Continue original post from 7/8: On Monday, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) disclosed its intent to remove its current, temporary exemptions on F-1 and M-1 visas. The exemptions allowed students on visas to remain in the USA during the spring and summer even if they were taking all their classes online because of the pandemic. The removal of the exemptions would mean that any students on student visas who are not taking at least some classes in person will cease to be in compliance. Thus, if they are enrolled in colleges or universities that will move their fall classes online for safety of their community, those students would be forced to either (a) transfer to another institution where they must take classes in person, despite any health risk, or (b) leave the country. It also means that foreign students accepted for fall at those institutions will not be granted visas to enter the USA.
The hundreds of thousands of students — across all academic disciplines — who will be affected by this policy are here legally but will potentially fall out of compliance through no fault of their own, as their institutions react to an extraordinary, global pandemic. CRA believes this policy is ill-conceived, cruel and will damage the U.S. research ecosystem greatly, perhaps for years to come. The uncertainty created by this policy, and by the other immigration policy decisions restricting other foreign students and researchers issued over the last several weeks, will certainly discourage more of the best minds in the world from studying and researching in the U.S., to our great detriment.
CRA is working with our partners in the science advocacy community and the higher education community to make this case to policymakers in Congress and the Administration. We are also working to develop resources to help our member institutions contend with this unprecedented situation. For now, members of our community who wish to weigh in on the inadequacy of this policy decision are encouraged to contact their representatives in Congress. Find out who represents you in Congress. Contact information for your Senate delegation.
And specifically to our international students, know that CRA cares about you and will do everything we can to protect and support you.
When there are new developments, we will do our best to bring them to you here.
UPDATE: Wednesday morning, Harvard University and MIT sued the Trump Administration in an effort to block ICE’s Visa order. In a statement similar to CRA’s, the two universities said that they filed a pleading in Federal court, “seeking a temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of the order.”
On Monday, June 22nd, President Trump issued the latest in a series of immigration and visa related orders designed to limit the involvement of foreign students and researchers, particular those from mainland China, in U.S. research efforts. The order follows a series of other proposals and orders emanating from the White House and Capitol Hill that have raised the ire of higher-education, U.S. industry, and the computing research community over recent weeks. The proposals — two proclamations, Senate legislation and bicameral legislation — all have the stated goals of protecting U.S. jobs from foreign competition or protecting U.S. research from foreign exploitation, but in CRA’s analysis would likely do more damage to the U.S. research ecosystem than the threats they are trying to address.
The President’s most recent order is a Presidential proclamation that directs U.S. immigration officials on June 24th to suspend issuing new H-1B, H-2B, J- series, L series, and other non-immigrant visas through the end of 2020. The President justified the move as a way to protect U.S. workers during this time of increased unemployment as a result of the COVID pandemic. This case is problematic, CRA has noted, because employment in the computing sector has actually increased during the pandemic, with unemployment falling from a pre-pandemic level of 3.0 percent to 2.8 percent as of April 30th (as compared to an overall unemployment level of nearly 15 percent). Notably, the President’s proclamation did not suspend the F-1 visa program used by most foreign graduate students in the US, or curtail the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program or the OPT STEM program, which allow F-1 visa holders to stay an additional year or three years respectively to get training in their study areas after graduation.
The move has earned considerable ire from the U.S. business community, particularly the high-tech sector, which uses the H-1B program to bring in high-skilled talent from around the world. Those in the computing sector note that even with the H-1B program, more than 625,000 computing-related jobs (those that would require a 4 year computing degree) remain unfilled at the present time. The President appears unmoved, however, believing the order to be the fulfillment of a campaign promise and a vote-winner.
Earlier, the President had issued another order directed at protecting U.S. research from exploitation by the Chinese government. On May 29th, he issued a Presidential Proclamation that suspended the issuing of visas for students and researchers from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) wishing to come to the U.S. if it is determined that they have ever been involved with any entity participating in the PRC’s “military-civil fusion strategy.” CRA opposed the proclamation. While we recognize that there are certainly real threats to U.S. research from foreign actors — the recent news that 54 scientists funded by the NIH have lost their jobs and some face criminal charges for failing to disclose financial ties to foreign governments emphasizes this fact — indiscriminate large-scale banning of students and researchers from any particular country is likely to be counter-productive and deprive the U.S. research enterprise of the important contributions of international scholars.
On June 1st, CRA issued a statement opposing the proclamation which read:
The President on Friday issued a proclamation effective today ordering the suspension of entry to the U.S. of Chinese non-immigrant graduate students or scholars who have ever studied, received support, been employed by, or conducted research at or on behalf of any Chinese entity that may have implemented China’s “military-civil fusion strategy.” The proclamation defines “military-civil fusion strategy” as “actions by or at the behest of the [People’s Republic of China] to acquire and divert foreign technologies, specifically critical and emerging technologies, to incorporate into and advance the PRC’s military capabilities.”
We are aware and concerned that research in the United States is a target for espionage agents and others intent on stealing — rather than licensing — valuable intellectual property. We are also aware that some countries have been particularly aggressive about such theft in recent years. We support restrictions for people with clear connections to IP theft or espionage.
However, we oppose the banning of any foreign student or researcher unless there is clear evidence of their personal connection to such activities. Indiscriminate large-scale banning of students and researchers from any particular country deprives the U.S. research enterprise of contributions by international scholars, most of whom are not involved in IP theft or espionage.
The U.S. remains the world’s leading economy and maintains the world’s strongest defense because of an innovation ecosystem that is powered by a research enterprise that attracts the brightest minds and best ideas from all over the world. The broad scope of this proclamation has already created great uncertainty and fear among Chinese scholars who are here and contributing to U.S. leadership. It will most certainly discourage future international scholars from choosing the U.S. for their studies and research careers, depriving the U.S. of their talents and energy. We urge the Administration to immediately clarify the scope of the order and limit it to those cases where there is clear evidence of personal connection to espionage and IP theft.
While the White House was working to put out this proclamation, a parallel effort was underway to make additional immigration policy changes around the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program — an effort that ultimately led to the issuance of the June 22nd proclamation. On May 29th, CRA issued a statement to state its opposition to efforts to suspend or end the program:
We are aware of efforts in both the Administration and Congress aimed at suspending or curtailing the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program for students on F-1 visas in the United States. As an organization representing more than 200 PhD- or research-focused computing departments in North America, eight leading industrial computing research labs, and six affiliated professional societies in the computing fields with a combined membership of over 200,000, we strongly oppose any efforts to limit or end the OPT program, which plays an important role in keeping some of the world’s best talent in the U.S., working and innovating in the U.S. economy.
The argument given for ending the program now — prioritizing U.S. workers over foreign talent given the overall high levels of unemployment in the economy — does not make sense when applied to the computing fields. In January 2020, prior to the impact of the COVID pandemic, unemployment in the computing fields was at 3.0 percent, a figure generally considered “full employment.” By April 2020, when the impacts of the pandemic forced overall unemployment up to 15 percent, unemployment in the computing fields actually dropped to 2.8 percent, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey data by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP). An analysis by NFAP of Active Job Postings in Computing Occupations amplifies this point, noting that between April 14 and May 13, 2020, there were more than 625,000 active vacancies in jobs that require at least a bachelor’s degree in computing. The OPT program is not harming U.S. computing workers, and importantly, jobs in computing cannot be filled by workers transitioning from non-technical fields without significant retraining that can span multiple years.
Suspending or curtailing the OPT program would destroy a key pathway for many of our best foreign students to contribute to U.S. innovation. Indeed, our innovation ecosystem — that extraordinarily productive interplay between U.S. research universities, industrial and federal research labs, and the people and ideas that flow between them — depends on a great majority of those foreign-born degree recipients deciding to stay and continue their work in the U.S. According to the National Science Foundation, 72 percent of foreign born STEM graduates stay employed in the U.S. for at least 10 years after graduation. But, uncertainty around the status of the OPT program threatens to upend that trend. Foreign students attending our schools now and intending to use the program to complete their graduate education and help find more permanent employment in the U.S. are increasingly likely to seek employment elsewhere, either in their homeland or in countries more open to highly skilled foreign talent.
