Update (11/17/11): The minibus was approved in both the House and Senate and will head to the President for his signature!
Original Post: Congressional appropriators tonight filed the final conference report for the so-called “minibus” FY12 appropriations bill, representing the final agreed-upon spending numbers for FY12 for the Agriculture; Commerce, Justice, Science; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bills — and NSF fared much better than expected in the final negotiation. You’ll recall we were somewhat pleased when the House appropriators approved their version of the Commerce, Justice, Science bill and managed to hold NSF’s funding flat for FY12. In a bill where essentially every other account got cut, this was seen as a win. We were also disappointed when the Senate released its version of the CJS bill, which included a cut of 2.4 percent to the agency, a reduction of $162 million vs. FY11. Those figured to be the MAX and MIN case for NSF in the negotiations.
But, in a bit of a surprise, NSF actually received an increase in the conference agreement of $172 million in FY 12, compared to FY11. Of that $172 million increase, $155 million is slated for the agency’s Research and Related Activities directorate “to enhance basic research critical innovation and U.S. economic competitiveness.”
Also faring well is NIST, which would receive an additional $33 million over FY11 “to support core NIST scientific research programs that help advance U.S. competitiveness, innovation, and economic growth.”
NASA would see a decrease of about $648 million, which is not quite as bad as first thought. NASA will also be able to continue work on the James Webb Space Telescope, but funding for cost overruns in the program will have to come out of other existing programs at the agency, which may make a lot of non-telescope people unhappy.
So, this is a very good thing, especially when considering the alternatives we thought were on the table. It’s clear the basic research -> competitiveness argument still has legs in Congress, and that’s very important in this overall atmosphere of belt-tightening. There’s still a recognition among both parties that federal support for basic research is an investment with real payoff for the country’s future.
Both chambers still have to approve the conference report, but it’s unlikely much will change in it as that would restart the negotiation process in both the House and Senate. The bill also contains a needed extension of the stop-gap continuing resolution currently required to keep government operating, but set to expire on November 18th. Without the extension, much of government would be forced to shut down midnight Friday. The minibus includes an extension of the CR through December 16th. By then, congressional leaders will have to figure out the remaining nine funding bills and square those with spending caps put in place by the debt limit agreement last August, or pass another CR. My money is on another CR.
We’ll have more detail as we actually get in and take a look at the 400 page report. Until then, the House Appropriations Committee has posted a summary.
Yesterday the Senate managed passage of its first so-called “minibus” appropriation bill — a combination of FY12 Agriculture Appropriation; Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation; and Transportation-HUD Appropriations bills — and retained the cuts to the FY12 budget of the National Science Foundation budget we covered back when the bill was first approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Those cuts would amount to a 2.4 percent reduction to NSF’s budget, a cut of nearly $162 million compared to the agency’s FY11 level. In addition, the Senate minibus includes cuts to both NASA (2.8 percent reduction, or $509 million less than FY11) and NIST (9.3 percent or $70.1 million less than FY11).
Though the House hasn’t passed its versions of all three appropriations bills, it will nevertheless go forward with a conference with the Senate on the minibus (technically, the minibus is based on the FY12 Agriculture Appropriation, which the House did manage to pass back in June — the other two bills have been added to the Agriculture bill). House conferees will use CJS and Transportation-HUD bills approved by the House Appropriations committee, but not approved by the full House, as the basis for their negotiations with the Senate. House appropriators approved essentially level funding for NSF in their version of the bill, along with a smaller reduction for NIST (6.6 percent, or $49.3 million less than FY11) and a much larger reduction for NASA (8.9 percent or $1.6 billion less than FY11), so there may be some challenging negotiations. One significant difference between the two versions that may impact funding available for other programs is that the Senate approved more than half a billion dollars for NASA’s James Webb Telescope, while the House zeroed the program. Should the conferees agree to move forward with the telescope, that will likely mean less funding available for other science programs within the minibus.
The House and Senate leadership are under some pressure to get the conference done quickly. Since October 1st, the start of the 2012 Fiscal Year, the government has been operating under a “continuing resolution” — a stop-gap spending measure designed to keep agencies funded at current levels until Congress can approve their FY12 appropriations. That continuing resolution is set to expire November 18th. It appears that the plan is to conference the current minibus expeditiously and attach a new continuing resolution that would keep government running through mid-December. For his part, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has named a slate of fairly moderate, but very experienced appropriators as conferees from the House majority, which suggests he isn’t necessarily interested in scoring ideological points with this bill as much as he is in just getting it done.
