On the heels of the Chips and Science Act passage into law in July, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a report outlining actions President Biden and the Department of Commerce (DOC) should take to, “maximally leveraging the historic $11 billion commitment appropriated for semiconductor R&D,” in the legislation. PCAST’s recommendation can fit into four broad categories: building a broad coalition, focusing on education and the future workforce, fostering innovation, and setting a national research agenda.
The Chips and Science Act provides funding for the Commerce Department to invest $11 billion over 5 years in semiconductor R&D (there is an additional $39 billion the law appropriates for financial assistance for domestic semiconductor manufacturing). Within that, DOC is to establish a National Semiconductor Technology Center (NSTC) and a National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program (NAPMP). Both of these programs figure heavily in the report’s recommendations (particularly 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10).
Of most note to the research community are recommendations 3, 4, 8, and 9 of the report:
3. The Secretary of Commerce in coordination with the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) should support the establishment of a national microelectronics education and training network by the end of 2023 and allocate funding on the order of $1 billion over the next 5 years to upgrade educational laboratory facilities, support curriculum development, and facilitate hiring of faculty into this field.
4. The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that NSTC-funded research…supports on the order of 2,500 scholarships and research assistantships per year across the educational spectrum.
8. The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the NSTC founding charter allocates a significant portion of the annual funding, on the order of 30 to 50 percent, to directly fund a national research agenda. This research agenda should be broad in nature and address the following areas: materials, process, and manufacturing technologies; packaging and interconnect technologies; energy-efficient computing and domain-specific accelerators; design automation tools and methods; semiconductor and system security; and semiconductors and life sciences.
9. The NSTC should identify a set of nationwide grand challenges that are enabled through collaboration across the NSTC industrial membership and NSTC-funded research. These grand challenges should span three complementary areas that would benefit from large-scale nationwide collaboration: advanced computing into the zettascale era; significantly reducing design complexity; and proliferating semiconductors in life sciences applications.
The report, in concert with other actions that the Biden Administration has taken, demonstrate that the Biden Administration is moving quickly to implement the Chips and Science Act. But that’s only the “chips” half of the Chips and Science Act; the research policy community here in Washington is working on getting the “science” part of the legislation fulfilled. We are telling Congress to follow through on the research policy provisions of the law and fully fund the research agencies, especially NSF. They can start with the Fiscal Year 2023 budget.
Despite major legislation passing into law this summer, Congress has been slow in finishing up the yearly Federal budget (ie: Fiscal Year 2023). The delay has been over a number of topics unrelated to science research, such as energy-permitting regulations and supplemental funding for things like Ukrainian military assistance. But with the fast-approaching November Midterm elections, Congress is not interested in shutting down the government just before facing voters at the polls. Hence the need for a continuing resolution (CR). Released Monday night, it would fund the government at Fiscal Year 2022 levels till December 16th. Congress has until Friday to pass it to avoid a shut down; while unlikely to happen, a government shut down can never be completely ruled out.
Once we see the results of the ballot box in November, we will have a better idea of how the budget will be finalized. If Republicans win back control of both chambers of Congress, they may to want to delay final consideration until next calendar year, when they have more control of the process. If Democrats retain control of the legislature, then they will likely want to finish the budget before the end of this calendar year. And if there is a split, it’s hard to tell exactly how matters will play out. Keep checking back for more updates.
Today the United States Senate confirmed Dr. Arati Prabhakar as the next Presidential Science Advisor and Director of the Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP). Nominated in June by President Biden, Dr. Prabhakar will be also serve as the President’s Chief Advisor for Science and Technology, a co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and a member of the President’s Cabinet.
CRA released a statement applauding the President’s nomination of Dr. Prabhakar back in June. We look forward to working with the new Science Advisor and her team to advance the nation’s computing and information technology research.
Last week the White House, acting through the Office of Science and Technology Policy, released guidance to federal research agencies to, “update their public access policies as soon as possible to make publications and research funded by taxpayers publicly accessible, without an embargo or cost.” Current policy allows journal publishers the option to embargo for 12 months (ie: put behind a paywall) any scientific paper they publish which is tax-payer funded. This new guidance from the White House will do away with that embargo period and require the articles to be publicly available immediately. All federal research agencies must update their policies for this to take effect by 2026.
This new guidance will likely have wide ranging impacts on the research and scientific publishing communities. If past events are any guide, there will also be an extensive variety of views from the research community on whether these actions are good or bad news. CRA is monitoring the situation and is reaching out to our membership and allies within the scientific community to gauge the impacts of these new guidelines.
The bill proposes an 8.3 percent increase for the Office of Science over FY22 enacted levels, bringing the agency’s budget to $8.10 billion for FY23 (an increase of $625 million). That is $100 million more than the House mark and $300 million more than the President requested. Within the Office of Science, the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, which houses the majority of the computing research at DOE, would see an increase of 3.8 percent – going from $1.04 billion in FY22 to $1.08 billion for FY23.
Much like last year, that 3.8 percent increase for ASCR is deceptive and contains good news. ASCR’s research subaccounts received increases and together would increase by an average of 10 percent. However, the Exascale Computing Program, which is winding down several large construction projects, received a large 40 percent cut from its FY22 levels. But this decrease is planned, as it is what the Administration requested. So, from a research perspective, this plan is better than the overall number would suggest. This mirrors what the House appropriators did in their FY23 mark.