Ending or suspending OPT (and the associated Curricular Practical Training (CPT) program) would not only damage the current cohort of foreign graduate students studying in the U.S. and hoping to stay. The availability of the pathway that the OPT program provides is a huge incentive to the best foreign graduate students deciding whether or not to study in the U.S. Any uncertainty around the program, especially in light of uncertainty about the status of other aspects of U.S. immigration and visa policy, is likely to discourage many students from applying to U.S. institutions at all, providing a new advantage to economies in other parts of the world who will gladly welcome their talents.
We agree that Federal pandemic response efforts should be prioritized towards aiding U.S. workers and others in the U.S. affected by COVID. However, efforts to curtail or suspend the OPT program will not achieve that goal. Instead, those efforts will cause great harm to an innovation ecosystem that continues to be a crucial part of our recovery effort. We strongly oppose any effort to end the program.
CRA is not alone in opposing efforts to curb the program. The higher education and scientific community, led by organizations like the Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of Public and Land Grant Universities (APLU), and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), has weighed in with the White House, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of State opposing the rumored new rules. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a strong voice for U.S. industry in Washington also sent a strong opposition to the policy. And 21 Republican Members of Congress wrote to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf urging them ensure the OPT program continues this Fall. Those efforts appear to have had success in keeping the OPT programs and F-1 visas out of the June 22nd order.
But that sentiment is not shared by all Republican Members of Congress. Four Republican Senators — Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Josh Hawley (R-MO) — sent a letter to President Trump urging him to suspend the OPT program along with a number of other non-immigrant visa categories. Senators Cotton and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), along with Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN) have pushed the matter even further with the introduction of bicameral legislation called the SECURE CAMPUS Act that would, in order to protect U.S. universities from “espionage,” bar “PRC nationals from receiving student or research visas to the United States for graduate or post-graduate studies in STEM fields.”
On June 18th, Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), Chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and a group of other bipartisan sponsors introduced S. 3997, the “Safeguarding American Innovation Act,” which also seeks to limit foreign exploitation – specifically Chinese exploitation – of the U.S. higher-education community. The bill places limitations of foreign educational and cultural exchanges, criminalizes failure to disclose foreign sources of funding for U.S. grant recipients, and creates a new intergovernmental “Federal Research Security Council” chaired by the White House Office of Management and Budget that would help create a uniform grant application process across all agencies and set guidance on how to determine what research is in the “economic or national security interest of the U.S.” and how to protect it. Though the bill does not have companion in the House – and would be unlikely to move as-is there in any case – there is sufficient bipartisan support for the bill in the Senate that it is possible that some of its provisions could find their way in other pieces of legislation that will move. CRA will continue to monitor progress.
While S. 3997 is unlikely to move in the House, and the SECURE CAMPUS Act is not likely to see much movement in either the House or the Senate, both demonstrate that there remains a cohort in Congress that does not understand or appreciate the significance of the intellectual contribution of foreign students and research to U.S.-based research enterprises. As an organization representing the computing research community, CRA will continue to make the case for the importance to the nation of attracting the best minds in the world to our shores, and the importance of maintaining a free and open fundamental research enterprise. We will continue to track these bills and others like them that threaten to distort or damage that fundamental research ecosystem, which has been the driver of so much of the innovation that has helped ensure U.S. competitiveness and its world-leading position in computing. Keep an eye on CRA’s Computing Research Policy Blog or on CRA’s Twitter (@CRATweets) for continuing updates!
Today the United States Senate unanimously confirmed Dr. Sethuraman “Panch” Panchanathan as the next Director of the National Science Foundation. Nominated in December by the President to succeed France Córdova, Dr. Panchanathan’s nomination was possibly delayed by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing social distancing disruptions to Congress’ operations. However, his nomination sailed through the Senate HELP Committee on June 3rd and quickly moved to the full Senate for today’s vote.
“Panch” is well-known and well-respected in the computing research community. He now joins Erich Bloch as only the second Director in NSF’s history hailing from the computing community. Joining Margaret Martonosi, the new (as of February 1st) head of NSF’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate, the computing research community is now well-represented in an agency important to the field, as NSF supports approximately 85 percent of all fundamental computing research performed at U.S. universities (nearly $1.4 billion annually).
CRA is excited about Dr. Panchanathan’s leadership at NSF and we look forward to working with him and his team to advance the nation’s computing and information technology research.
CRA Statement on the “Presidential Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry as Nonimmigrants of Certain Students and Researchers from the People’s Republic of China”
The President on Friday issued a proclamation effective today ordering the suspension of entry to the U.S. of Chinese non-immigrant graduate students or scholars who have ever studied, received support, been employed by, or conducted research at or on behalf of any Chinese entity that may have implemented China’s “military-civil fusion strategy.” The proclamation defines “military-civil fusion strategy” as “actions by or at the behest of the [People’s Republic of China] to acquire and divert foreign technologies, specifically critical and emerging technologies, to incorporate into and advance the PRC’s military capabilities.”
We are aware and concerned that research in the United States is a target for espionage agents and others intent on stealing — rather than licensing — valuable intellectual property. We are also aware that some countries have been particularly aggressive about such theft in recent years. We support restrictions for people with clear connections to IP theft or espionage.
However, we oppose the banning of any foreign student or researcher unless there is clear evidence of their personal connection to such activities. Indiscriminate large-scale banning of students and researchers from any particular country deprives the U.S. research enterprise of contributions by international scholars, most of whom are not involved in IP theft or espionage.
The U.S. remains the world’s leading economy and maintains the world’s strongest defense because of an innovation ecosystem that is powered by a research enterprise that attracts the brightest minds and best ideas from all over the world. The broad scope of this proclamation has already created great uncertainty and fear among Chinese scholars who are here and contributing to U.S. leadership. It will most certainly discourage future international scholars from choosing the U.S. for their studies and research careers, depriving the U.S. of their talents and energy. We urge the Administration to immediately clarify the scope of the order and limit it to those cases where there is clear evidence of personal connection to espionage and IP theft.
As we reported in December, the President nominated Dr. Sethuraman “Panch” Panchanathan as the next Director of the National Science Foundation, succeeding Dr. France Córdova, whose six-year term as Director ended in March. Unfortunately, as has become common these days, Dr. Panchanathan’s nomination has been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic (this even necessitated Presidential Science Advisor Kelvin Droegemeier being appointed acting Director).
But, in a bit of good news, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (aka: Senate HELP committee) scheduled his nomination for a committee vote on Wednesday. Dr. Panchanathan’s nomination moved forward without a traditional hearing, likely because of the pandemic and the lack of any controversy surrounding his appointment. This is the second to last step in being confirmed to the position; only a vote by the full Senate chamber is left. Hopefully that will happen soon, though an exact timeframe is uncertain (nominations are considered at the discretion of the Senate majority and, specifically, the Senate Majority Leader). Be sure to check back for more updates.
6/4/20 Update: Good news! Dr. Panchanathan’s nomination was voted favorably by the the Senate HELP committee yesterday, clearing him for consideration by the full Senate. We’ll update again once his nomination is confirmed.
CRA STATEMENT CONCERNING EFFORTS TO END THE OPTIONAL PRACTICAL TRAINING PROGRAM
We are aware of efforts in both the Administration and Congress aimed at suspending or curtailing the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program for students on F-1 visas in the United States. As an organization representing more than 200 PhD- or research-focused computing departments in North America, eight leading industrial computing research labs, and six affiliated professional societies in the computing fields with a combined membership of over 200,000, we strongly oppose any efforts to limit or end the OPT program, which plays an important role in keeping some of the world’s best talent in the U.S., working and innovating in the U.S. economy.