Senate leaders are hoping to move a second minibus by the end of the month. That bill would include the Energy-Water appropriation — which includes funding for the Office of Science at the Department of Energy — in addition to the Financial Services, and possibly the State-Foreign Operations or Homeland Security appropriations bills. However, complicating the calculus somewhat are the actions of the so-called Supercommittee charged with producing recommendations for dealing with the mounting debt crisis (the compromise solution to the debt limit crisis that garnered many headlines back in August and resulted in a downgrade of the country’s debt rating). The committee has until November 23rd to produce legislation to reduce the federal deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Failing to enact such legislation would trigger a series of automatic cuts that would guarantee $1.2 trillion in budgetary savings. With the outcome of the debt panel’s recommendations still unknown and, perhaps, in doubt, there’s a fair bit of gamesmanship and political calculation going on in both the majority and minority leadership offices — gamesmanship that could impact final passage of one or both minibuses. Congressional Democrats could opt to let the committee fail to produce recommendations because they view the cuts that would occur automatically to be more preferable than the ones they’re likely to receive at the negotiating table in the supercommittee. At the moment, the committee has stopped meeting, citing lack of progress, so it’s quite possible that there will be no agreed-upon recommendations come November 23rd.
Whatever the outcome, we’ll have all the details here!
Today the Computing Community Consortium is issuing a call for nominations for individuals to serve on the CCC Council for three years beginning January 2012. The deadline for nominations is 11:59pm EST on Nov. 15, 2011. The complete call appears below.
The Computing Community Consortium Seeks Nominations for Council Members
What questions shape our intellectual future? What attracts the best and brightest minds of a new generation? What are the next big computing ideas — the ones that will define the future of computing, galvanize the very best students, and catalyze research investment and public support?
The Computing Community Consortium (CCC) is charged with catalyzing and empowering the U.S. computing research community to answer these questions by identifying major research opportunities for the field and by creating venues for community participation in the process. The CCC supports these efforts through visioning activities such as workshops, through arranging plenary talks or key topics at major venues, through discussions with Federal agencies, and through other community-building activities.
As one recent example, a CCC-funded robotics visioning activity resulted in a definitive report titled “A Roadmap for U.S. Robotics: From Internet to Robotics,” developed by more than 100 robotics experts from academia and industry. That report eventually served as the basis for a new, multi-agency, $70 million investment in robotics called the National Robotics Initiative (NRI) announced by the Federal government in June 2011.
For complete details about the CCC, including a look at all of our current and ongoing activities, see https://cra.org/ccc and http://cccblog.org/.
The CCC is funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) under a cooperative agreement with the Computing Research Association (CRA). The work of the CCC is carried out by an active and engaged Council, currently chaired by Ed Lazowska (University of Washington) with Susan Graham (University of California-Berkeley) as vice-chair, reporting to CRA’s Board of Directors. The members of the Council are appointed by CRA in consultation with NSF, with staggered three-year terms. In the aggregate, the Council must reflect the full breadth of the computing research community — research area, institutional character, geographic diversity, etc. The CCC is staffed by a full-time director, Erwin Gianchandani.
The CCC’s Nominating Subcommittee invites nominations (including self-nominations) for members to serve on the CCC Council for the next three years. Please send nominations, together with the information below, to ccc-nominations@cra.org by 11:59pm EDT on Tuesday, November 15, 2011. The subcommittee’s recommendations will serve as input to CRA and NSF, who will make the final selection.
1. Name, affiliation, and email address of the nominee.
2. Research interests.
3. Previous significant service to the research community and other relevant experience, with years it occurred (no more than *five* items).
4. A brief biography or curriculum vitae of the nominee.
5. A statement from the nominee of less than one page, supporting his or her nomination by describing his or her ideas for, and commitment to, advancing the work of the CCC in engaging broader communities, finding wider funding sources, and encouraging new research directions. Recall that the CCC needs truly visionary leaders — people with lots of great ideas, sound judgment, and the willingness to work hard to see things to completion.
Computing’s own Richard Tapia, University Professor and Maxfield-Oshman Professor in Engineering at Rice University, will receive the National Medal of Science from President Barack Obama at a White House ceremony this fall. The National Medal of Science is the highest government honor the United States bestows on scientists and engineers. Six other scientists will also receive the award this year. They are Jacqueline K. Barton, Ralph L. Brinster, Shu Chien, Rudolf Jaenisch, Peter J. Stang, and Srinivasa S.R. Varadhan. More about the Medal and the other recipients can be found here.
