CISE AD Margaret Martonosi noted the goals guiding development of this request were a desire to enhance fundamental research overall, strengthen U.S. leadership, advance equity, advance climate science, and advance the continuation of facilities construction. Included in the request is $100 million targeted around racial equity-related programs. Martonosi also highlighted directorate priorities around AI, increasing engagement with Minority Serving Institutions, Climate Change, Advanced Wireless Research and the Resilient and Intelligent Next-Generation Systems (RINGS) program, and working with the new Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) Directorate.
The new directorate is perhaps the biggest change in this year’s NSF request. Under the President’s plan, it would be established within R&RA and be similar to the Directorate of Technology & Innovation, proposed in the Senate’s Endless Frontier Act, and the Directorate for Science & Engineering Solutions, which is in the House Science Committee’s NSF for the Future bill. TIP’s mission would be to:
“closely collaborate with all of NSF’s other directorates and offices, as well as with other stakeholders in the Nation’s research, innovation, and education enterprise, to advance science and engineering research and innovation leading to breakthrough technologies as well as solutions to national and societal challenges, sustaining and enhancing U.S. competitiveness on a global stage; accelerate the translation of fundamental discoveries from lab to market, advancing the U.S. economy; and create education pathways for every American to pursue new, high-wage jobs, supporting a diverse workforce of researchers, practitioners, and entrepreneurs.”
The Biden Administration is recommending that TIP be established with an initial budget of $865 million, though the President’s American Jobs Plan calls for a total of $50 billion to be invested in the new directorate over the next 8 years. In addition to directorate funding of NSF-wide investments in the major investment areas noted above, the directorate request includes $200 million for new Regional Innovation Accelerators (RIAs). These centers are intended to, “build and expand the capacities for innovation at the level of individual communities and/or regions,” by tackling use-inspired, solutions-oriented research and innovation. The goal is to help areas without the research infrastructure of a Silicon Valley become the next Silicon Valley by partnering NSF, academia, industry, non-profits, state and local governments and venture capital. The RIAs would be funded at $10 million per year for 10 years.
How the new directorate would integrate with the existing directorates is still somewhat of an open question. What it will look like after Congress has its say in the matter is another. But with its inclusion in the budget request, and its prominent role in both major NSF reauthorization proposals in Congress, it’s clear that some directorate-like entity tasked with a technology development mission will be stood up at the Foundation, probably in FY22.
These large new investments in NSF may seem like too-good-to-be-true news for NSF, so what’s the catch? The catch is Congress has to agree with this plan and then appropriate the funds. Given the bipartisan praise and attention that NSF is currently receiving from Congress, with the aforementioned Endless Frontier Act and the NSF for the Future Act, a budget increase for the agency is likely. However, during one of the Senate hearings for the EFA, Senator Moran (R-KS), the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations CJS Subcommittee, which is in charge of NSF’s budget, mentioned that he thought it would be difficult to appropriate funding levels this high given the subcommittee’s other obligations. Is that a fiscal conservative’s pessimistic view or an important perspective to keep expectations for NSF in check? It’s hard to say right now, but keeping hopes reasonable is always a good idea.
Still, this request shows great confidence in NSF and it is an excellent place for the budget process to begin. Next stop is the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, both of which have already begun hearings on the agency’s budget and should start drafting their bills soon. We can expect to get the first indications sometime in July. We’ll be keeping track, so please check back for more updates.
On Friday, President Joe Biden released his $6 trillion, detailed request for the FY 2022 Federal Budget, including a 9 percent increase for Federal investments in research and development across the government. This strong commitment to R&D in a budget request is a markeddepartureoverthe budget requests for science in the previous administration. It also reflects a belief by the current Administration that science can help make real progress on concerns around climate change, our health and well-being in the face of pandemic and other disease, and ensure that the U.S. maintains its economic and technological leadership against a growing threat from China and other global competitors.
Across the board, non-defense science agencies fared well in the President’s request. As we noted from the President’s “Skinny Budget” released back in April, the National Science Foundation would receive nearly 20 percent in additional funding in FY22 under the President’s plan, with the CISE directorate receiving an increase of 11 percent over FY21. The President’s request also calls for the creation of a new Directorate of Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) alongside the existing research directorates that would focus on helping move research into the marketplace. That focus includes a $200 million requested investment in new regional innovation accelerators to help parts of the country with underdeveloped research infrastructures compete better with established tech centers like Silicon Valley. The overall requested investment in TIP would be $865 million in FY22 under the President’s plan, with a goal of total spending for the directorate of $50 billion over the next 8 years.
DOE’s Office of Science would see a more modest increase of 6 percent over FY21 under the President’s plan, with the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program growing by 2 percent to support exascale and the Leadership Class computing centers.
NIST would see its budget grow by 45 percent, including an increase of 16 percent for the Science and Technical Research and Service program.
NASA would grow by 7 percent, including a 9 percent increase for NASA Science programs.
On the Defense side, the situation is not nearly so favorable for research. Defense basic research (6.1) would decline by 13 percent under the President’s plan; applied research (6.2) would decline by 14 percent; and Advanced Technology Development would see an 11 percent decline. As is nearly always the case with the Defense request (especially for research), there is often much give and take between the President’s requested budget and the one ultimately settled on by Congress, but such big requested cuts as a starting point in the negotiation ought to raise concerns.
As always, the President’s budget request marks just the first step in the annual process that will result in the final appropriations bills that will fund all the operations of government. Congress will have its say in the coming weeks and months. While the budget requests of the previous administration were routinely ignored by Congress, many of the increases proposed in this one — especially those for NSF — will find favor in both parties, though perhaps not quite to the same degree.
In the coming days, we’ll have deeper dives on all the key science agencies, including a close look at NSF CISE and the new TIP Directorate. And, of course, we’ll bring you all the details as the appropriations process makes its long, meandering way to final resolution this Fall (or Winter?).
Over the last two months, competing visions of the future of the National Science Foundation have been making their way through the House and Senate. And much like the famous opening line of Tale of Two Cities, their paths could not be more dissimilar. On the House side, the National Science Foundation for the Future Act has made deliberative and bipartisan progress through the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Meanwhile, on the Senate side, the Endless Frontier Act has been introduced; pulled, reworked, and reintroduced; heavily amended during a marathon Senate Commerce Committee hearing; and is now before the full Senate undergoing another round of amendments. Very different paths.
Let’s start with the Senate and the Endless Frontier Act. This has been a moving target with major changes to the bill happening at every legislative step. Regular readers will recall that the bill was first introduced in mid-April; it was almost immediately pulled from a scheduled Senate Commerce Committee hearing because of a large number of amendments, which is a sign that the legislation would not progress as written. The legislation was reworked, incorporating as many amendments as possible, and was reintroduced at a marathon 6+ hour hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee. At that hearing, the bill was further changed.
The new Endless Frontier Act is quite different. The bill still establishes a new Directorate for Technology & Innovation (abbreviated TD for “Tech Directorate”) with the directorate’s program managers expected to operate like their counterparts at DARPA. As well, the ten Technology Focus Areas (which are largely unchanged from previous versions) are now required to be reviewed every year; it had been every three years. Additionally, the new language transfers several current efforts of NSF into the new directorate. Most make sense and aren’t problematic, such as the Convergence Accelerator and the I-Corps programs; however, it does transfer the National AI Research Institutes program out of CISE with potential ramifications for the CS research community.