The argument given for ending the program now — prioritizing U.S. workers over foreign talent given the overall high levels of unemployment in the economy — does not make sense when applied to the computing fields. In January 2020, prior to the impact of the COVID pandemic, unemployment in the computing fields was at 3.0 percent, a figure generally considered “full employment.” By April 2020, when the impacts of the pandemic forced overall unemployment up to 15 percent, unemployment in the computing fields actually dropped to 2.8 percent, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey data by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP). An analysis by NFAP of Active Job Postings in Computing Occupations amplifies this point, noting that between April 14 and May 13, 2020, there were more than 625,000 active vacancies in jobs that require at least a bachelor’s degree in computing. The OPT program is not harming U.S. computing workers, and importantly, jobs in computing cannot be filled by workers transitioning from non-technical fields without significant retraining that can span multiple years.
Suspending or curtailing the OPT program would destroy a key pathway for many of our best foreign students to contribute to U.S. innovation. Indeed, our innovation ecosystem — that extraordinarily productive interplay between U.S. research universities, industrial and federal research labs, and the people and ideas that flow between them — depends on a great majority of those foreign-born degree recipients deciding to stay and continue their work in the U.S. According to the National Science Foundation, 72 percent of foreign born STEM graduates stay employed in the U.S. for at least 10 years after graduation. But, uncertainty around the status of the OPT program threatens to upend that trend. Foreign students attending our schools now and intending to use the program to complete their graduate education and help find more permanent employment in the U.S. are increasingly likely to seek employment elsewhere, either in their homeland or in countries more open to highly skilled foreign talent.
Ending or suspending OPT (and the associated Curricular Practical Training (CPT) program) would not only damage the current cohort of foreign graduate students studying in the U.S. and hoping to stay. The availability of the pathway that the OPT program provides is a huge incentive to the best foreign graduate students deciding whether or not to study in the U.S. Any uncertainty around the program, especially in light of uncertainty about the status of other aspects of U.S. immigration and visa policy, is likely to discourage many students from applying to U.S. institutions at all, providing a new advantage to economies in other parts of the world who will gladly welcome their talents.
We agree that Federal pandemic response efforts should be prioritized towards aiding U.S. workers and others in the U.S. affected by COVID. However, efforts to curtail or suspend the OPT program will not achieve that goal. Instead, those efforts will cause great harm to an innovation ecosystem that continues to be a crucial part of our recovery effort. We strongly oppose any effort to end the program.
Last week, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Democratic Leader in the Senate, introduced bipartisan 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. The bill, called S. 3832 “The Endless Frontier Act,” proposes a major reorganization of NSF and possibly a significant change to the culture of the agency.
The legislation proposes several changes to NSF. The first big change, though it’s functionally the smallest, is the change of NSF’s name to the “National Science and Technology Foundation.” Within that, it establishes a new “Directorate of Technology” to, “advance innovation in the key technology focus areas through fundamental research and other activities…and…develop and implement strategies to ensure that the activities of the Directorate are directed toward the key technology focus areas.”
Those “key technology focus areas” are spelled out and CS/IT is heavily represented. The initial listing is:
– artificial intelligence and machine learning;
– high performance computing, semiconductors, and advanced computer hardware;
– quantum computing and information systems;
– robotics, automation, and advanced manufacturing;
– natural or anthropogenic disaster prevention;
– advanced communications technology;
– biotechnology, genomics, and synthetic biology;
– cybersecurity, data storage, and data management technologies;
– advanced energy; and
– materials science, engineering, and exploration relevant to the other key technology focus areas.
The directorate would have to undergo a review of these areas every four years, when they can be removed, added, or changed. However, there can be no more than ten such focus areas at any time.
In terms of operations, the bill would require that the program managers within this new directorate to operate like their equivalents at DARPA:
“The employees of the Directorate may include program managers for the key technology focus areas, who shall perform a role similar to programs managers employed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency for the oversight and selection of programs supported by the Directorate.”
Additionally, the new directorate would have the authority to hire experts on short-term assignments, again similar to the way the DARPA functions. Science Magazine has a good breakdown on potential benefits and costs of this culture shift (the article also has both praise and skepticism of the legislation from the higher-ed and research communities).
With regard to funding, the bill authorizes $100B for the new directorate. Starting at $2B in Fiscal Year 2021 and increasing to $35B for Fiscal Year 2025. The new directorate is supposed to work with the other NSF directorates, and other federal research agencies, to further progress in these focus areas; for example, the directorate is specifically authorized to move funding to any of the other directorates, but the reverse is specifically prohibited.
There are other sections of the bill, dealing with other areas of the nation’s R&D ecosystem. The fourth section of the bill deals with redesigning the Department of Commerce’s Regional Technology Hub program for the purposes of, “accelerating the commercialization of research; strengthening the competitive position of industry through the development, commercial adoption, or deployment of technology; and providing financial grants, loans, or direct financial investment to commercialize technology.’’ It authorizes $10 billion for this program. And the fifth section requires OSTP, in coordination with the Directors of NSF and National Economic Council, Secretary of Commerce, the National Security Council, among others, to write a report to:
“review such strategy, programs, and resources as the Director of the (OSTP) determines pertain to United States national competitiveness in science, research, and innovation to support the national security strategy;
As well, that report then informs a national strategy to:
“develop a strategy for the Federal Government to improve the national competitiveness of the United States in science, research, and innovation to support the national security strategy.”
Some things to keep in mind with this legislation. First, this is an authorizing (or policy) bill, not an appropriations bill; meaning that if it were to become law, funding is not a given. From what we have heard there have been no discussions with appropriators about this legislation. However, it is a bill sponsored by the Democratic Leader of the Senate; that alone gives it potential legs. It is also a bipartisan sponsored bill, a rarity these days.
But how likely is it to become law? It’s hard to say right now. While there is a version of this bill that has been introduced in the House, it’s not clear it will get a hearing by the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction. There have also been concerns about NSF being able to use such a large infusion of funds. On a more practical level, and as we’ve noted before, Congress is still working on responding to the pandemic and it is unlikely to take up other issues soon. That could change quickly though, as Senator Schumer could attach this to a piece of must-pass legislation; one potential scenario is attaching it to the Defense policy bill, legislation that is typically passed every year.
On a very high level, this legislation is quite good. It 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. A $100 billion infusion of new research funding is also quite good. However, there are potential concerns about what will happen to NSF with such a large reorganization and potential culture change; will that be for good or ill? This legislation, and similar proposals, is likely to be around for a while, so please keep checking back for more updates and developments.
It should come as no surprise that the normal operations of official Washington have been heavily disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Current events have derailed almost every aspect of the usual budget process. Adding to that, the situation remains very fluid as to when legislation, or any official business, will be acted upon by Congress; case in point, at the beginning of April, the House told its members they wouldn’t reconvene until the beginning of May, at the earliest (that obviously didn’t happen, as the House reconvened last week to pass emergency legislation).
There are some official actions that are happening. In terms of emergency funding, the CARES Act, passed at the end of March, has about $180 million dollars in emergency research funding for NIH, NSF, DOE Office of Science, and NIST. As well, there was about another $86 million for three agencies (NASA, NOAA, and NIST) to support “continuity of operations;” ie, any operations that were disrupted by the pandemic, such as rescheduling a space science mission at NASA. Additionally, there was support for higher education, in the form of about $14 billion; however, that isn’t set aside for research and by all reports is being used by colleges and universities for administrative purposes (meaning, keeping the lights on). All that funding was directly related to responding to the pandemic. If you would like a more detailed breakdown, Science Magazine has a good one (Science even has a free collection of science news and other articles related to the pandemic).
While there was another piece of emergency legislation that was passed last week, it only contains money for NIH and it is directly tied to responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. There is likely to be more emergency legislation in the future, but the timing is unclear; research funding, or even funding to restart the country’s research enterprise, could be included, but that is also not certain at this time.
With regard to the regular Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) appropriations, things are just as unclear. We have heard that the House Appropriations Committee is still planning to act on its FY21 bills, with the plan to do so in May timeframe. Its Senate counterpart has been less vocal about their plans, but the expectation is they will take action later in the summer, in the late-June-July timeframe. However, this is still very preliminary; Congress has still not settled on how it will physically operate while remaining in compliance with social distancing guidelines. Already we have seen some Congressional committees operate what are called “paper hearings,” or hearings that only occur with written testimony. This, and other changes, could become the norm for the duration of this emergency.