Among Dr. Tapia’s previous numerous honors and awards are the inaugural A. Nico Habermann award from CRA in 1994, the Mentor Award for Lifetime Achievement from AAAS in 1997, the Reginald H. Jones Distinguished Service Award by NACME in 2001, and the SIAM Prize for Distinguished Service to the Profession in 2004. His work with increasing diversity in computing is celebrated every other year with the Richard Tapia Celebration of Diversity in Computing conference. More on his work and life can be found on his website.
The bill is designed to ensure quality courses and teaching in computer science and computational thinking at the K-12 level. This includes assessing current computer science courses, creating teacher preparation programs, reviewing teacher certification, and implementing computer science standards, as well as addressing other issues at the state and district level.
The CSEA is supported by Computing in the Core, a coalition started to increase the presence of computing in K-12 education and of which CRA is a member. More information on the legislation can be found here.
It was a busy day on Capitol Hill yesterday for members of the computing research community as they worked to make the case to Congress of the importance of the federal investment in research from a couple of different angles. From one direction, a panel of current and former CRA board members joined the head of the National Coordinating Office for IT R&D (George Strawn) at a hearing of the Research and Science Education subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee to comment on the adequacy of the federal effort in IT research. CRA’s Computing Community Consortium Chair (and University of Washington CS professor) Edward Lazowska, current CCC council member and former Oracle Labs head Bob Sproull, and former CRA board member and current head of ACM’s Education Policy Committee Bobby Schnabel all carried the message to the subcommittee that the federal investment is critical to the overall IT ecosystem, and that the payoff from that investment has been extraordinary.
From another direction, computing research community members Luis von Ahn (from Carnegie Mellon) and Ben Bederson (from UMD) joined Physics Nobelist William Phillips and Texas Instruments Vice President of R&D Martin Izzard at a series of briefings for Members of Congress and their staffs intended to make the case for the federal investment in early-stage scientific research by telling the story of the federal role in some of the key technologies of the iPad. Called “Deconstructing the iPad: How Federally-Supported Research Leads to Game-Changing Innovation” the well-attended briefings sought to take an object familiar to most Members and staffers and show that it didn’t spring wholly from the minds of engineers at Apple, but that the key technologies that enable it all bear the clear stamp of federal support.
Both events were received very well and probably helped the case for computing generate a little more traction in Congress. We’ll break down the iPad event in the next post (though Pat Thibodeau has a bit of coverage of the event in Computerworld today). In this one, we’ll summarize yesterday’s hearing.
Lazowska, Sproull and Schnabel were all invited to testify to help the committee members, who have jurisdiction over the federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program — the ~$3.6 billion, 15 agency effort that comprises the federal investment in IT research — understand whether the program is delivering on its goals, or whether there are areas in which the federal government’s effort might better be directed. These sort of informational hearings — as opposed to a hearing focused on advancing a specific piece of legislation or a particular aspect of a program — are especially useful this Congress, as the membership of the Science, Space and Technology Committee is comprised in large part by freshmen members who are largely unfamiliar with the programs they oversee. Even the Chair of the Subcommittee, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), is serving in his first term — so the need for “educating” the members about the nature of the federal investment and its importance to the overall ecosystem is pretty crucial.
Lazowska began by noting the incredible pervasiveness of computing in our lives and it’s role in driving our economy, competitiveness, and in creating new industries and literally millions of new jobs. “Federal support is a key part of the vibrant ecosystem that drives IT innovation,” he said. “While the vast majority of industry R&D is focused on the engineering of the next release of products, it’s the role of Federally funded research to take the long view, creating the ideas that can later be turned into game-changers like the Internet, the Web browser and GPS.”
As the “industry” witness on the panel, Sproull amplified this point by noting that research funded by industry alone will not sustain the IT economy. “The explosive growth and dramatic advances in [the IT] sector over the last 50 years have depended on long-term research, mostly performed in academia and funded by the U.S. government. Industry works closely with academic researchers to harness their finding and expertise.”
Sproull also took a couple of minutes to detail for the subcommittee members the National Research Council’s “Tire Tracks” chart, which tries to illustrate some of the complex interactions between federally supported researchers and efforts in the private sector, making the point that federally supported research (usually in universities) doesn’t supplant industry research, there’s often a long lead time between the initial investments in fundamental research and the payoff in terms of a commercial product (though those products often turn into billion-dollar sectors of the economy), and that research often pays off in unexpected ways (another reason investments there aren’t attractive to industry).
Schnabel focused most of his comments on the computing workforce and education issues, in particular the need for the NITRD program to focus more attention on computer science education issues, especially K-12.