The funding authorizations are also different from previous versions. NSF, minus the new TD, gets a plus up of 30 percent over five years — a rough average of 5.5 percent a year. The Foundation would grow from just under $9 billion in Fiscal Year 2022 to just over $11 billion in 2026. In a significant change from previous versions of the bill, the new tech directorate would receive just over $40 billion in authorizations over five years, starting out at $2.5B in FY22 and growing to $14.9B in FY26, well down from the $100 billion originally proposed. As in the previous versions, that funding would be targeted to R&D activities in the key focus areas, support for scholarships and fellowships, test beds, efforts to improve academic tech transfer, and capacity building at historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and other minority serving institutions (MSIs). Additionally, in perhaps the most contentious change, the Department of Energy would also receive a $16 billion funding authorization over five years to perform research in the Technology Focus Areas. Guidance to DOE on how to spend the authorization is limited to “R&D and address[ing] the energy-related supply chain activities within the key focus areas.” Much of these DOE funds come directly at the expense of the new directorate; in fact, Senator Young (R-IN), one of the co-sponsors of EFA, called this amendment a “poison pill” during the committee hearing.
There are other provisions of note in the new language. Perhaps the most significant is a new emphasis on the geographic diversity of which states receive NSF funds. Senator Wicker (R-MS), the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee, championed this issue during previous hearings. The new language now requires NSF to use “at least 20 percent” of the funding provided to the TD to carry out the EPSCoR program, which helps states who historically receive less NSF funding to build up their research capacity. In addition, the legislation also requires that “at least 20 percent” of all NSF funding must be used to carry out EPSCoR. Senator Wicker called this a “quantum leap” in terms of providing geographic diversity; seeing as last year NSF used about 3 percent of its research funding for EPSCoR, the Senator’s description is close to the mark. Provisions echoing this are throughout the legislation language for almost everything that is authorized.
There are also new provisions concerning research security, putting potentially greater scrutiny on controls for the research funded at the new directorate. There are two sections that are potentially concerning for the research community (legislative text in full). One section (Sec. 2303) puts prohibitions and reporting requirements on principal investigators from taking part in foreign talent recruit programs, with complete bans on recruitment programs from China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea. The second section (Sec. 2304) is about “Additional Requirements for Directorate Research Security;” while vaguely worded, it could potentially lay the groundwork for putting controls on the research performed in the new directorate. The language is not clear as to what those controls would be, but it leans heavily on NSF to figure out how to protect the research in the technology focus areas.
While not a clean process, EFA did pass the Senate Commerce Committee with a bipartisan vote of 24-4. It was then moved quickly to the Senate floor last week, combined into a package with other legislation, and renamed the “United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021.” The bill is now 1400+ pages and has several new sections corresponding to several pieces of other legislation considered by other Senate committees. A major addition to the package is the “Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) for America Fund,” which provides $52 billion in emergency appropriations for semiconductor R&D. These funds are to both help bolster and expand the semiconductor industry in the United States and to foster research on next generation chips. Much of this legislative package deals with responding to the rise of China as a peer-rival to the US, so there are many sections handling foreign policy matters. But there are also sections dealing with research security, such as subjecting foreign donations to US academic institutions to oversight by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS). In short, this is no longer an authorization bill; it is much bigger.
The legislation was expected to be finalized and voted on before the Memorial Day weekend, but that has since changed; it is now expected to be handled in June when the Senate reconvenes after their holiday recess.
On the other side of Capitol Hill, the response has been very different. After the Senate Commerce Committee passed EFA, Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), the Ranking Member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee put out a statement saying much of the Senate bill lacks a clear vision for NSF and is weighed down by special interest provisions. Rep. Lucas’ view should be seen as a barometer of Republican support for NSF; they will advocate for increases but only to an extent, and those increases must be well justified.
To that end, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has been moving their own NSF bill. Regular readers will recall that Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) and Ranking Member Lucas, along with Subcommittee on Research and Technology Chairwoman Haley Stevens (D-MI) and Ranking Member Michael Waltz (R-FL), introduced the National Science Foundation for the Future Act in late March and have been holding several hearings about NSF since. On May 13th the Subcommittee on Research and Technology held a markup of the legislation. In contrast with the Senate, the legislation is unchanged since introduction, it received only a few non-controversial amendments during this hearing, and it was passed unanimously on a voice vote. The next step is for the full Science Committee to markup the legislation; that’s likely to happen in early June. Consideration on the House floor should happen soon after. The Science Committee is also beginning the process of reauthorizing the Department of Energy’s Office of Science; we’ll have more details on that in a future post.
What happens next? At some point, these two different views on NSF’s future have to be reconciled and a compromise worked out. The main draw for EFA has been its higher funding level for the agency but, because of all the amendments, it is now much closer to the levels in the NSF for the Future Act; that is actually good from a compromise perspective. But since the USICA covers so many topics, many of which the House has not begun to cover, will the House even consider a conference? Or would it attempt to break the matter up into smaller pieces? Would the Senate agree to go along with that approach? It’s not unusual for legislation to remain idle before there’s an agreement between the two chambers, but that idleness can last months. Should the Senate pass the EFA/USICA bill, the likelihood that something gets worked out is high. But the timeframe is TBD. We’ll keep tracking all the developments, so please check back for more information.
Today the United States Senate confirmed on a voice vote Dr. Eric Lander as the next Presidential Science Advisor and Director of the Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP). Nominated in January by President Biden, Dr. Lander, a world-renowned biologist and former leader of the Human Genome Project, will be the first Science Advisor in history to be a member of the President’s Cabinet.
The Computing Research Association applauds the bipartisan effort to increase dramatically investments in American science and technology research at the National Science Foundation through the introduction of the National Science Foundation for the Future Act (H.R. 2225). The cosponsors of the bill, House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) and Ranking Member Frank Lucas (R-OK), along with Subcommittee on Research and Technology Chairwoman Haley Stevens (D-MI) and Ranking Member Michael Waltz (R-FL), all long-time champions of America’s scientific research enterprise, continue their leadership with this well-crafted vision for the future of the National Science Foundation.
The legislation proposes many improvements and updates to the Foundation. In particular, we view the proposed investments in the Foundation’s Research and Related Activities account as essential for the continued health of the US research enterprise, the country’s economic competitiveness, and our national defense. Additionally, the provisions on STEM education and workforce development, as well as the section on broadening participation, are crucial to address long-standing problems in the country’s scientific ecosystem and will help it to grow and benefit all Americans, regardless of race, gender, or economic standing.
We thank the bill’s co-sponsors and look forward to working with all parties to help perfect the bill as it makes its way through the legislative process.
Yesterday, Senator Schumer (D-NY), the Senate Majority Leader, along with Senator Young (R-IN) and a bipartisan group of 10 other Senators, reintroduced the Endless Frontier Act, legislation that would authorize $100 billion in new funding for the National Science Foundation and make the agency responsible for maintaining the country’s global leadership in innovation. There is also a bipartisan version introduced in the House. Regular readers will recall that this bill was introduced last year and its reintroduction has been anticipated.
There are several differences between this bill and what was introduced a year ago. One notable difference is that it no longer stipulates a change to NSF’s name. Another is that this is not a straight reauthorization of NSF; it is much broader and can likely be filed under a “national competitiveness” heading. There are several sections on NIST and the Department of Commerce, on such topics as Supply Chain Resiliency, Regional Technology Hubs, and a Manufacturing USA program (some of this, but not all, was in last year’s bill).
However, the core of last year’s proposal is back with some meaningful tweaks. It again proposes a new technology development directorate, now named the “Directorate of Technology and Innovation.” And it still would require the Program Managers and experts of the new directorate to operate like their counterparts at DARPA. And the key technology focus areas are back, though slightly broadened in some area:
(i) artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other software advances;
(ii) high performance computing, semiconductors, and advanced computer hardware;
(iii) quantum computing and information systems;
(iv) robotics, automation, and advanced manufacturing;
(v) natural and anthropogenic disaster prevention or mitigation;
(vi) advanced communications technology;
(vii) biotechnology, genomics, and synthetic biology;
(viii) cybersecurity, data storage, and data management technologies;
(ix) advanced energy, batteries, and industrial efficiency;
(x) advanced materials science, engineering, and exploration relevant to the other key technology focus areas;
The legislation still requires that there only be ten focus areas at any one time, and they can be changed every three years. It’s unclear where the new directorate will reside in NSF; the text appears to give discretion to the NSF Director to determine this.