Despite being several months into this emergency, Washington is still feeling it’s way through how to operate. That means certainty about what will happen, and when, are in high demand but low supply. We are still monitoring what’s happening, even while safely at home; please check back for more updates.
The legislation is well aligned with many of the recommendations found in the community-led CCC 20-year AI Research Roadmap document, including the call for center-scale, interdisciplinary research efforts, support for foundational computer science research across a broad range of related areas, and support for education and workforce development efforts at Federal science agencies. The bill is also the product of a long drafting process that involved extensive consultation with academic, industry, and government stakeholders that sought to ensure not only the bill represented a clearly interdisciplinary approach to funding this area of national priority, but also that the committee’s concerns about ethics, safety, security and equal opportunity were baked in. To their credit, Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas sought to move beyond incremental improvements to the Federal AI research ecosystem, authorizing hefty increases to three key science agency budgets for AI research. NSF would see authorizations for its current level of investment (~$478 million in FY20) grow to $1.055 billion in FY25, including an increase of $390 million in FY21. The Department of Energy’s Office of Science would see its ~$120 million in FY20 investment authorized to $262 million in FY25. And NIST, which will spend ~$23 million on its AI research and standards efforts in FY20 grow to $93.7 million in FY25. All told, the bill would authorize $6.34 billion in spending on AI research over five years at those three agencies.
In addition to funding authorizations, the bill also formalizes a policy/advisory infrastructure for AI research by establishing a NITRD like interagency coordination committee and national coordination office, as well as a PITAC-like advisory committee for AI research. The bill also calls for a National Academies report on AI Impact on Workforce, creates AI Fellowship and Traineeship programs at NSF, funds AI education efforts at NSF, and calls on GAO to assess thee composition of computing resources supported by the Federal government and evaluate future computational needs to maintain U.S. leadership in AI.
The bill isn’t perfect. In an effort to ensure that researchers consider the ethical dimensions of their research, as well as the safety and security of their work, the bill will require all grant proposers to NSF (and DOE) to include a “Statement of Ethics” — perhaps similar to a broader impacts statement — along with their proposals. What that statement will include is left to the NSF Director and the Secretary of Energy to determine respectively, within 18 months of the bill’s passage. While we fully support the goal of making researchers more aware of the ethical dimensions of their work, we’re not sure this is approach is going to be the most effective way to do that.
The bill has a better than reasonable chance of passage. We know the House SS&T Committee will consider the bill (mark it up) at the end of this month, pending any further schedule chaos caused by the pandemic. Given its bipartisan sponsorship by the Chair and Ranking Member of the committee, it likely will pass and make it to the House floor, where it’s also likely to pass. The Senate is a little further behind the curve. They also have a National AI Initiative Act (S. 1558) that is less comprehensive, though similar to the House version, but it has not yet received any consideration in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Ideally, H.R. 6216 would be the bill that Senate Commerce takes up after passage in the House.
The bill is also well-aligned with the AI research goals of the Administration. You may recall in the President’s FY21 Budget Request released back in February, President Trump called for significant boosts in funding for AI research at NSF, NIST and DOE (along with cuts to just about everything else). Whether that translates into the President’s approval should this bill cross his desk is an open question, but the odds are good. And though this is “just” an authorization bill — it authorizes appropriators to spend money in certain ways, but the appropriators aren’t obligated to do it — AI and Quantum Information Science have been shown pretty clear priority by congressional appropriators in the last few budget cycles. Indeed, funding for Quantum Information Science has generally followed the levels authorized in the National Quantum Initiative Act passed back in 2016. So there’s reason to be optimistic that funding could also follow this bill.
And there’s also reason to be optimistic that the funding will be quite interdisciplinary, with AI defined quite broadly. The bill notes the types of interdisciplinary work the committee expects would benefit, including (but not limited to) computer vision, robotics, hardware for accelerating AI systems, information theory, causal and statistical inference, data mining, information extraction, human-robot interaction, intelligent interfaces, computational neuroscience, reasoning and representation, speech and language, multi-agent systems, intelligent interfaces, human-artificial intelligence cooperation, artificial intelligence-augmented human problem solving, developmental biology, zoology, botany, morphological computation, organismal systems, algorithmic explainability, methods to asses, characterize, and reduce bias in datasets, safety and robustness of AI systems including assurance, verification, validation, security and control, privacy and security, fields and research areas that address the application of AI systems to scientific discovery and societal challenges, social, ethical, safety and security implications of AI systems, social impact of AI systems on different groups within society (especially historically marginalized groups) and qualitative and quantitative forecasting of future capabilities and applications. And that’s just at NSF. Agency heads will have a fair amount of flexibility for meeting the goals of this act with any of the funding that results.
So, of all of the approaches to prioritizing AI research to meet the national imperative to maintain leadership in this crucial area, this bill seems to hold the most promise. The committee has produced a one-pager on the bill. You can read the full text as well.
We’ll be following the bill as it makes its way through the legislative process. Stay tuned here for updates.
In our continuing series following the Trump Administration’s Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) budget request, we close out with a roundup of an assortment of Federal research agencies. These include the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and NASA. There’s a familiar theme to all of these accounts: cuts to research (even when it looks like an agency was a budgetary winner).
First, we’ll go into the agency that, at first blush, looks like a big winner: NASA. The top line for the space agency is one of the big winners in the President’s budget request; it received a 5.3 percent increase, going from $22.63 billion in FY20 to $25.25 billion in FY21. However, that increase goes almost entirely to the Human Exploration (+46 percent) and Space Technology (+43 percent) accounts. NASA Science, which handles the research funding at the agency, gets a significant cut of 12 percent, going from $7.14 billion in FY20 to $6.31 billion in FY21. Additionally, the STEM Engagement account at NASA would be eliminated under the President’s plan. So much for being a big winner.
FY19
FY20
FY21 PBR
$ Change
% Change
NASA Total
$21.50B
$22.63B
$25.25B
+$2.62B
+5.3%
NASA Science
$6.91B
$7.14B
$6.31B
-$830M
-12%
The trend continues with NIST. The top line for the agency would see a significant cut of 28 percent, going from $1.03 billion in FY20 to $738 million in FY21. The institutes’ Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, where the majority of the agency’s research is housed, would see a not as large, but still significant, cut of 13 percent; going from $754 million in FY20 to $652 million in FY21.
FY19
FY20
FY21 PBR
$ Change
% Change
NIST Total
$986M
$1.03B
$738M
-$292M
-28%
STRS
$725M
$754M
$652M
-$102M
-13%
Finally we come to the National Institutes of Health; even this popular agency doesn’t escape the budgetary chopping block. Under the President’s plan, the agency would go from $41.7 billion in FY20 to $38.7 billion in FY21, a reduction of $3 billion or 7.2 percent.
FY19
FY20
FY21 PBR
$ Change
% Change
NIH
$39.1B
$41.7B
$38.7B
-$3.0B
-7.2%
As with the other research accounts we’ve profiled, these cuts are unlikely to make it into a final FY21 budget. However, this is a bad place to begin the process; as just one example, Congress could provide flat funding and say they “saved” the agencies from worse budget cuts. Additionally, when the FY21 budget will be finalized is anyone’s guess; almost certainly it won’t be done before the November election.
Next steps in the FY21 budget process are for each chamber of Congress to come up with their individual funding plans; that process should start within the next month. You’ll have updates; so keep checking back for more information.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
CRA Joins Science and Higher-Ed Community in Working to Reverse ICE Rule on Student Visa Holders That Could Force Hundreds of Thousands to Leave U.S.
/In: CRA, People, Policy, Statements /by Peter HarshaUPDATE 7/14: The Trump Administration reserved course and rescinded its policy change.
Continue original post from 7/8: On Monday, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) disclosed its intent to remove its current, temporary exemptions on F-1 and M-1 visas. The exemptions allowed students on visas to remain in the USA during the spring and summer even if they were taking all their classes online because of the pandemic. The removal of the exemptions would mean that any students on student visas who are not taking at least some classes in person will cease to be in compliance. Thus, if they are enrolled in colleges or universities that will move their fall classes online for safety of their community, those students would be forced to either (a) transfer to another institution where they must take classes in person, despite any health risk, or (b) leave the country. It also means that foreign students accepted for fall at those institutions will not be granted visas to enter the USA.