The panelists generally received a favorable reception from the Members in attendance. Chairman Brooks wanted the community to be mindful of the dire budget situation facing the country when they come to Congress asking for more money for Science. He made reference to a briefing he’d attended as a member of the Armed Services Committee in which he learned the devastating impact of some of the cuts proposed for the Defense Department — 1000s of defense contractors out of work, cuts to the naval fleet, etc. So, how ought we prioritize our spending?, he asked. Lazowska, in a moment of relative drama for the hearing, hopped on his iPhone and determined that the projected cost overrun of just one of the Navy’s submarines was equal to four years worth of spending in total at DARPA and NSF for computer science. And yet the payoff from that “rounding error” in the overall budget was extraordinary in its impact.
Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) was very supportive of the overall case, but raised concerns about the workforce issues in computing. Specifically, he raised concerns about whether we were training students now for jobs that might not exist in the future — either because the technology moves so fast or because companies were moving those jobs offshore. The panelists didn’t get much time to answer the questions (a vote was pending on the House floor), but brought up the generally optimistic projections for job growth in the sector — Lazowska testified that “the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that 60% of all new jobs in all fields of science and engineering in the current decade will be jobs for computer specialists – more than all of the physical sciences, all of the life sciences, all of the social sciences, and all other fields of engineering combined” — and Schnabel shared that demand for graduates, including those at his own institution, was exceptionally strong.
The committee seems interested in moving another version of a reauthorization bill for the NITRD program, especially now that PCAST has reviewed the program and come up with a series of recommendations. However, its unlikely anything will come of it this year. Lipinski suggested that he’d still like to push for something before the end of this Congress next year. As that process moves forward, we’ll have all the details.
Chick-fil-A and the iPad – what more could you want at lunch? Well, that’s exactly what the Task Force on American Innovation, along with Rep. Hultgren (R-IL), Rep. McCaul (R-TX), and Rep. Quayle (R-AZ), are offering at tomorrow’s briefing, “Deconstructing the iPad: How Federally Supported Research Leads to Game-Changing Innovation” in 2325 Rayburn at noon. Speakers include Luis von Ahn from Carnegie Mellon University, Martin Izzard from Texas Instruments, Nobel Laureate William Phillips from NIST, and Benjamin Bederson from University of Maryland. All the details are available here (PDF) along with the RSVP contact. This will be a widely attended event.
The Senate Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Committee has only just finished marking up their version of the CJS Appropriations bill, but the early word is that they’ve cut funding for the National Science Funding by a little over 2 percent for FY12 compared to FY11. Here’s their (brief) summary:
• The National Science Foundation (NSF) is funded at $6.7 billion, a reduction of $162 million or 2.4 percent below the FY2011 enacted level.
The House CJS Committee marked up its bill back in July, flat-funding the agency overall, but providing a slight boost to NSF’s Research and Related Activities account ($43 million). It’s not clear yet how the Senate plans to divvy up their cut, or whether they were able to protect the R&RA account in the same way. We’ll let you know right here when those details emerge.
Here at CRA World HQ, we’re looking for a Program Manager. Below is the official notice. If you or someone you know might be interested, please apply! Send applications and inquiries to employment@cra.org. The position will remain open until a suitable applicant is found!
Program Manager
This posting will expire on December 31, 2011.
Organization/Institution: Computing Research Association (CRA) Posted: August 25, 2011
CRA’s mission is to strengthen research and advance education in the computing fields, expand opportunities for women and minorities, and improve public and policymaker understanding of the importance of computing and computing research in our society.
The role of the Program Manager is to support the CRA in the development and execution of programs that benefit the computing community by increasing participation and diversity in computing research. Specific tasks include the following (not exhaustive):
Work with CRA volunteers to plan, design and implement new and existing programs.
Oversee, track and provide updates of all related activities (including assessment and evaluation of programs)
Plan and coordinate all aspects of telephone and in-person professional meetings, workshops and special events
Participate in committee and program meetings, on the phone and in person, traveling as required
Assist committee members in securing funding for various programs
Write proposals and reports, including the development and implementation of budgets
Manage all federal and foundation funding for committees
Facilitate communication between and among external and internal constituencies
Work closely with volunteers and the webmasters to develop promotional materials, newsletters and web content
Increase visibility of the organization through participation at conferences, development of promotional materials and collaborations with other groups
The selected candidate will work closely with the chairs of the CRA committees, particularly CRA-W, that he or she will support. This position requires the ability to work independently and with significant autonomy. Initiative, organization, maturity, accounting experience and judgment are vital to this position. The staff member must operate under pressure in a busy office and maintain comprehensive control of a multitude of projects simultaneously while pushing all projects to timely completion and providing continual updates on the status of each project to the appropriate stakeholders. Reliability and good communication skills are key requirements. A strong interest in computing research and its impacts is desired. Availability to travel offsite to various meetings is necessary.