A new change is the funding authorization in the bill. In Section 4, it establishes a $112.41 billion fund over five years, dubbed the “Endless Frontier Fund.” The bill empowers the Director of the Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) with budget authority to administer the fund. Additionally, the bill stipulates that $100 billion of this fund goes to NSF for the new directorate; it would then be authorized for each of the five years as follows:
$5B for Fiscal Year 2022
$10B for Fiscal Year 2023
$20B for Fiscal Year 2024
$30B for Fiscal Year 2025
$35B for Fiscal Year 2026
There is an additional $9.425 billion authorized for NIST and the regional technology hub program, $575 million for the “comprehensive regional technology strategy grant program,” and $2.41 billion for a new Manufacturing USA Program.
What exactly is this new directorate supposed to fund? The legislation is pretty specific, with 35 percent of funds to go to a “University Technology Centers” program; 15 percent to scholarships, fellowships, and other student support, including not fewer than 1,000 postdoctoral fellowships, 2,000 graduate fellowships and traineeships, and 1,000 undergraduate scholarships in the key technology focus areas; 5 percent to a “Moving Technology from Laboratory to Market” program; 10 percent to a “Test Beds” program; 15 percent for, “research and related activities in cross-directorate awards;” and 20 percent for research in the key technology focus areas.
The legislation also makes it much more explicit that the new directorate should work with other Federal research agencies, specifically calling out the Department of Energy, the National Labs, and NIST. While this has always been an understood function of the new directorate, it seems the bill’s authors wanted to make it clearer as to how it should work across the Federal agencies for a whole-of-government approach to innovation.
While this all appears to represent a huge potential increase to NSF, keep in mind that this is an authorizing (or policy) bill, not an appropriations bill. That means that if it were to become law, funding is not a given, and NSF would still have to get funding through the appropriations process. Still, this again shows that NSF has the confidence of key members of Congress and that it is well positioned to help lead the country’s innovation strategy.
But how does this fit in with the House Science Committee’s recent bill? And President Biden’s recently announced infrastructure plan and skinny budget? Put simply, we don’t know. These are competing visions for NSF’s future and the differences will have to be hammered out through the legislative process before anything becomes law. But the fact that this is bipartisan legislation, originating in the Senate, gives the whole effort a good chance at success. The first real indication will be a Senate Commerce Committee mark-up of this legislation expected to be scheduled for next week. So we will have to see how this process plays out; be sure to keep checking back for updates.
PS: Again, if you’re having trouble keeping all these proposals straight, here’s a handy visual cheat sheet.
Update 4/28: The EFA bill has been pulled from the April 28th Senate Commerce Committee hearing due to a large number of amendments that were offered by committee members (we have heard over 200). That is usually a sign of the current bill not having consensus to pass as written. The assumption is there will be behind the scenes negotiations to come up with new language that can address some of the concerns raised by the amendments and would make the bill more likely to pass with bipartisan support. This moves consideration of EFA to the middle of May, at the earliest, though further delays are possible. This situation is still highly fluid, so keep checking back for updates.
As we’ve noted previously, President Biden’s $2 trillion American Jobs Plan includes some pretty large proposed investments in R&D — on the order of $180 billion over the eight years of the plan. But that’s not the only aspect of the plan that might be relevant to computing researchers. Also included is a $400 billion investment in the “Caretaking Economy” targeted at home and community-based care for elderly and disabled people. On the new CCC Catalyzing Computing podcast, join host Khari Douglas as he talks with CCC Council member Dr. Katie Siek from Indiana University about her work on some of the aging-in-place technologies that will become an increasingly important part of the caretaking economy in the years ahead.
This week, in four different Congressional hearings, members of Congress got their first chance to weigh in on the multiple proposed changes to the National Science Foundation. Two of these hearings were with Congressional appropriators and concerned President Biden’s Fiscal Year 2022 “skinny” budget request that was released last week. The other two hearings were with the science authorizing committees – the House Science, Space and Technology Committee convened Thursday to consider “Reimagining our Innovation Future,” including some discussion of their newly introduced National Science Foundation for the Future Act, and the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee covered the yet to be reintroduced Endless Frontier Act from Senators Schumer (D-NY) and Young (R-IN). The good news is the initial reactions were mostly positive. However, there are concerns by some members about NSF’s ability to handle a large infusion of funds and whether it’s the right agency to secure the country’s competitiveness.
Many of the questions that Dr. Panchanathan responded to concerned whether NSF could handle such a large increase of its budget. He made the case that NSF is not able to currently fund all of the proposals that it deems to be of high merit. As Science Magazine pointed out:
He told Senate appropriators that NSF would use the money to make more grants and expand their size and duration. Specifically, he said, the average grant would grow from $200,000 to $300,000 and from 3 years to 4 or 5 years. The percentage of submitted proposals accepted by the agency would rise from about 20% to 30% or higher, allowing NSF to fund billions of dollars of ideas that under current funding constraints are deemed worthy of support but rejected.
“It’s only 50% of what we could fund,” Panchanathan told the counterpart House spending panel the next day. “And we don’t want to leave those ideas on the floor because they might be picked up by our competitors.”
In a separate effort before the Senate Commerce Committee, the proposals within the Endless Frontier Act (EFA), which has not yet been introduced but is highly-anticipated, were discussed. Because of lack of legislative text, the hearing didn’t delve into specifics of the proposal. However, as in the Appropriation hearings, Members of Congress voiced general support for NSF but raised concerns about whether NSF can handle these new funds and if it’s the right agency for this mission. Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier, former director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the previous administration, and one of the witnesses called by the committee, made the point that “NSF funding is a national imperative” and that the Foundation has been underfunded for decades. All the witnesses voiced strong support that NSF is well positioned to use the proposed increases and to do more.
On the House side, the Science, Space and Technology Committee chaired by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) convened to discuss how to ensure continued U.S. leadership in science and technology, as well as how to harness the U.S. research enterprise and all of the nation’s talent to develop solutions to the nation’s most pressing challenges. A panel that included former CRA Board Member and current President of Carnegie Mellon University Farnam Jahanian, along with former Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, current PCAST co-chair nominee Frances Arnold, and former Chairman of Lockheed Martin Norm Augustine, all made the case that the U.S. research ecosystem remains the envy of the world, but sustained Federal investments are necessary to ensure we don’t cede that leadership to countries – particularly China – who are ramping up their own investments considerably to compete. Members on the committee seemed to acknowledge that need and express support for efforts like the NSF for the Future Act and Ranking Member Frank Lucas’ (R-OK) Securing American Leadership in Science and Technology Act, which would also authorize NSF on a path to doubling its budget.
What happens now? This process will need to play out more before we have an any good answers. From the sound of it, Congressional appropriators are supportive of increasing NSF’s funding. How much of an increase — the 20 percent the President is proposing, or less — is an open question. And there remains some skepticism among some members about proposals to establish a technology development directorate within NSF, but also a fair amount of support. The devil is in the details, of course, which both the President’s skinny budget and the to-be-reintroduced EFA don’t yet provide. Once more details are released, the debate will continue, and we’ll have a better idea of which proposals have more support and how things will play out. This is a process that could take the better part of the year (or more), so please check back for more updates.
Earlier today the Biden Administration released a high-level overview of their discretionary budget request for Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22). Nicknamed a “skinny budget,” due to the fact that it only contains topline numbers for key departments and agencies and does not have many details on specific program requests, it does provide a look into the priorities of the new Administration. And from what we see in this request, research agencies across the federal government will do quite well under the Biden Administration’s plan.