The hundreds of thousands of students — across all academic disciplines — who will be affected by this policy are here legally but will potentially fall out of compliance through no fault of their own, as their institutions react to an extraordinary, global pandemic. CRA believes this policy is ill-conceived, cruel and will damage the U.S. research ecosystem greatly, perhaps for years to come. The uncertainty created by this policy, and by the other immigration policy decisions restricting other foreign students and researchers issued over the last several weeks, will certainly discourage more of the best minds in the world from studying and researching in the U.S., to our great detriment.
CRA is working with our partners in the science advocacy community and the higher education community to make this case to policymakers in Congress and the Administration. We are also working to develop resources to help our member institutions contend with this unprecedented situation. For now, members of our community who wish to weigh in on the inadequacy of this policy decision are encouraged to contact their representatives in Congress. Find out who represents you in Congress. Contact information for your Senate delegation.
And specifically to our international students, know that CRA cares about you and will do everything we can to protect and support you.
When there are new developments, we will do our best to bring them to you here.
UPDATE: Wednesday morning, Harvard University and MIT sued the Trump Administration in an effort to block ICE’s Visa order. In a statement similar to CRA’s, the two universities said that they filed a pleading in Federal court, “seeking a temporary restraining order prohibiting enforcement of the order.”
President’s Immigration Order is Latest in a Series Vexing Computing Research Community
/In: Computing Education, People, Security, Statements /by Peter Harsha[This article will also appear in CRA’s Computing Research News.]
On Monday, June 22nd, President Trump issued the latest in a series of immigration and visa related orders designed to limit the involvement of foreign students and researchers, particular those from mainland China, in U.S. research efforts. The order follows a series of other proposals and orders emanating from the White House and Capitol Hill that have raised the ire of higher-education, U.S. industry, and the computing research community over recent weeks. The proposals — two proclamations, Senate legislation and bicameral legislation — all have the stated goals of protecting U.S. jobs from foreign competition or protecting U.S. research from foreign exploitation, but in CRA’s analysis would likely do more damage to the U.S. research ecosystem than the threats they are trying to address.
The President’s most recent order is a Presidential proclamation that directs U.S. immigration officials on June 24th to suspend issuing new H-1B, H-2B, J- series, L series, and other non-immigrant visas through the end of 2020. The President justified the move as a way to protect U.S. workers during this time of increased unemployment as a result of the COVID pandemic. This case is problematic, CRA has noted, because employment in the computing sector has actually increased during the pandemic, with unemployment falling from a pre-pandemic level of 3.0 percent to 2.8 percent as of April 30th (as compared to an overall unemployment level of nearly 15 percent). Notably, the President’s proclamation did not suspend the F-1 visa program used by most foreign graduate students in the US, or curtail the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program or the OPT STEM program, which allow F-1 visa holders to stay an additional year or three years respectively to get training in their study areas after graduation.
The move has earned considerable ire from the U.S. business community, particularly the high-tech sector, which uses the H-1B program to bring in high-skilled talent from around the world. Those in the computing sector note that even with the H-1B program, more than 625,000 computing-related jobs (those that would require a 4 year computing degree) remain unfilled at the present time. The President appears unmoved, however, believing the order to be the fulfillment of a campaign promise and a vote-winner.
Earlier, the President had issued another order directed at protecting U.S. research from exploitation by the Chinese government. On May 29th, he issued a Presidential Proclamation that suspended the issuing of visas for students and researchers from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) wishing to come to the U.S. if it is determined that they have ever been involved with any entity participating in the PRC’s “military-civil fusion strategy.” CRA opposed the proclamation. While we recognize that there are certainly real threats to U.S. research from foreign actors — the recent news that 54 scientists funded by the NIH have lost their jobs and some face criminal charges for failing to disclose financial ties to foreign governments emphasizes this fact — indiscriminate large-scale banning of students and researchers from any particular country is likely to be counter-productive and deprive the U.S. research enterprise of the important contributions of international scholars.
On June 1st, CRA issued a statement opposing the proclamation which read:
The President on Friday issued a proclamation effective today ordering the suspension of entry to the U.S. of Chinese non-immigrant graduate students or scholars who have ever studied, received support, been employed by, or conducted research at or on behalf of any Chinese entity that may have implemented China’s “military-civil fusion strategy.” The proclamation defines “military-civil fusion strategy” as “actions by or at the behest of the [People’s Republic of China] to acquire and divert foreign technologies, specifically critical and emerging technologies, to incorporate into and advance the PRC’s military capabilities.”
We are aware and concerned that research in the United States is a target for espionage agents and others intent on stealing — rather than licensing — valuable intellectual property. We are also aware that some countries have been particularly aggressive about such theft in recent years. We support restrictions for people with clear connections to IP theft or espionage.
However, we oppose the banning of any foreign student or researcher unless there is clear evidence of their personal connection to such activities. Indiscriminate large-scale banning of students and researchers from any particular country deprives the U.S. research enterprise of contributions by international scholars, most of whom are not involved in IP theft or espionage.
The U.S. remains the world’s leading economy and maintains the world’s strongest defense because of an innovation ecosystem that is powered by a research enterprise that attracts the brightest minds and best ideas from all over the world. The broad scope of this proclamation has already created great uncertainty and fear among Chinese scholars who are here and contributing to U.S. leadership. It will most certainly discourage future international scholars from choosing the U.S. for their studies and research careers, depriving the U.S. of their talents and energy. We urge the Administration to immediately clarify the scope of the order and limit it to those cases where there is clear evidence of personal connection to espionage and IP theft.
While the White House was working to put out this proclamation, a parallel effort was underway to make additional immigration policy changes around the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program — an effort that ultimately led to the issuance of the June 22nd proclamation. On May 29th, CRA issued a statement to state its opposition to efforts to suspend or end the program:
We are aware of efforts in both the Administration and Congress aimed at suspending or curtailing the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program for students on F-1 visas in the United States. As an organization representing more than 200 PhD- or research-focused computing departments in North America, eight leading industrial computing research labs, and six affiliated professional societies in the computing fields with a combined membership of over 200,000, we strongly oppose any efforts to limit or end the OPT program, which plays an important role in keeping some of the world’s best talent in the U.S., working and innovating in the U.S. economy.
The argument given for ending the program now — prioritizing U.S. workers over foreign talent given the overall high levels of unemployment in the economy — does not make sense when applied to the computing fields. In January 2020, prior to the impact of the COVID pandemic, unemployment in the computing fields was at 3.0 percent, a figure generally considered “full employment.” By April 2020, when the impacts of the pandemic forced overall unemployment up to 15 percent, unemployment in the computing fields actually dropped to 2.8 percent, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey data by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP). An analysis by NFAP of Active Job Postings in Computing Occupations amplifies this point, noting that between April 14 and May 13, 2020, there were more than 625,000 active vacancies in jobs that require at least a bachelor’s degree in computing. The OPT program is not harming U.S. computing workers, and importantly, jobs in computing cannot be filled by workers transitioning from non-technical fields without significant retraining that can span multiple years.
Suspending or curtailing the OPT program would destroy a key pathway for many of our best foreign students to contribute to U.S. innovation. Indeed, our innovation ecosystem — that extraordinarily productive interplay between U.S. research universities, industrial and federal research labs, and the people and ideas that flow between them — depends on a great majority of those foreign-born degree recipients deciding to stay and continue their work in the U.S. According to the National Science Foundation, 72 percent of foreign born STEM graduates stay employed in the U.S. for at least 10 years after graduation. But, uncertainty around the status of the OPT program threatens to upend that trend. Foreign students attending our schools now and intending to use the program to complete their graduate education and help find more permanent employment in the U.S. are increasingly likely to seek employment elsewhere, either in their homeland or in countries more open to highly skilled foreign talent.