This is not a research position. It is a position working with and supporting the computing research community.
Application Instructions
Desired background:
Experience working with a research community
Financial management and accounting experience in a non-profit environment; particularly experience with the National Science Foundation’s processes and procedures
Demonstrated organizational and communication skills
The Computing Research Association is an association of more than 200 North American academic departments of computer science, computer engineering, and related fields; laboratories and centers in industry, government, and academia engaging in basic computing research; and affiliated professional societies with a focus on enhancing the computing research environment. CRA offers an excellent benefits package and competitive salaries. For more information, see www.cra.org.
Here are words of unmistakable support for federal investments in basic research, even in tight budget times. Can you guess the President who uttered them?
Science has grown, and with it, the fascination it holds for all of us. But as the pursuit of science has become ever more nationally and even multinationally funded, it has also become more expensive. The problem here is that science, unlike a bridge or an interstate highway or a courthouse, has no local constituency. Today, when we’re witnessing some of the most exciting discoveries in the history of science, things similar to the breakthroughs associated with Einstein, Galileo, and Newton, Federal funding for science is in jeopardy because of budget constraints.
That’s why it’s my duty as President to draw its importance to your attention and that of Congress. America has long been the world’s scientific leader. Over the years, we’ve secured far more patents than any other country in the world. And since World War II, we have won more Nobel prizes for science than the Europeans and Japanese combined. We also support more of what is called basic research; that is, research meant to teach us rather than to invent or develop new products. And for the past 40 years, the Government has been our leading sponsor of basic research.
The remarkable thing is that although basic research does not begin with a particular practical goal, when you look at the results over the years, it ends up being one of the most practical things government does. … I think that over the past 50 years the Government has helped build a number of particle accelerators so scientists could study high energy physics. Major industries, including television, communications, and computer industries, couldn’t be where they are today without developments that began with this basic research.
We cannot know where scientific research will lead. The consequences and spin-offs are unknown and unknowable until they happen. In research, as Albert Einstein once said, imagination is more important than knowledge. We can travel wherever the eye of our imagination can see. But one thing is certain: If we don’t explore, others will, and we’ll fall behind. This is why I’ve urged Congress to devote more money to research. … It is an indispensable investment in America’s future.
…
Some say that we can’t afford it, that we’re too strapped for cash. Well, leadership means making hard choices, even in an election year. We’ve put our research budget under a microscope and looked for quality and cost effectiveness. We’ve put together the best program for the taxpayers’ dollars. After all, the American tradition of hope is one we can’t afford to forget.
Somewhat Surprisingly, NSF Fares Well in FY12 Final Approps Agreement
/In: Funding, FY12 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaUpdate (11/17/11): The minibus was approved in both the House and Senate and will head to the President for his signature!
Original Post: Congressional appropriators tonight filed the final conference report for the so-called “minibus” FY12 appropriations bill, representing the final agreed-upon spending numbers for FY12 for the Agriculture; Commerce, Justice, Science; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development bills — and NSF fared much better than expected in the final negotiation. You’ll recall we were somewhat pleased when the House appropriators approved their version of the Commerce, Justice, Science bill and managed to hold NSF’s funding flat for FY12. In a bill where essentially every other account got cut, this was seen as a win. We were also disappointed when the Senate released its version of the CJS bill, which included a cut of 2.4 percent to the agency, a reduction of $162 million vs. FY11. Those figured to be the MAX and MIN case for NSF in the negotiations.
But, in a bit of a surprise, NSF actually received an increase in the conference agreement of $172 million in FY 12, compared to FY11. Of that $172 million increase, $155 million is slated for the agency’s Research and Related Activities directorate “to enhance basic research critical innovation and U.S. economic competitiveness.”
Also faring well is NIST, which would receive an additional $33 million over FY11 “to support core NIST scientific research programs that help advance U.S. competitiveness, innovation, and economic growth.”
NASA would see a decrease of about $648 million, which is not quite as bad as first thought. NASA will also be able to continue work on the James Webb Space Telescope, but funding for cost overruns in the program will have to come out of other existing programs at the agency, which may make a lot of non-telescope people unhappy.
So, this is a very good thing, especially when considering the alternatives we thought were on the table. It’s clear the basic research -> competitiveness argument still has legs in Congress, and that’s very important in this overall atmosphere of belt-tightening. There’s still a recognition among both parties that federal support for basic research is an investment with real payoff for the country’s future.