In one bullet titled, “Renews America’s Commitment to Research and Development,” the Administration says their budget request, “proposes historic increases in funding for foundational research and development across a range of scientific agencies—including the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), NIST, and others—to help spur innovation across the economy and renew America’s global leadership.” Let’s get into some of the details of the request.
National Science Foundation – Topline $10.2 billion, an increase of $1.7 billion or 19.8 percent over FY21 levels. In a change of pace from recent years budget requests, NSF is the big winner among the science agencies. Within the 19.8 percent increase for the Foundation, the research and education accounts together will increase by $1.6 billion over FY21 levels. Specific levels for Research & Related Activities and Education & Human Resources aren’t given in the overview, so a more detailed comparison isn’t possible at the moment. The document goes on to explain that a number of education accounts will see increases as well, particularly those geared toward expanding diversity and equity among the scientific disciplines.
Additionally, the document calls for the establishment of a new directorate for, “technology, innovation, and partnerships … to expedite technology development in emerging areas that are crucial for U.S. technological leadership, including artificial intelligence, high performance computing, disaster response and resilience, quantum information systems, robotics, advanced communications technologies, biotechnology, and cybersecurity.” This is obviously in line with the current proposals under consideration in the House and Senate, not to mention the President’s own infrastructure plan.
Department of Energy, Office of Science – Topline $7.4 billion, an increase of $400 million or 5.3 percent over FY21 levels. No specific details for ARPA-E, but it is mentioned together with ARPA-Climate to receive a total of $1 billion (ARPA-E received $427 million in FY21).
National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) – No topline for the agency, but the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS), where the majority of the research at the agency is housed, would receive $916 million, an increase of $128 million or 16.2 percent (STRS isn’t mentioned by name though). There are also a number of programs at NIST called out in the proposal, “to ensure the security and resilience of the Nation’s supply chain and foster a robust resurgence of American manufacturing,” and a specific proposal about, “restoring the United States as a global leader in the design and manufacture of semiconductors,” among other program details.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) – The second biggest winner among the science accounts, NIH would receive $51 billion, an increase of $8.1 billion, or 18.8 percent, over FY21. Within that increase, the proposal calls for the establishment of an ARPA-H to spur innovation and, “would drive transformational innovation in health research and speed application and implementation of health breakthroughs.” ARPA-H, modeled after DARPA at the Defense Department and ARPA-E at the Department of Energy, would receive $6.5 billion under the President’s plan.
Department of Defense (DOD) – Unfortunately, no details are provided for the defense research accounts. The document does provide a topline for the Defense Department: $715 billion, an increase of 1.6 percent over FY21 levels. That translates into either flat funding or an effective cut. There is a nice paragraph on the importance of R&D at DOD but no specifics. With flat funding, it’s likely we’ll see the department try to protect their highest priorities, which could translate into cuts in the research accounts. Time will tell.
NASA – Topline $24.7 billion, an increase of $1.5 billion or 6.3 percent over FY21 levels. There are a number of scientific and engineering missions called out in the budget document, but no specific breakdown of budget numbers below the top line. Still, this is likely to translate into some type of increase for the NASA Science budget line.
What happens now? We have to wait several more weeks for the Administration to get their detailed budget request out. That’s expected sometime in May, though it could slip later. In the meantime, Congress is likely to use this skinny budget to start the process of crafting their own proposals for these agencies and departments. Due to the late start, mainly caused by the change in Administrations, this is likely to be a long year for the federal budget process. But we’ll be keeping track and will report back any developments, so please check back for more information.
Late last month, the Chairwoman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), joined by the Committee’s Ranking Member, Frank Lucas (R-OK), as well as the Research and Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman and Ranking Member, Haley Stevens (D-MI) and Michael Waltz (R-FL), introduced H.R. 2225, “The National Science Foundation for the Future Act.” This legislation, which is a reauthorization of the agency, lays out their vision of the Foundation’s future, and it’s fairly audacious.
Beginning with funding authorization levels, the bill is bold. It would authorize $11.5 billion for the agency in Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22), an increase of about 35 percent over NSF’s FY21 level of $8.49 billion. The legislation would continue the increases to the agency over four years with an average annual rate of 6 percent growth, topping out at over $16 billion by FY25; that would set a target of doubling the agency’s current budget over the five years of the legislation. It’s worth pointing out this is an authorization, or policy, bill, not appropriations; meaning that these numbers are more aspirational, and don’t guarantee these funding levels should the bill be passed into law. Even with that in mind, these numbers show quite a show of confidence in NSF from Congress.
Additionally, SES would have six focus areas to direct its efforts; while again similar to the Schumer proposal, here they are more broad topics and societal problems, rather than research subjects or technologies. The areas laid out are:
Climate change and environmental sustainability
Global competitiveness in critical technologies
Cybersecurity
National security
STEM education and workforce
Social and economic inequality
In terms of funding, the directorate would be authorized at $1 billion in fiscal year 2022; it would then see an increase of 50% every year, topping out at $5 billion in fiscal year 2026.
The bill also has sections devoted to STEM Education (Sec 5); Broadening Participation (Sec 6), and Fundamental Research (Sec. 7). That last section is quite broad, with subsections including research and security, broader impacts, research integrity, and ethics in research. Check out this section-by-section breakdown for an easy summary of the bill’s contents.
All in all, to have broad bipartisan support for a bill that calls for the doubling of NSF in five years is a clear indication of how important both parties view NSF’s role to keep the country at the cutting edge, especially in the face of growing international research efforts. And taken with President Biden’s recently announced American Jobs Plan, and the expected reintroduction of Senator Schumer’s Endless Frontier Act any day now, it’s great to see the nation’s leaders rising to the challenge with daring proposals. This is just the beginning of a long process that is likely to take the rest of the year; please check back for updates.
PS: If all these bills and plans are difficult to keep track, we have a handy visual cheat sheet that has the major points of all three proposals.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
NSF FY2022 Request: Strong Vision for NSF’s Future Backed Up with a Robust Funding Increase
/In: Funding, FY22 Appropriations, Research /by Brian MosleyAt the end of last week, the Biden Administration released its long anticipated full Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) Budget Request. As we have done in years past, we’ll be writing a series of posts on the assorted agency budgets that are important to the computing research community. First up: the National Science Foundation.
NSF fares quite well in the President’s request, a stark change from previous years budget request. It’s worth noting that this fuller budget request is in line with the “skinny” blueprint that was released in April. Under the Administration’s plan, the agency would see a nearly 20 percent increase compared to FY21, in overall funding. NSF would go from $8.49 billion in FY21 to $10.2 billion in FY22, an increase of $1.7 billion.
A large part of that increase would go into Research and Related Activities (R&RA), the subaccount that contains the funding for research grants. R&RA would increase from $6.91 billion in FY21 to $8.14 billion in FY22, a plus up of $1.2 billion (or 17.8 percent). Education and Human Resources (EHR), the subaccount that contains the agency’s education programs, would also see an increase of $319 million, going from $968 million in FY21 to $1.29 billion under the President’s plan; that’s an increase of 33 percent.
The Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate (CISE), the home for most computing research support at NSF, would receive an 11 percent increase under the President’s plan, growing by more than $110 million over FY21. That increase would be roughly evenly divided across the directorate, with the Office of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure, Computing and Communication Foundations (CCF), Computer and Network Systems (CNS), and Information and Intelligent Systems (IIS) all receiving about 9 percent more in FY22 (or about $20 million), and the Information Technology Research (ITR) program receiving $29 million (or about 24.5 percent more than FY22). That ITR funding is requested to “support convergent activities that transcend the traditional disciplinary boundaries of individual NSF units.”