Ending or suspending OPT (and the associated Curricular Practical Training (CPT) program) would not only damage the current cohort of foreign graduate students studying in the U.S. and hoping to stay. The availability of the pathway that the OPT program provides is a huge incentive to the best foreign graduate students deciding whether or not to study in the U.S. Any uncertainty around the program, especially in light of uncertainty about the status of other aspects of U.S. immigration and visa policy, is likely to discourage many students from applying to U.S. institutions at all, providing a new advantage to economies in other parts of the world who will gladly welcome their talents.
We agree that Federal pandemic response efforts should be prioritized towards aiding U.S. workers and others in the U.S. affected by COVID. However, efforts to curtail or suspend the OPT program will not achieve that goal. Instead, those efforts will cause great harm to an innovation ecosystem that continues to be a crucial part of our recovery effort. We strongly oppose any effort to end the program.
CRA is not alone in opposing efforts to curb the program. The higher education and scientific community, led by organizations like the Association of American Universities (AAU), Association of Public and Land Grant Universities (APLU), and American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), has weighed in with the White House, Department of Homeland Security, and Department of State opposing the rumored new rules. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a strong voice for U.S. industry in Washington also sent a strong opposition to the policy. And 21 Republican Members of Congress wrote to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf urging them ensure the OPT program continues this Fall. Those efforts appear to have had success in keeping the OPT programs and F-1 visas out of the June 22nd order.
But that sentiment is not shared by all Republican Members of Congress. Four Republican Senators — Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Tom Cotton (R-AR), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Josh Hawley (R-MO) — sent a letter to President Trump urging him to suspend the OPT program along with a number of other non-immigrant visa categories. Senators Cotton and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), along with Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN) have pushed the matter even further with the introduction of bicameral legislation called the SECURE CAMPUS Act that would, in order to protect U.S. universities from “espionage,” bar “PRC nationals from receiving student or research visas to the United States for graduate or post-graduate studies in STEM fields.”
On June 18th, Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), Chair of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and a group of other bipartisan sponsors introduced S. 3997, the “Safeguarding American Innovation Act,” which also seeks to limit foreign exploitation – specifically Chinese exploitation – of the U.S. higher-education community. The bill places limitations of foreign educational and cultural exchanges, criminalizes failure to disclose foreign sources of funding for U.S. grant recipients, and creates a new intergovernmental “Federal Research Security Council” chaired by the White House Office of Management and Budget that would help create a uniform grant application process across all agencies and set guidance on how to determine what research is in the “economic or national security interest of the U.S.” and how to protect it. Though the bill does not have companion in the House – and would be unlikely to move as-is there in any case – there is sufficient bipartisan support for the bill in the Senate that it is possible that some of its provisions could find their way in other pieces of legislation that will move. CRA will continue to monitor progress.
While S. 3997 is unlikely to move in the House, and the SECURE CAMPUS Act is not likely to see much movement in either the House or the Senate, both demonstrate that there remains a cohort in Congress that does not understand or appreciate the significance of the intellectual contribution of foreign students and research to U.S.-based research enterprises. As an organization representing the computing research community, CRA will continue to make the case for the importance to the nation of attracting the best minds in the world to our shores, and the importance of maintaining a free and open fundamental research enterprise. We will continue to track these bills and others like them that threaten to distort or damage that fundamental research ecosystem, which has been the driver of so much of the innovation that has helped ensure U.S. competitiveness and its world-leading position in computing. Keep an eye on CRA’s Computing Research Policy Blog or on CRA’s Twitter (@CRATweets) for continuing updates!
Dr. Sethuraman Panchanathan Confirmed as Next Director of the National Science Foundation
/In: People, R&D in the Press /by Brian MosleyToday the United States Senate unanimously confirmed Dr. Sethuraman “Panch” Panchanathan as the next Director of the National Science Foundation. Nominated in December by the President to succeed France Córdova, Dr. Panchanathan’s nomination was possibly delayed by the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and ensuing social distancing disruptions to Congress’ operations. However, his nomination sailed through the Senate HELP Committee on June 3rd and quickly moved to the full Senate for today’s vote.
“Panch” is well-known and well-respected in the computing research community. He now joins Erich Bloch as only the second Director in NSF’s history hailing from the computing community. Joining Margaret Martonosi, the new (as of February 1st) head of NSF’s Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate, the computing research community is now well-represented in an agency important to the field, as NSF supports approximately 85 percent of all fundamental computing research performed at U.S. universities (nearly $1.4 billion annually).
CRA is excited about Dr. Panchanathan’s leadership at NSF and we look forward to working with him and his team to advance the nation’s computing and information technology research.
CRA Statement on Presidential Proclamation Concerning Visas for Chinese Scholars in the U.S.
/In: CRA, People, Policy, Statements /by Peter HarshaCRA today released the following statement:
June 1, 2020
CRA Statement on the “Presidential Proclamation on the Suspension of Entry as Nonimmigrants of Certain Students and Researchers from the People’s Republic of China”
The President on Friday issued a proclamation effective today ordering the suspension of entry to the U.S. of Chinese non-immigrant graduate students or scholars who have ever studied, received support, been employed by, or conducted research at or on behalf of any Chinese entity that may have implemented China’s “military-civil fusion strategy.” The proclamation defines “military-civil fusion strategy” as “actions by or at the behest of the [People’s Republic of China] to acquire and divert foreign technologies, specifically critical and emerging technologies, to incorporate into and advance the PRC’s military capabilities.”
We are aware and concerned that research in the United States is a target for espionage agents and others intent on stealing — rather than licensing — valuable intellectual property. We are also aware that some countries have been particularly aggressive about such theft in recent years. We support restrictions for people with clear connections to IP theft or espionage.
However, we oppose the banning of any foreign student or researcher unless there is clear evidence of their personal connection to such activities. Indiscriminate large-scale banning of students and researchers from any particular country deprives the U.S. research enterprise of contributions by international scholars, most of whom are not involved in IP theft or espionage.
The U.S. remains the world’s leading economy and maintains the world’s strongest defense because of an innovation ecosystem that is powered by a research enterprise that attracts the brightest minds and best ideas from all over the world. The broad scope of this proclamation has already created great uncertainty and fear among Chinese scholars who are here and contributing to U.S. leadership. It will most certainly discourage future international scholars from choosing the U.S. for their studies and research careers, depriving the U.S. of their talents and energy. We urge the Administration to immediately clarify the scope of the order and limit it to those cases where there is clear evidence of personal connection to espionage and IP theft.
Nomination of NSF Director Set for Committee Vote and Likely Advancement
/In: People, R&D in the Press /by Brian MosleyAs we reported in December, the President nominated Dr. Sethuraman “Panch” Panchanathan as the next Director of the National Science Foundation, succeeding Dr. France Córdova, whose six-year term as Director ended in March. Unfortunately, as has become common these days, Dr. Panchanathan’s nomination has been delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic (this even necessitated Presidential Science Advisor Kelvin Droegemeier being appointed acting Director).
But, in a bit of good news, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (aka: Senate HELP committee) scheduled his nomination for a committee vote on Wednesday. Dr. Panchanathan’s nomination moved forward without a traditional hearing, likely because of the pandemic and the lack of any controversy surrounding his appointment. This is the second to last step in being confirmed to the position; only a vote by the full Senate chamber is left. Hopefully that will happen soon, though an exact timeframe is uncertain (nominations are considered at the discretion of the Senate majority and, specifically, the Senate Majority Leader). Be sure to check back for more updates.
6/4/20 Update: Good news! Dr. Panchanathan’s nomination was voted favorably by the the Senate HELP committee yesterday, clearing him for consideration by the full Senate. We’ll update again once his nomination is confirmed.
CRA Releases Statement on Reported Plans to Suspend or End the Optional Practical Training (OPT) Program
/In: Computing Education, CRA, Economic Stimulus and Recovery, People, Statements, STEM /by Peter HarshaToday, CRA released the following statement:
May 29, 2020
CRA STATEMENT CONCERNING EFFORTS TO END THE OPTIONAL PRACTICAL TRAINING PROGRAM
We are aware of efforts in both the Administration and Congress aimed at suspending or curtailing the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program for students on F-1 visas in the United States. As an organization representing more than 200 PhD- or research-focused computing departments in North America, eight leading industrial computing research labs, and six affiliated professional societies in the computing fields with a combined membership of over 200,000, we strongly oppose any efforts to limit or end the OPT program, which plays an important role in keeping some of the world’s best talent in the U.S., working and innovating in the U.S. economy.