Both chambers still have to approve the conference report, but it’s unlikely much will change in it as that would restart the negotiation process in both the House and Senate. The bill also contains a needed extension of the stop-gap continuing resolution currently required to keep government operating, but set to expire on November 18th. Without the extension, much of government would be forced to shut down midnight Friday. The minibus includes an extension of the CR through December 16th. By then, congressional leaders will have to figure out the remaining nine funding bills and square those with spending caps put in place by the debt limit agreement last August, or pass another CR. My money is on another CR.
We’ll have more detail as we actually get in and take a look at the 400 page report. Until then, the House Appropriations Committee has posted a summary.
Senate Minibus Cuts NSF, NASA and NIST
/In: Funding, FY12 Appropriations, Policy /by Peter HarshaYesterday the Senate managed passage of its first so-called “minibus” appropriation bill — a combination of FY12 Agriculture Appropriation; Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriation; and Transportation-HUD Appropriations bills — and retained the cuts to the FY12 budget of the National Science Foundation budget we covered back when the bill was first approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Those cuts would amount to a 2.4 percent reduction to NSF’s budget, a cut of nearly $162 million compared to the agency’s FY11 level. In addition, the Senate minibus includes cuts to both NASA (2.8 percent reduction, or $509 million less than FY11) and NIST (9.3 percent or $70.1 million less than FY11).
Though the House hasn’t passed its versions of all three appropriations bills, it will nevertheless go forward with a conference with the Senate on the minibus (technically, the minibus is based on the FY12 Agriculture Appropriation, which the House did manage to pass back in June — the other two bills have been added to the Agriculture bill). House conferees will use CJS and Transportation-HUD bills approved by the House Appropriations committee, but not approved by the full House, as the basis for their negotiations with the Senate. House appropriators approved essentially level funding for NSF in their version of the bill, along with a smaller reduction for NIST (6.6 percent, or $49.3 million less than FY11) and a much larger reduction for NASA (8.9 percent or $1.6 billion less than FY11), so there may be some challenging negotiations. One significant difference between the two versions that may impact funding available for other programs is that the Senate approved more than half a billion dollars for NASA’s James Webb Telescope, while the House zeroed the program. Should the conferees agree to move forward with the telescope, that will likely mean less funding available for other science programs within the minibus.
The House and Senate leadership are under some pressure to get the conference done quickly. Since October 1st, the start of the 2012 Fiscal Year, the government has been operating under a “continuing resolution” — a stop-gap spending measure designed to keep agencies funded at current levels until Congress can approve their FY12 appropriations. That continuing resolution is set to expire November 18th. It appears that the plan is to conference the current minibus expeditiously and attach a new continuing resolution that would keep government running through mid-December. For his part, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has named a slate of fairly moderate, but very experienced appropriators as conferees from the House majority, which suggests he isn’t necessarily interested in scoring ideological points with this bill as much as he is in just getting it done.
Senate leaders are hoping to move a second minibus by the end of the month. That bill would include the Energy-Water appropriation — which includes funding for the Office of Science at the Department of Energy — in addition to the Financial Services, and possibly the State-Foreign Operations or Homeland Security appropriations bills. However, complicating the calculus somewhat are the actions of the so-called Supercommittee charged with producing recommendations for dealing with the mounting debt crisis (the compromise solution to the debt limit crisis that garnered many headlines back in August and resulted in a downgrade of the country’s debt rating). The committee has until November 23rd to produce legislation to reduce the federal deficit by at least $1.2 trillion over the next decade. Failing to enact such legislation would trigger a series of automatic cuts that would guarantee $1.2 trillion in budgetary savings. With the outcome of the debt panel’s recommendations still unknown and, perhaps, in doubt, there’s a fair bit of gamesmanship and political calculation going on in both the majority and minority leadership offices — gamesmanship that could impact final passage of one or both minibuses. Congressional Democrats could opt to let the committee fail to produce recommendations because they view the cuts that would occur automatically to be more preferable than the ones they’re likely to receive at the negotiating table in the supercommittee. At the moment, the committee has stopped meeting, citing lack of progress, so it’s quite possible that there will be no agreed-upon recommendations come November 23rd.
Whatever the outcome, we’ll have all the details here!
CCC Wants You!
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC) /by MelissaNorrFrom our colleague Erwin Gianchandani, at the blog of CRA’s Computing Community Consortium:
Richard Tapia Awarded Natl. Medal of Science
/In: Diversity in Computing, People /by MelissaNorrComputing’s own Richard Tapia, University Professor and Maxfield-Oshman Professor in Engineering at Rice University, will receive the National Medal of Science from President Barack Obama at a White House ceremony this fall. The National Medal of Science is the highest government honor the United States bestows on scientists and engineers. Six other scientists will also receive the award this year. They are Jacqueline K. Barton, Ralph L. Brinster, Shu Chien, Rudolf Jaenisch, Peter J. Stang, and Srinivasa S.R. Varadhan. More about the Medal and the other recipients can be found here.