In addition to CISE support for the broad scope of the computing research fields – indeed, in FY21 the directorate estimates it is responsible for funding 87 percent of the federal funding for fundamental computer science research at U.S. academic institutions – the request notes major investments in Advanced Manufacturing, Advanced Wireless Research, Artificial Intelligence, and Secure and Trustworthy Cyberspace, with significant increases in funding in FY22 for Climate: Clean Energy Technology, Microelectronics and Semiconductors, and Quantum Information Science. CISE support would continue for the AI Research Institutes program, which would grow from $25.5 million in FY21 to $30.5 million in FY22. Including support from other directorates, the AI Research Institutes program would grow to $69 million in FY22 (from $51 million).
Overall, the newly requested funding would allow CISE to fund an additional 440 research grants compared to FY21 (2,010 in FY21 vs. 2450 FY22 estimate), raising the overall funding rate from 24 percent to 27 percent.
In a briefing with CRA staff, CISE AD Margaret Martonosi noted the goals guiding development of this request were a desire to enhance fundamental research overall, strengthen U.S. leadership, advance equity, advance climate science, and advance the continuation of facilities construction. Included in the request is $100 million targeted around racial equity-related programs. Martonosi also highlighted directorate priorities around AI, increasing engagement with Minority Serving Institutions, Climate Change, Advanced Wireless Research and the Resilient and Intelligent Next-Generation Systems (RINGS) program, and working with the new Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) Directorate.
The new directorate is perhaps the biggest change in this year’s NSF request. Under the President’s plan, it would be established within R&RA and be similar to the Directorate of Technology & Innovation, proposed in the Senate’s Endless Frontier Act, and the Directorate for Science & Engineering Solutions, which is in the House Science Committee’s NSF for the Future bill. TIP’s mission would be to:
The Biden Administration is recommending that TIP be established with an initial budget of $865 million, though the President’s American Jobs Plan calls for a total of $50 billion to be invested in the new directorate over the next 8 years. In addition to directorate funding of NSF-wide investments in the major investment areas noted above, the directorate request includes $200 million for new Regional Innovation Accelerators (RIAs). These centers are intended to, “build and expand the capacities for innovation at the level of individual communities and/or regions,” by tackling use-inspired, solutions-oriented research and innovation. The goal is to help areas without the research infrastructure of a Silicon Valley become the next Silicon Valley by partnering NSF, academia, industry, non-profits, state and local governments and venture capital. The RIAs would be funded at $10 million per year for 10 years.
How the new directorate would integrate with the existing directorates is still somewhat of an open question. What it will look like after Congress has its say in the matter is another. But with its inclusion in the budget request, and its prominent role in both major NSF reauthorization proposals in Congress, it’s clear that some directorate-like entity tasked with a technology development mission will be stood up at the Foundation, probably in FY22.
These large new investments in NSF may seem like too-good-to-be-true news for NSF, so what’s the catch? The catch is Congress has to agree with this plan and then appropriate the funds. Given the bipartisan praise and attention that NSF is currently receiving from Congress, with the aforementioned Endless Frontier Act and the NSF for the Future Act, a budget increase for the agency is likely. However, during one of the Senate hearings for the EFA, Senator Moran (R-KS), the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations CJS Subcommittee, which is in charge of NSF’s budget, mentioned that he thought it would be difficult to appropriate funding levels this high given the subcommittee’s other obligations. Is that a fiscal conservative’s pessimistic view or an important perspective to keep expectations for NSF in check? It’s hard to say right now, but keeping hopes reasonable is always a good idea.
Still, this request shows great confidence in NSF and it is an excellent place for the budget process to begin. Next stop is the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, both of which have already begun hearings on the agency’s budget and should start drafting their bills soon. We can expect to get the first indications sometime in July. We’ll be keeping track, so please check back for more updates.
President Biden Requests Increases for Non-Defense Federal Research; Cuts to Defense Research in FY2022
/In: Funding, FY22 Appropriations, Policy /by Peter HarshaAcross the board, non-defense science agencies fared well in the President’s request. As we noted from the President’s “Skinny Budget” released back in April, the National Science Foundation would receive nearly 20 percent in additional funding in FY22 under the President’s plan, with the CISE directorate receiving an increase of 11 percent over FY21. The President’s request also calls for the creation of a new Directorate of Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) alongside the existing research directorates that would focus on helping move research into the marketplace. That focus includes a $200 million requested investment in new regional innovation accelerators to help parts of the country with underdeveloped research infrastructures compete better with established tech centers like Silicon Valley. The overall requested investment in TIP would be $865 million in FY22 under the President’s plan, with a goal of total spending for the directorate of $50 billion over the next 8 years.
DOE’s Office of Science would see a more modest increase of 6 percent over FY21 under the President’s plan, with the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program growing by 2 percent to support exascale and the Leadership Class computing centers.
NIST would see its budget grow by 45 percent, including an increase of 16 percent for the Science and Technical Research and Service program.
NASA would grow by 7 percent, including a 9 percent increase for NASA Science programs.
And the National Institutes of Health would see a 21 percent increase in FY22 — its budget growing to more than $54 billion under the President’s plan.
On the Defense side, the situation is not nearly so favorable for research. Defense basic research (6.1) would decline by 13 percent under the President’s plan; applied research (6.2) would decline by 14 percent; and Advanced Technology Development would see an 11 percent decline. As is nearly always the case with the Defense request (especially for research), there is often much give and take between the President’s requested budget and the one ultimately settled on by Congress, but such big requested cuts as a starting point in the negotiation ought to raise concerns.
As always, the President’s budget request marks just the first step in the annual process that will result in the final appropriations bills that will fund all the operations of government. Congress will have its say in the coming weeks and months. While the budget requests of the previous administration were routinely ignored by Congress, many of the increases proposed in this one — especially those for NSF — will find favor in both parties, though perhaps not quite to the same degree.
In the coming days, we’ll have deeper dives on all the key science agencies, including a close look at NSF CISE and the new TIP Directorate. And, of course, we’ll bring you all the details as the appropriations process makes its long, meandering way to final resolution this Fall (or Winter?).
Tale of Two Bills: Competing Visions of NSF’s Future Make Their Way Through Congress
/In: Funding, Research /by Brian MosleyOver the last two months, competing visions of the future of the National Science Foundation have been making their way through the House and Senate. And much like the famous opening line of Tale of Two Cities, their paths could not be more dissimilar. On the House side, the National Science Foundation for the Future Act has made deliberative and bipartisan progress through the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. Meanwhile, on the Senate side, the Endless Frontier Act has been introduced; pulled, reworked, and reintroduced; heavily amended during a marathon Senate Commerce Committee hearing; and is now before the full Senate undergoing another round of amendments. Very different paths.
Let’s start with the Senate and the Endless Frontier Act. This has been a moving target with major changes to the bill happening at every legislative step. Regular readers will recall that the bill was first introduced in mid-April; it was almost immediately pulled from a scheduled Senate Commerce Committee hearing because of a large number of amendments, which is a sign that the legislation would not progress as written. The legislation was reworked, incorporating as many amendments as possible, and was reintroduced at a marathon 6+ hour hearing of the Senate Commerce Committee. At that hearing, the bill was further changed.
The new Endless Frontier Act is quite different. The bill still establishes a new Directorate for Technology & Innovation (abbreviated TD for “Tech Directorate”) with the directorate’s program managers expected to operate like their counterparts at DARPA. As well, the ten Technology Focus Areas (which are largely unchanged from previous versions) are now required to be reviewed every year; it had been every three years. Additionally, the new language transfers several current efforts of NSF into the new directorate. Most make sense and aren’t problematic, such as the Convergence Accelerator and the I-Corps programs; however, it does transfer the National AI Research Institutes program out of CISE with potential ramifications for the CS research community.