The argument given for ending the program now — prioritizing U.S. workers over foreign talent given the overall high levels of unemployment in the economy — does not make sense when applied to the computing fields. In January 2020, prior to the impact of the COVID pandemic, unemployment in the computing fields was at 3.0 percent, a figure generally considered “full employment.” By April 2020, when the impacts of the pandemic forced overall unemployment up to 15 percent, unemployment in the computing fields actually dropped to 2.8 percent, according to an analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey data by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP). An analysis by NFAP of Active Job Postings in Computing Occupations amplifies this point, noting that between April 14 and May 13, 2020, there were more than 625,000 active vacancies in jobs that require at least a bachelor’s degree in computing. The OPT program is not harming U.S. computing workers, and importantly, jobs in computing cannot be filled by workers transitioning from non-technical fields without significant retraining that can span multiple years.
Suspending or curtailing the OPT program would destroy a key pathway for many of our best foreign students to contribute to U.S. innovation. Indeed, our innovation ecosystem — that extraordinarily productive interplay between U.S. research universities, industrial and federal research labs, and the people and ideas that flow between them — depends on a great majority of those foreign-born degree recipients deciding to stay and continue their work in the U.S. According to the National Science Foundation, 72 percent of foreign born STEM graduates stay employed in the U.S. for at least 10 years after graduation. But, uncertainty around the status of the OPT program threatens to upend that trend. Foreign students attending our schools now and intending to use the program to complete their graduate education and help find more permanent employment in the U.S. are increasingly likely to seek employment elsewhere, either in their homeland or in countries more open to highly skilled foreign talent.
Ending or suspending OPT (and the associated Curricular Practical Training (CPT) program) would not only damage the current cohort of foreign graduate students studying in the U.S. and hoping to stay. The availability of the pathway that the OPT program provides is a huge incentive to the best foreign graduate students deciding whether or not to study in the U.S. Any uncertainty around the program, especially in light of uncertainty about the status of other aspects of U.S. immigration and visa policy, is likely to discourage many students from applying to U.S. institutions at all, providing a new advantage to economies in other parts of the world who will gladly welcome their talents.
We agree that Federal pandemic response efforts should be prioritized towards aiding U.S. workers and others in the U.S. affected by COVID. However, efforts to curtail or suspend the OPT program will not achieve that goal. Instead, those efforts will cause great harm to an innovation ecosystem that continues to be a crucial part of our recovery effort. We strongly oppose any effort to end the program.
New Legislation Proposes Major Reorganization of NSF
/In: Artificial Intelligence, Funding, Policy, Research /by Brian MosleyLast week, Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY), the Democratic Leader in the Senate, introduced bipartisan 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. The bill, called S. 3832 “The Endless Frontier Act,” proposes a major reorganization of NSF and possibly a significant change to the culture of the agency.
The legislation proposes several changes to NSF. The first big change, though it’s functionally the smallest, is the change of NSF’s name to the “National Science and Technology Foundation.” Within that, it establishes a new “Directorate of Technology” to, “advance innovation in the key technology focus areas through fundamental research and other activities…and…develop and implement strategies to ensure that the activities of the Directorate are directed toward the key technology focus areas.”
Those “key technology focus areas” are spelled out and CS/IT is heavily represented. The initial listing is:
The directorate would have to undergo a review of these areas every four years, when they can be removed, added, or changed. However, there can be no more than ten such focus areas at any time.
In terms of operations, the bill would require that the program managers within this new directorate to operate like their equivalents at DARPA:
Additionally, the new directorate would have the authority to hire experts on short-term assignments, again similar to the way the DARPA functions. Science Magazine has a good breakdown on potential benefits and costs of this culture shift (the article also has both praise and skepticism of the legislation from the higher-ed and research communities).
With regard to funding, the bill authorizes $100B for the new directorate. Starting at $2B in Fiscal Year 2021 and increasing to $35B for Fiscal Year 2025. The new directorate is supposed to work with the other NSF directorates, and other federal research agencies, to further progress in these focus areas; for example, the directorate is specifically authorized to move funding to any of the other directorates, but the reverse is specifically prohibited.
There are other sections of the bill, dealing with other areas of the nation’s R&D ecosystem. The fourth section of the bill deals with redesigning the Department of Commerce’s Regional Technology Hub program for the purposes of, “accelerating the commercialization of research; strengthening the competitive position of industry through the development, commercial adoption, or deployment of technology; and providing financial grants, loans, or direct financial investment to commercialize technology.’’ It authorizes $10 billion for this program. And the fifth section requires OSTP, in coordination with the Directors of NSF and National Economic Council, Secretary of Commerce, the National Security Council, among others, to write a report to:
As well, that report then informs a national strategy to:
Some things to keep in mind with this legislation. First, this is an authorizing (or policy) bill, not an appropriations bill; meaning that if it were to become law, funding is not a given. From what we have heard there have been no discussions with appropriators about this legislation. However, it is a bill sponsored by the Democratic Leader of the Senate; that alone gives it potential legs. It is also a bipartisan sponsored bill, a rarity these days.
But how likely is it to become law? It’s hard to say right now. While there is a version of this bill that has been introduced in the House, it’s not clear it will get a hearing by the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, which has jurisdiction. There have also been concerns about NSF being able to use such a large infusion of funds. On a more practical level, and as we’ve noted before, Congress is still working on responding to the pandemic and it is unlikely to take up other issues soon. That could change quickly though, as Senator Schumer could attach this to a piece of must-pass legislation; one potential scenario is attaching it to the Defense policy bill, legislation that is typically passed every year.
On a very high level, this legislation is quite good. It 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. A $100 billion infusion of new research funding is also quite good. However, there are potential concerns about what will happen to NSF with such a large reorganization and potential culture change; will that be for good or ill? This legislation, and similar proposals, is likely to be around for a while, so please keep checking back for more updates and developments.
What’s Happening with the Federal Budget, Particularly with the Research Agencies, During the Pandemic?
/In: Funding, FY21 Appropriations /by Brian MosleyIt should come as no surprise that the normal operations of official Washington have been heavily disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. Current events have derailed almost every aspect of the usual budget process. Adding to that, the situation remains very fluid as to when legislation, or any official business, will be acted upon by Congress; case in point, at the beginning of April, the House told its members they wouldn’t reconvene until the beginning of May, at the earliest (that obviously didn’t happen, as the House reconvened last week to pass emergency legislation).
There are some official actions that are happening. In terms of emergency funding, the CARES Act, passed at the end of March, has about $180 million dollars in emergency research funding for NIH, NSF, DOE Office of Science, and NIST. As well, there was about another $86 million for three agencies (NASA, NOAA, and NIST) to support “continuity of operations;” ie, any operations that were disrupted by the pandemic, such as rescheduling a space science mission at NASA. Additionally, there was support for higher education, in the form of about $14 billion; however, that isn’t set aside for research and by all reports is being used by colleges and universities for administrative purposes (meaning, keeping the lights on). All that funding was directly related to responding to the pandemic. If you would like a more detailed breakdown, Science Magazine has a good one (Science even has a free collection of science news and other articles related to the pandemic).
While there was another piece of emergency legislation that was passed last week, it only contains money for NIH and it is directly tied to responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. There is likely to be more emergency legislation in the future, but the timing is unclear; research funding, or even funding to restart the country’s research enterprise, could be included, but that is also not certain at this time.
With regard to the regular Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) appropriations, things are just as unclear. We have heard that the House Appropriations Committee is still planning to act on its FY21 bills, with the plan to do so in May timeframe. Its Senate counterpart has been less vocal about their plans, but the expectation is they will take action later in the summer, in the late-June-July timeframe. However, this is still very preliminary; Congress has still not settled on how it will physically operate while remaining in compliance with social distancing guidelines. Already we have seen some Congressional committees operate what are called “paper hearings,” or hearings that only occur with written testimony. This, and other changes, could become the norm for the duration of this emergency.