Among Dr. Tapia’s previous numerous honors and awards are the inaugural A. Nico Habermann award from CRA in 1994, the Mentor Award for Lifetime Achievement from AAAS in 1997, the Reginald H. Jones Distinguished Service Award by NACME in 2001, and the SIAM Prize for Distinguished Service to the Profession in 2004. His work with increasing diversity in computing is celebrated every other year with the Richard Tapia Celebration of Diversity in Computing conference. More on his work and life can be found on his website.
Computer Science Education Act Introduced
/In: Computing Education, Diversity in Computing, Policy /by MelissaNorrFollowing the theme of computing taking over the Hill this week, Senator Robert Casey (D-PA) and Representative Jared Polis (D-CO) introduced the Computer Science Education Act (CSEA) yesterday. In the House, the bill is co-sponsored by Representative Bob Filner (D-CA), Representative James Langevin (D-RI), and Representative Silvestre Reyes (D-TX).
The bill is designed to ensure quality courses and teaching in computer science and computational thinking at the K-12 level. This includes assessing current computer science courses, creating teacher preparation programs, reviewing teacher certification, and implementing computer science standards, as well as addressing other issues at the state and district level.
The CSEA is supported by Computing in the Core, a coalition started to increase the presence of computing in K-12 education and of which CRA is a member. More information on the legislation can be found here.
Computing Community Takes Case to Hill
/In: Computing Community Consortium (CCC), CRA, Events, Policy /by Peter HarshaIt was a busy day on Capitol Hill yesterday for members of the computing research community as they worked to make the case to Congress of the importance of the federal investment in research from a couple of different angles. From one direction, a panel of current and former CRA board members joined the head of the National Coordinating Office for IT R&D (George Strawn) at a hearing of the Research and Science Education subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee to comment on the adequacy of the federal effort in IT research. CRA’s Computing Community Consortium Chair (and University of Washington CS professor) Edward Lazowska, current CCC council member and former Oracle Labs head Bob Sproull, and former CRA board member and current head of ACM’s Education Policy Committee Bobby Schnabel all carried the message to the subcommittee that the federal investment is critical to the overall IT ecosystem, and that the payoff from that investment has been extraordinary.
From another direction, computing research community members Luis von Ahn (from Carnegie Mellon) and Ben Bederson (from UMD) joined Physics Nobelist William Phillips and Texas Instruments Vice President of R&D Martin Izzard at a series of briefings for Members of Congress and their staffs intended to make the case for the federal investment in early-stage scientific research by telling the story of the federal role in some of the key technologies of the iPad. Called “Deconstructing the iPad: How Federally-Supported Research Leads to Game-Changing Innovation” the well-attended briefings sought to take an object familiar to most Members and staffers and show that it didn’t spring wholly from the minds of engineers at Apple, but that the key technologies that enable it all bear the clear stamp of federal support.
Both events were received very well and probably helped the case for computing generate a little more traction in Congress. We’ll break down the iPad event in the next post (though Pat Thibodeau has a bit of coverage of the event in Computerworld today). In this one, we’ll summarize yesterday’s hearing.
Lazowska, Sproull and Schnabel were all invited to testify to help the committee members, who have jurisdiction over the federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) program — the ~$3.6 billion, 15 agency effort that comprises the federal investment in IT research — understand whether the program is delivering on its goals, or whether there are areas in which the federal government’s effort might better be directed. These sort of informational hearings — as opposed to a hearing focused on advancing a specific piece of legislation or a particular aspect of a program — are especially useful this Congress, as the membership of the Science, Space and Technology Committee is comprised in large part by freshmen members who are largely unfamiliar with the programs they oversee. Even the Chair of the Subcommittee, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL), is serving in his first term — so the need for “educating” the members about the nature of the federal investment and its importance to the overall ecosystem is pretty crucial.
Lazowska began by noting the incredible pervasiveness of computing in our lives and it’s role in driving our economy, competitiveness, and in creating new industries and literally millions of new jobs. “Federal support is a key part of the vibrant ecosystem that drives IT innovation,” he said. “While the vast majority of industry R&D is focused on the engineering of the next release of products, it’s the role of Federally funded research to take the long view, creating the ideas that can later be turned into game-changers like the Internet, the Web browser and GPS.”