The funding authorizations are also different from previous versions. NSF, minus the new TD, gets a plus up of 30 percent over five years — a rough average of 5.5 percent a year. The Foundation would grow from just under $9 billion in Fiscal Year 2022 to just over $11 billion in 2026. In a significant change from previous versions of the bill, the new tech directorate would receive just over $40 billion in authorizations over five years, starting out at $2.5B in FY22 and growing to $14.9B in FY26, well down from the $100 billion originally proposed. As in the previous versions, that funding would be targeted to R&D activities in the key focus areas, support for scholarships and fellowships, test beds, efforts to improve academic tech transfer, and capacity building at historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and other minority serving institutions (MSIs). Additionally, in perhaps the most contentious change, the Department of Energy would also receive a $16 billion funding authorization over five years to perform research in the Technology Focus Areas. Guidance to DOE on how to spend the authorization is limited to “R&D and address[ing] the energy-related supply chain activities within the key focus areas.” Much of these DOE funds come directly at the expense of the new directorate; in fact, Senator Young (R-IN), one of the co-sponsors of EFA, called this amendment a “poison pill” during the committee hearing.
There are other provisions of note in the new language. Perhaps the most significant is a new emphasis on the geographic diversity of which states receive NSF funds. Senator Wicker (R-MS), the Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee, championed this issue during previous hearings. The new language now requires NSF to use “at least 20 percent” of the funding provided to the TD to carry out the EPSCoR program, which helps states who historically receive less NSF funding to build up their research capacity. In addition, the legislation also requires that “at least 20 percent” of all NSF funding must be used to carry out EPSCoR. Senator Wicker called this a “quantum leap” in terms of providing geographic diversity; seeing as last year NSF used about 3 percent of its research funding for EPSCoR, the Senator’s description is close to the mark. Provisions echoing this are throughout the legislation language for almost everything that is authorized.
There are also new provisions concerning research security, putting potentially greater scrutiny on controls for the research funded at the new directorate. There are two sections that are potentially concerning for the research community (legislative text in full). One section (Sec. 2303) puts prohibitions and reporting requirements on principal investigators from taking part in foreign talent recruit programs, with complete bans on recruitment programs from China, Iran, Russia, and North Korea. The second section (Sec. 2304) is about “Additional Requirements for Directorate Research Security;” while vaguely worded, it could potentially lay the groundwork for putting controls on the research performed in the new directorate. The language is not clear as to what those controls would be, but it leans heavily on NSF to figure out how to protect the research in the technology focus areas.
While not a clean process, EFA did pass the Senate Commerce Committee with a bipartisan vote of 24-4. It was then moved quickly to the Senate floor last week, combined into a package with other legislation, and renamed the “United States Innovation and Competition Act of 2021.” The bill is now 1400+ pages and has several new sections corresponding to several pieces of other legislation considered by other Senate committees. A major addition to the package is the “Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) for America Fund,” which provides $52 billion in emergency appropriations for semiconductor R&D. These funds are to both help bolster and expand the semiconductor industry in the United States and to foster research on next generation chips. Much of this legislative package deals with responding to the rise of China as a peer-rival to the US, so there are many sections handling foreign policy matters. But there are also sections dealing with research security, such as subjecting foreign donations to US academic institutions to oversight by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the US (CFIUS). In short, this is no longer an authorization bill; it is much bigger.
The legislation was expected to be finalized and voted on before the Memorial Day weekend, but that has since changed; it is now expected to be handled in June when the Senate reconvenes after their holiday recess.
On the other side of Capitol Hill, the response has been very different. After the Senate Commerce Committee passed EFA, Rep. Frank Lucas (R-OK), the Ranking Member of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee put out a statement saying much of the Senate bill lacks a clear vision for NSF and is weighed down by special interest provisions. Rep. Lucas’ view should be seen as a barometer of Republican support for NSF; they will advocate for increases but only to an extent, and those increases must be well justified.
To that end, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has been moving their own NSF bill. Regular readers will recall that Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) and Ranking Member Lucas, along with Subcommittee on Research and Technology Chairwoman Haley Stevens (D-MI) and Ranking Member Michael Waltz (R-FL), introduced the National Science Foundation for the Future Act in late March and have been holding several hearings about NSF since. On May 13th the Subcommittee on Research and Technology held a markup of the legislation. In contrast with the Senate, the legislation is unchanged since introduction, it received only a few non-controversial amendments during this hearing, and it was passed unanimously on a voice vote. The next step is for the full Science Committee to markup the legislation; that’s likely to happen in early June. Consideration on the House floor should happen soon after. The Science Committee is also beginning the process of reauthorizing the Department of Energy’s Office of Science; we’ll have more details on that in a future post.
CRA endorsed the NSF for the Future Act in early May.
What happens next? At some point, these two different views on NSF’s future have to be reconciled and a compromise worked out. The main draw for EFA has been its higher funding level for the agency but, because of all the amendments, it is now much closer to the levels in the NSF for the Future Act; that is actually good from a compromise perspective. But since the USICA covers so many topics, many of which the House has not begun to cover, will the House even consider a conference? Or would it attempt to break the matter up into smaller pieces? Would the Senate agree to go along with that approach? It’s not unusual for legislation to remain idle before there’s an agreement between the two chambers, but that idleness can last months. Should the Senate pass the EFA/USICA bill, the likelihood that something gets worked out is high. But the timeframe is TBD. We’ll keep tracking all the developments, so please check back for more information.
Dr. Eric Lander Confirmed as Next Presidential Science Advisor
/In: People, Research /by Brian MosleyToday the United States Senate confirmed on a voice vote Dr. Eric Lander as the next Presidential Science Advisor and Director of the Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP). Nominated in January by President Biden, Dr. Lander, a world-renowned biologist and former leader of the Human Genome Project, will be the first Science Advisor in history to be a member of the President’s Cabinet.
CRA released a statement commending the President’s nomination of Lander back in January and we look forward to working with the new Science Advisor and his team to advance the nation’s computing and information technology research.
CRA Statement on the Introduction of the Bipartisan National Science Foundation for the Future Act
/In: Policy, Research, Statements /by Brian MosleyThe Computing Research Association applauds the bipartisan effort to increase dramatically investments in American science and technology research at the National Science Foundation through the introduction of the National Science Foundation for the Future Act (H.R. 2225). The cosponsors of the bill, House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) and Ranking Member Frank Lucas (R-OK), along with Subcommittee on Research and Technology Chairwoman Haley Stevens (D-MI) and Ranking Member Michael Waltz (R-FL), all long-time champions of America’s scientific research enterprise, continue their leadership with this well-crafted vision for the future of the National Science Foundation.
The legislation proposes many improvements and updates to the Foundation. In particular, we view the proposed investments in the Foundation’s Research and Related Activities account as essential for the continued health of the US research enterprise, the country’s economic competitiveness, and our national defense. Additionally, the provisions on STEM education and workforce development, as well as the section on broadening participation, are crucial to address long-standing problems in the country’s scientific ecosystem and will help it to grow and benefit all Americans, regardless of race, gender, or economic standing.
We thank the bill’s co-sponsors and look forward to working with all parties to help perfect the bill as it makes its way through the legislative process.
Senator Schumer Reintroduces Endless Frontier Act, Latest Proposal for Major Reorganization of the National Science Foundation
/In: Funding, Policy, Research /by Brian MosleyYesterday, Senator Schumer (D-NY), the Senate Majority Leader, along with Senator Young (R-IN) and a bipartisan group of 10 other Senators, reintroduced the Endless Frontier Act, legislation that would authorize $100 billion in new funding for the National Science Foundation and make the agency responsible for maintaining the country’s global leadership in innovation. There is also a bipartisan version introduced in the House. Regular readers will recall that this bill was introduced last year and its reintroduction has been anticipated.
There are several differences between this bill and what was introduced a year ago. One notable difference is that it no longer stipulates a change to NSF’s name. Another is that this is not a straight reauthorization of NSF; it is much broader and can likely be filed under a “national competitiveness” heading. There are several sections on NIST and the Department of Commerce, on such topics as Supply Chain Resiliency, Regional Technology Hubs, and a Manufacturing USA program (some of this, but not all, was in last year’s bill).