Despite being several months into this emergency, Washington is still feeling it’s way through how to operate. That means certainty about what will happen, and when, are in high demand but low supply. We are still monitoring what’s happening, even while safely at home; please check back for more updates.
House SS&T Committee Introduces Bipartisan AI Research Bill to Significantly Increase Research Authorizations
/In: Artificial Intelligence, Computing Community Consortium (CCC), Funding, Policy, Research /by Peter HarshaHouse Science, Space, and Technology Committee E
ddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) and Ranking Member Frank Lucas (R-OK) yesterday introduced long-awaited legislation aimed at solidifying the U.S. leadership role in artificial intelligence research, education, and workforce development. The National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (H.R. 6216) would authorize significant increases to the research budgets at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the National Institute for Standards and Technology over five years, allow for the creation of AI research institutes focused on economic sectors, social sectors, or cross-cutting AI technology challenges, and designate a new policy infrastructure for AI research across the Federal government.
This is a good bill.
The legislation is well aligned with many of the recommendations found in the community-led CCC 20-year AI Research Roadmap document, including the call for center-scale, interdisciplinary research efforts, support for foundational computer science research across a broad range of related areas, and support for education and workforce development efforts at Federal science agencies. The bill is also the product of a long drafting process that involved extensive consultation with academic, industry, and government stakeholders that sought to ensure not only the bill represented a clearly interdisciplinary approach to funding this area of national priority, but also that the committee’s concerns about ethics, safety, security and equal opportunity were baked in. To their credit, Chairwoman Johnson and Ranking Member Lucas sought to move beyond incremental improvements to the Federal AI research ecosystem, authorizing hefty increases to three key science agency budgets for AI research. NSF would see authorizations for its current level of investment (~$478 million in FY20) grow to $1.055 billion in FY25, including an increase of $390 million in FY21. The Department of Energy’s Office of Science would see its ~$120 million in FY20 investment authorized to $262 million in FY25. And NIST, which will spend ~$23 million on its AI research and standards efforts in FY20 grow to $93.7 million in FY25. All told, the bill would authorize $6.34 billion in spending on AI research over five years at those three agencies.
In addition to funding authorizations, the bill also formalizes a policy/advisory infrastructure for AI research by establishing a NITRD like interagency coordination committee and national coordination office, as well as a PITAC-like advisory committee for AI research. The bill also calls for a National Academies report on AI Impact on Workforce, creates AI Fellowship and Traineeship programs at NSF, funds AI education efforts at NSF, and calls on GAO to assess thee composition of computing resources supported by the Federal government and evaluate future computational needs to maintain U.S. leadership in AI.
The bill isn’t perfect. In an effort to ensure that researchers consider the ethical dimensions of their research, as well as the safety and security of their work, the bill will require all grant proposers to NSF (and DOE) to include a “Statement of Ethics” — perhaps similar to a broader impacts statement — along with their proposals. What that statement will include is left to the NSF Director and the Secretary of Energy to determine respectively, within 18 months of the bill’s passage. While we fully support the goal of making researchers more aware of the ethical dimensions of their work, we’re not sure this is approach is going to be the most effective way to do that.
Nevertheless, CRA supports this effort and has provided an endorsement of the bill.
The bill has a better than reasonable chance of passage. We know the House SS&T Committee will consider the bill (mark it up) at the end of this month, pending any further schedule chaos caused by the pandemic. Given its bipartisan sponsorship by the Chair and Ranking Member of the committee, it likely will pass and make it to the House floor, where it’s also likely to pass. The Senate is a little further behind the curve. They also have a National AI Initiative Act (S. 1558) that is less comprehensive, though similar to the House version, but it has not yet received any consideration in the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. Ideally, H.R. 6216 would be the bill that Senate Commerce takes up after passage in the House.
The bill is also well-aligned with the AI research goals of the Administration. You may recall in the President’s FY21 Budget Request released back in February, President Trump called for significant boosts in funding for AI research at NSF, NIST and DOE (along with cuts to just about everything else). Whether that translates into the President’s approval should this bill cross his desk is an open question, but the odds are good. And though this is “just” an authorization bill — it authorizes appropriators to spend money in certain ways, but the appropriators aren’t obligated to do it — AI and Quantum Information Science have been shown pretty clear priority by congressional appropriators in the last few budget cycles. Indeed, funding for Quantum Information Science has generally followed the levels authorized in the National Quantum Initiative Act passed back in 2016. So there’s reason to be optimistic that funding could also follow this bill.
And there’s also reason to be optimistic that the funding will be quite interdisciplinary, with AI defined quite broadly. The bill notes the types of interdisciplinary work the committee expects would benefit, including (but not limited to) computer vision, robotics, hardware for accelerating AI systems, information theory, causal and statistical inference, data mining, information extraction, human-robot interaction, intelligent interfaces, computational neuroscience, reasoning and representation, speech and language, multi-agent systems, intelligent interfaces, human-artificial intelligence cooperation, artificial intelligence-augmented human problem solving, developmental biology, zoology, botany, morphological computation, organismal systems, algorithmic explainability, methods to asses, characterize, and reduce bias in datasets, safety and robustness of AI systems including assurance, verification, validation, security and control, privacy and security, fields and research areas that address the application of AI systems to scientific discovery and societal challenges, social, ethical, safety and security implications of AI systems, social impact of AI systems on different groups within society (especially historically marginalized groups) and qualitative and quantitative forecasting of future capabilities and applications. And that’s just at NSF. Agency heads will have a fair amount of flexibility for meeting the goals of this act with any of the funding that results.
So, of all of the approaches to prioritizing AI research to meet the national imperative to maintain leadership in this crucial area, this bill seems to hold the most promise. The committee has produced a one-pager on the bill. You can read the full text as well.
We’ll be following the bill as it makes its way through the legislative process. Stay tuned here for updates.
Roundup of FY2021 Research Agency Requests: NIST, NIH, and NASA, A Familiar Theme of Cuts
/In: Funding, FY21 Appropriations, Research /by Brian MosleyIn our continuing series following the Trump Administration’s Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) budget request, we close out with a roundup of an assortment of Federal research agencies. These include the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and NASA. There’s a familiar theme to all of these accounts: cuts to research (even when it looks like an agency was a budgetary winner).
First, we’ll go into the agency that, at first blush, looks like a big winner: NASA. The top line for the space agency is one of the big winners in the President’s budget request; it received a 5.3 percent increase, going from $22.63 billion in FY20 to $25.25 billion in FY21. However, that increase goes almost entirely to the Human Exploration (+46 percent) and Space Technology (+43 percent) accounts. NASA Science, which handles the research funding at the agency, gets a significant cut of 12 percent, going from $7.14 billion in FY20 to $6.31 billion in FY21. Additionally, the STEM Engagement account at NASA would be eliminated under the President’s plan. So much for being a big winner.
The trend continues with NIST. The top line for the agency would see a significant cut of 28 percent, going from $1.03 billion in FY20 to $738 million in FY21. The institutes’ Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, where the majority of the agency’s research is housed, would see a not as large, but still significant, cut of 13 percent; going from $754 million in FY20 to $652 million in FY21.
Finally we come to the National Institutes of Health; even this popular agency doesn’t escape the budgetary chopping block. Under the President’s plan, the agency would go from $41.7 billion in FY20 to $38.7 billion in FY21, a reduction of $3 billion or 7.2 percent.
As with the other research accounts we’ve profiled, these cuts are unlikely to make it into a final FY21 budget. However, this is a bad place to begin the process; as just one example, Congress could provide flat funding and say they “saved” the agencies from worse budget cuts. Additionally, when the FY21 budget will be finalized is anyone’s guess; almost certainly it won’t be done before the November election.
Next steps in the FY21 budget process are for each chamber of Congress to come up with their individual funding plans; that process should start within the next month. You’ll have updates; so keep checking back for more information.