As the “industry” witness on the panel, Sproull amplified this point by noting that research funded by industry alone will not sustain the IT economy. “The explosive growth and dramatic advances in [the IT] sector over the last 50 years have depended on long-term research, mostly performed in academia and funded by the U.S. government. Industry works closely with academic researchers to harness their finding and expertise.”
Sproull also took a couple of minutes to detail for the subcommittee members the National Research Council’s “Tire Tracks” chart, which tries to illustrate some of the complex interactions between federally supported researchers and efforts in the private sector, making the point that federally supported research (usually in universities) doesn’t supplant industry research, there’s often a long lead time between the initial investments in fundamental research and the payoff in terms of a commercial product (though those products often turn into billion-dollar sectors of the economy), and that research often pays off in unexpected ways (another reason investments there aren’t attractive to industry).
Schnabel focused most of his comments on the computing workforce and education issues, in particular the need for the NITRD program to focus more attention on computer science education issues, especially K-12.
The panelists generally received a favorable reception from the Members in attendance. Chairman Brooks wanted the community to be mindful of the dire budget situation facing the country when they come to Congress asking for more money for Science. He made reference to a briefing he’d attended as a member of the Armed Services Committee in which he learned the devastating impact of some of the cuts proposed for the Defense Department — 1000s of defense contractors out of work, cuts to the naval fleet, etc. So, how ought we prioritize our spending?, he asked. Lazowska, in a moment of relative drama for the hearing, hopped on his iPhone and determined that the projected cost overrun of just one of the Navy’s submarines was equal to four years worth of spending in total at DARPA and NSF for computer science. And yet the payoff from that “rounding error” in the overall budget was extraordinary in its impact.
Rep. Daniel Lipinski (D-IL) was very supportive of the overall case, but raised concerns about the workforce issues in computing. Specifically, he raised concerns about whether we were training students now for jobs that might not exist in the future — either because the technology moves so fast or because companies were moving those jobs offshore. The panelists didn’t get much time to answer the questions (a vote was pending on the House floor), but brought up the generally optimistic projections for job growth in the sector — Lazowska testified that “the Bureau of Labor Statistics projects that 60% of all new jobs in all fields of science and engineering in the current decade will be jobs for computer specialists – more than all of the physical sciences, all of the life sciences, all of the social sciences, and all other fields of engineering combined” — and Schnabel shared that demand for graduates, including those at his own institution, was exceptionally strong.
The committee seems interested in moving another version of a reauthorization bill for the NITRD program, especially now that PCAST has reviewed the program and come up with a series of recommendations. However, its unlikely anything will come of it this year. Lipinski suggested that he’d still like to push for something before the end of this Congress next year. As that process moves forward, we’ll have all the details.
Deconstructing the iPad
/In: Events, People, Policy, Research /by MelissaNorrChick-fil-A and the iPad – what more could you want at lunch? Well, that’s exactly what the Task Force on American Innovation, along with Rep. Hultgren (R-IL), Rep. McCaul (R-TX), and Rep. Quayle (R-AZ), are offering at tomorrow’s briefing, “Deconstructing the iPad: How Federally Supported Research Leads to Game-Changing Innovation” in 2325 Rayburn at noon. Speakers include Luis von Ahn from Carnegie Mellon University, Martin Izzard from Texas Instruments, Nobel Laureate William Phillips from NIST, and Benjamin Bederson from University of Maryland. All the details are available here (PDF) along with the RSVP contact. This will be a widely attended event.
NSF Cut in Senate FY12 Approps Bill
/In: Funding, FY12 Appropriations, Research /by Peter HarshaThe Senate Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Committee has only just finished marking up their version of the CJS Appropriations bill, but the early word is that they’ve cut funding for the National Science Funding by a little over 2 percent for FY12 compared to FY11. Here’s their (brief) summary:
The House CJS Committee marked up its bill back in July, flat-funding the agency overall, but providing a slight boost to NSF’s Research and Related Activities account ($43 million). It’s not clear yet how the Senate plans to divvy up their cut, or whether they were able to protect the R&RA account in the same way. We’ll let you know right here when those details emerge.
We Want You! – CRA is Hiring!
/In: CRA, People /by Peter HarshaHere at CRA World HQ, we’re looking for a Program Manager. Below is the official notice. If you or someone you know might be interested, please apply! Send applications and inquiries to employment@cra.org. The position will remain open until a suitable applicant is found!
Guess the President! A Defense of Basic Research
/In: Funding, FY12 Appropriations /by Peter HarshaHere are words of unmistakable support for federal investments in basic research, even in tight budget times. Can you guess the President who uttered them?
Give up?
(via Barry Toiv at AAU)