However, the core of last year’s proposal is back with some meaningful tweaks. It again proposes a new technology development directorate, now named the “Directorate of Technology and Innovation.” And it still would require the Program Managers and experts of the new directorate to operate like their counterparts at DARPA. And the key technology focus areas are back, though slightly broadened in some area:
(i) artificial intelligence, machine learning, and other software advances;
(ii) high performance computing, semiconductors, and advanced computer hardware;
(iii) quantum computing and information systems;
(iv) robotics, automation, and advanced manufacturing;
(v) natural and anthropogenic disaster prevention or mitigation;
(vi) advanced communications technology;
(vii) biotechnology, genomics, and synthetic biology;
(viii) cybersecurity, data storage, and data management technologies;
(ix) advanced energy, batteries, and industrial efficiency;
(x) advanced materials science, engineering, and exploration relevant to the other key technology focus areas;
The legislation still requires that there only be ten focus areas at any one time, and they can be changed every three years. It’s unclear where the new directorate will reside in NSF; the text appears to give discretion to the NSF Director to determine this.
A new change is the funding authorization in the bill. In Section 4, it establishes a $112.41 billion fund over five years, dubbed the “Endless Frontier Fund.” The bill empowers the Director of the Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) with budget authority to administer the fund. Additionally, the bill stipulates that $100 billion of this fund goes to NSF for the new directorate; it would then be authorized for each of the five years as follows:
$5B for Fiscal Year 2022
$10B for Fiscal Year 2023
$20B for Fiscal Year 2024
$30B for Fiscal Year 2025
$35B for Fiscal Year 2026
There is an additional $9.425 billion authorized for NIST and the regional technology hub program, $575 million for the “comprehensive regional technology strategy grant program,” and $2.41 billion for a new Manufacturing USA Program.
What exactly is this new directorate supposed to fund? The legislation is pretty specific, with 35 percent of funds to go to a “University Technology Centers” program; 15 percent to scholarships, fellowships, and other student support, including not fewer than 1,000 postdoctoral fellowships, 2,000 graduate fellowships and traineeships, and 1,000 undergraduate scholarships in the key technology focus areas; 5 percent to a “Moving Technology from Laboratory to Market” program; 10 percent to a “Test Beds” program; 15 percent for, “research and related activities in cross-directorate awards;” and 20 percent for research in the key technology focus areas.
The legislation also makes it much more explicit that the new directorate should work with other Federal research agencies, specifically calling out the Department of Energy, the National Labs, and NIST. While this has always been an understood function of the new directorate, it seems the bill’s authors wanted to make it clearer as to how it should work across the Federal agencies for a whole-of-government approach to innovation.
While this all appears to represent a huge potential increase to NSF, keep in mind that this is an authorizing (or policy) bill, not an appropriations bill. That means that if it were to become law, funding is not a given, and NSF would still have to get funding through the appropriations process. Still, this again shows that NSF has the confidence of key members of Congress and that it is well positioned to help lead the country’s innovation strategy.
But how does this fit in with the House Science Committee’s recent bill? And President Biden’s recently announced infrastructure plan and skinny budget? Put simply, we don’t know. These are competing visions for NSF’s future and the differences will have to be hammered out through the legislative process before anything becomes law. But the fact that this is bipartisan legislation, originating in the Senate, gives the whole effort a good chance at success. The first real indication will be a Senate Commerce Committee mark-up of this legislation expected to be scheduled for next week. So we will have to see how this process plays out; be sure to keep checking back for updates.
PS: Again, if you’re having trouble keeping all these proposals straight, here’s a handy visual cheat sheet.
Update 4/28: The EFA bill has been pulled from the April 28th Senate Commerce Committee hearing due to a large number of amendments that were offered by committee members (we have heard over 200). That is usually a sign of the current bill not having consensus to pass as written. The assumption is there will be behind the scenes negotiations to come up with new language that can address some of the concerns raised by the amendments and would make the bill more likely to pass with bipartisan support. This moves consideration of EFA to the middle of May, at the earliest, though further delays are possible. This situation is still highly fluid, so keep checking back for updates.
Catalyzing Computing Podcast on Health Informatics and Aging-in-Place Technologies
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC), CRA, People, Research /by Peter HarshaAs we’ve noted previously, President Biden’s $2 trillion American Jobs Plan includes some pretty large proposed investments in R&D — on the order of $180 billion over the eight years of the plan. But that’s not the only aspect of the plan that might be relevant to computing researchers. Also included is a $400 billion investment in the “Caretaking Economy” targeted at home and community-based care for elderly and disabled people. On the new CCC Catalyzing Computing podcast, join host Khari Douglas as he talks with CCC Council member Dr. Katie Siek from Indiana University about her work on some of the aging-in-place technologies that will become an increasingly important part of the caretaking economy in the years ahead.
The CCC Blog has all the info, or you can catch the full interview on Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Stitcher | Blubrry | Google Podcasts | iHeartRadio | Soundcloud | Youtube.
Proposed NSF Reorganization and Funding Increases Get First Congressional Hearings
/In: FY22 Appropriations, Policy, Research /by Brian MosleyThis week, in four different Congressional hearings, members of Congress got their first chance to weigh in on the multiple proposed changes to the National Science Foundation. Two of these hearings were with Congressional appropriators and concerned President Biden’s Fiscal Year 2022 “skinny” budget request that was released last week. The other two hearings were with the science authorizing committees – the House Science, Space and Technology Committee convened Thursday to consider “Reimagining our Innovation Future,” including some discussion of their newly introduced National Science Foundation for the Future Act, and the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee covered the yet to be reintroduced Endless Frontier Act from Senators Schumer (D-NY) and Young (R-IN). The good news is the initial reactions were mostly positive. However, there are concerns by some members about NSF’s ability to handle a large infusion of funds and whether it’s the right agency to secure the country’s competitiveness.
Before the Senate Appropriations Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee on Tuesday, and then its House counterpart on Wednesday, NSF Director Sethuraman Panchanathan defended the Administration’s budget request, a 20 percent increase for the agency, and made the case that, “under the administration’s…budget request, NSF will supercharge investments and work collaboratively with our federal counterparts and other partners to rapidly catalyze results in areas of national importance.”
Many of the questions that Dr. Panchanathan responded to concerned whether NSF could handle such a large increase of its budget. He made the case that NSF is not able to currently fund all of the proposals that it deems to be of high merit. As Science Magazine pointed out:
In a separate effort before the Senate Commerce Committee, the proposals within the Endless Frontier Act (EFA), which has not yet been introduced but is highly-anticipated, were discussed. Because of lack of legislative text, the hearing didn’t delve into specifics of the proposal. However, as in the Appropriation hearings, Members of Congress voiced general support for NSF but raised concerns about whether NSF can handle these new funds and if it’s the right agency for this mission. Dr. Kelvin Droegemeier, former director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the previous administration, and one of the witnesses called by the committee, made the point that “NSF funding is a national imperative” and that the Foundation has been underfunded for decades. All the witnesses voiced strong support that NSF is well positioned to use the proposed increases and to do more.
On the House side, the Science, Space and Technology Committee chaired by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) convened to discuss how to ensure continued U.S. leadership in science and technology, as well as how to harness the U.S. research enterprise and all of the nation’s talent to develop solutions to the nation’s most pressing challenges. A panel that included former CRA Board Member and current President of Carnegie Mellon University Farnam Jahanian, along with former Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, current PCAST co-chair nominee Frances Arnold, and former Chairman of Lockheed Martin Norm Augustine, all made the case that the U.S. research ecosystem remains the envy of the world, but sustained Federal investments are necessary to ensure we don’t cede that leadership to countries – particularly China – who are ramping up their own investments considerably to compete. Members on the committee seemed to acknowledge that need and express support for efforts like the NSF for the Future Act and Ranking Member Frank Lucas’ (R-OK) Securing American Leadership in Science and Technology Act, which would also authorize NSF on a path to doubling its budget.
What happens now? This process will need to play out more before we have an any good answers. From the sound of it, Congressional appropriators are supportive of increasing NSF’s funding. How much of an increase — the 20 percent the President is proposing, or less — is an open question. And there remains some skepticism among some members about proposals to establish a technology development directorate within NSF, but also a fair amount of support. The devil is in the details, of course, which both the President’s skinny budget and the to-be-reintroduced EFA don’t yet provide. Once more details are released, the debate will continue, and we’ll have a better idea of which proposals have more support and how things will play out. This is a process that could take the better part of the year (or more), so please check back for more updates.
President Biden Releases His “Skinny” Budget; Topline Numbers for Multiple Science Agencies Do Well; NSF Gets Over 19% Increase!
/In: Funding, FY22 Appropriations, Policy, Research /by Brian MosleyEarlier today the Biden Administration released a high-level overview of their discretionary budget request for Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22). Nicknamed a “skinny budget,” due to the fact that it only contains topline numbers for key departments and agencies and does not have many details on specific program requests, it does provide a look into the priorities of the new Administration. And from what we see in this request, research agencies across the federal government will do quite well under the Biden Administration’s plan.
In one bullet titled, “Renews America’s Commitment to Research and Development,” the Administration says their budget request, “proposes historic increases in funding for foundational research and development across a range of scientific agencies—including the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Energy (DOE), NIST, and others—to help spur innovation across the economy and renew America’s global leadership.” Let’s get into some of the details of the request.
National Science Foundation – Topline $10.2 billion, an increase of $1.7 billion or 19.8 percent over FY21 levels. In a change of pace from recent years budget requests, NSF is the big winner among the science agencies. Within the 19.8 percent increase for the Foundation, the research and education accounts together will increase by $1.6 billion over FY21 levels. Specific levels for Research & Related Activities and Education & Human Resources aren’t given in the overview, so a more detailed comparison isn’t possible at the moment. The document goes on to explain that a number of education accounts will see increases as well, particularly those geared toward expanding diversity and equity among the scientific disciplines.
Additionally, the document calls for the establishment of a new directorate for, “technology, innovation, and partnerships … to expedite technology development in emerging areas that are crucial for U.S. technological leadership, including artificial intelligence, high performance computing, disaster response and resilience, quantum information systems, robotics, advanced communications technologies, biotechnology, and cybersecurity.” This is obviously in line with the current proposals under consideration in the House and Senate, not to mention the President’s own infrastructure plan.
Department of Energy, Office of Science – Topline $7.4 billion, an increase of $400 million or 5.3 percent over FY21 levels. No specific details for ARPA-E, but it is mentioned together with ARPA-Climate to receive a total of $1 billion (ARPA-E received $427 million in FY21).
National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST) – No topline for the agency, but the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS), where the majority of the research at the agency is housed, would receive $916 million, an increase of $128 million or 16.2 percent (STRS isn’t mentioned by name though). There are also a number of programs at NIST called out in the proposal, “to ensure the security and resilience of the Nation’s supply chain and foster a robust resurgence of American manufacturing,” and a specific proposal about, “restoring the United States as a global leader in the design and manufacture of semiconductors,” among other program details.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) – The second biggest winner among the science accounts, NIH would receive $51 billion, an increase of $8.1 billion, or 18.8 percent, over FY21. Within that increase, the proposal calls for the establishment of an ARPA-H to spur innovation and, “would drive transformational innovation in health research and speed application and implementation of health breakthroughs.” ARPA-H, modeled after DARPA at the Defense Department and ARPA-E at the Department of Energy, would receive $6.5 billion under the President’s plan.
Department of Defense (DOD) – Unfortunately, no details are provided for the defense research accounts. The document does provide a topline for the Defense Department: $715 billion, an increase of 1.6 percent over FY21 levels. That translates into either flat funding or an effective cut. There is a nice paragraph on the importance of R&D at DOD but no specifics. With flat funding, it’s likely we’ll see the department try to protect their highest priorities, which could translate into cuts in the research accounts. Time will tell.
NASA – Topline $24.7 billion, an increase of $1.5 billion or 6.3 percent over FY21 levels. There are a number of scientific and engineering missions called out in the budget document, but no specific breakdown of budget numbers below the top line. Still, this is likely to translate into some type of increase for the NASA Science budget line.
What happens now? We have to wait several more weeks for the Administration to get their detailed budget request out. That’s expected sometime in May, though it could slip later. In the meantime, Congress is likely to use this skinny budget to start the process of crafting their own proposals for these agencies and departments. Due to the late start, mainly caused by the change in Administrations, this is likely to be a long year for the federal budget process. But we’ll be keeping track and will report back any developments, so please check back for more information.
Bipartisan “NSF for the Future Act” Introduced in the House; Crafts Audacious Vision for the Agency’s Future
/In: Policy, Research, STEM /by Brian MosleyLate last month, the Chairwoman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), joined by the Committee’s Ranking Member, Frank Lucas (R-OK), as well as the Research and Technology Subcommittee Chairwoman and Ranking Member, Haley Stevens (D-MI) and Michael Waltz (R-FL), introduced H.R. 2225, “The National Science Foundation for the Future Act.” This legislation, which is a reauthorization of the agency, lays out their vision of the Foundation’s future, and it’s fairly audacious.
Beginning with funding authorization levels, the bill is bold. It would authorize $11.5 billion for the agency in Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22), an increase of about 35 percent over NSF’s FY21 level of $8.49 billion. The legislation would continue the increases to the agency over four years with an average annual rate of 6 percent growth, topping out at over $16 billion by FY25; that would set a target of doubling the agency’s current budget over the five years of the legislation. It’s worth pointing out this is an authorization, or policy, bill, not appropriations; meaning that these numbers are more aspirational, and don’t guarantee these funding levels should the bill be passed into law. Even with that in mind, these numbers show quite a show of confidence in NSF from Congress.
In addition to the funding authorization levels, the bill establishes a new directorate within the Research & Related Activities account, which hosts NSF’s research portfolio. Called the “Directorate for Science and Engineering Solutions” (SES), it will, “accelerate the translation of Foundation-supported fundamental research and…advance technologies, support use-inspired research, facilitate commercialization and use of Federally funded research, and expand the pipeline of US students and researchers in areas of societal and national importance.” If this sounds familiar, that’s because it’s similar to the new directorate in Senator Schumer’s Endless Frontier Act. SES would also take over the management of the Convergence Accelerator and the Growing Convergence Research Big Idea, absorbing NSF’s current efforts into its operations.
Additionally, SES would have six focus areas to direct its efforts; while again similar to the Schumer proposal, here they are more broad topics and societal problems, rather than research subjects or technologies. The areas laid out are:
In terms of funding, the directorate would be authorized at $1 billion in fiscal year 2022; it would then see an increase of 50% every year, topping out at $5 billion in fiscal year 2026.
The bill also has sections devoted to STEM Education (Sec 5); Broadening Participation (Sec 6), and Fundamental Research (Sec. 7). That last section is quite broad, with subsections including research and security, broader impacts, research integrity, and ethics in research. Check out this section-by-section breakdown for an easy summary of the bill’s contents.
All in all, to have broad bipartisan support for a bill that calls for the doubling of NSF in five years is a clear indication of how important both parties view NSF’s role to keep the country at the cutting edge, especially in the face of growing international research efforts. And taken with President Biden’s recently announced American Jobs Plan, and the expected reintroduction of Senator Schumer’s Endless Frontier Act any day now, it’s great to see the nation’s leaders rising to the challenge with daring proposals. This is just the beginning of a long process that is likely to take the rest of the year; please check back for updates.
PS: If all these bills and plans are difficult to keep track, we have a handy visual cheat sheet that has the major points of all three proposals.