In the committee’s report, the Senate appropriators voiced their support for the agency’s efforts in artificial intelligence and quantum information sciences. The appropriators also spoke highly of the Office of Science’s engagement plans with HBCUs and MSIs, particularly the agency’s RENEW and FAIR programs, in order to build research capacity and further workforce development.
Finally, the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy, or ARPA-E, would receive $570 million for FY23, a 27 percent increase (+$120 million) in comparison to FY22. While that is slightly above the House number, it is below the President’s requested level.
FY22
FY23 PBR
FY23 House
FY23 Senate
$ Change
% Change
DOE SC Total
$7.48B
$7.80B
$8.00B
$8.10B
+$625M
+8.3%
ASCR
$1.04B
$1.07B
$1.05B
$1.08B
+$40M
+3.8%
ARPA-E
$450M
$700M
$550M
$570M
+$120M
+27%
Unfortunately, as mentioned with the Senate’s CJS bill, these generous numbers are not likely to be passed into law. That’s because these budgets only represent Senate Democrats’ plans and have little input or support from Senate Republicans. Because of the chamber’s 50-50 split, any legislation requires at least some minority party support in order to be passed into law. We’ll have to let the budget process play out more before we have an idea of what final FY23 numbers will look like.
In the meantime, with the beginning of the new Fiscal Year fast approaching (October 1st), a Continuing Resolution (CR) is looking to be the next step in the process. A CR would continue the funding of the Federal agencies at last year’s levels, buying Democrats and Republicans time to work on negotiations. What happens with those negotiations will depend greatly on the outcome of the Midterm Elections in November. Please check back for more updates.
In our continuing series looking at the Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) budget, we turn to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Last week, the Democrats on the committee released their slate of appropriations bills, all at once. While this is significantly earlier than in past years, it’s also a political move: the bills only represent the Democratic priorities for the federal budget and have no input from Senate Republicans. We’ll get to the implications of that in a moment but what it means in the immediate is that the numbers for many of the research agencies that the computing cares are quite good, on the surface. In point of fact, the numbers in the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) bill, which contains the budgets for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), are among the most robust and generous.
NSF, in particular, is a big winner under the Senate plan. The Foundation’s topline budget would receive $10.34 billion, an increase of $1.5 billion (+17 percent) over the FY22 number ($8.84 billion). That is almost as generous as the President’s 19 percent requested increase from March, and almost double the House’s mark of +8.9 percent.
Getting into the details of the Senate’s plans, the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account, home to NSF’s research portfolio, would receive $8.30 billion for FY23. That would be an increase of $1.10 billion increase over FY22 enacted levels, or +15.3 percent. The Directorate for Education & Human Resources account (EHR), soon to be renamed the Directorate for STEM Education (EDU) (the name gets approval from Senate Appropriators in the committee’s explanatory statement), would receive a similarly generous increase of 28.7 percent, going from $1.01 billion in FY22 to $1.30 billion, with the Senate’s FY23 mark (+$290 million).
FY22
FY23 PBR
FY23 House
FY23 Senate
$ Change
% Change
NSF Total
$8.84B
$10.50B
$9.63B
$10.34B
+$1.50B
+17%
R&RA
$7.20B
$8.43B
$7.71B
$8.30B
+$1.10B
+15.3%
EHR/EDU
$1.01B
$1.38B
$1.25B
$1.30B
+$290M
+28.7%
Looking at policy items in the Committee’s report, there are several topics of interest. First, the Senate appropriators, much like their House counterparts, voiced their support for the newly created TIP Directorate and provided, “up to $200 million for the Regional Innovation Engines” program, saying the committee, “believes that NSF Engines will be transformative for communities across the country.” Additionally, the Committee supports the agency’s efforts in artificial intelligence and QIS, providing funding up to the President’s request in these areas. Finally, in a nod to the need for more regional diversity in research funding, the Senate appropriators provided EPSCoR, NSF’s program to build research capacity in states that do not receive the majority of the agency’s research funding, with $250 million, an increase of $35 million over FY22 enacted levels. The committee believes, “that good ideas and high-quality research are not bound to certain geographical areas but exist across the country.”
With regard to the other research agencies in this legislation, the National Institute of Standards & Technology’s (NIST) would receive a similarly healthy increase. The Senate’s plans for the agency would include a large increase, going from $1.23 billion in FY22 to $1.70 billion in FY23, a $470 million dollar increase (or +38 percent). Likewise, the Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, where the majority of the agency’s research is housed, would see a push-up of +15 percent, going from $850 million in FY22 to $975 million for FY23, an increase of $125 million. While the Senate’s topline mark is well above the President’s request, the number for STRS is exactly what the Administration requested for the account.
FY22
FY23 PBR
FY23 House
FY23 Senate
$ Change
% Change
NIST Total
$1.23B
$1.48B
$1.47B
$1.70B
+$470M
+38%
STRS
$850M
$975M
$953M
$975M
+$125M
+15%
Finally, looking at NASA’s budget, the space agency would receive $26.0 billion, an increase of $1.9 billion from FY22 (+8.3 percent). The agency’s Science account would receive $8.00 billion, an increase of $431 million from FY22 (+5.3 percent). These numbers are more generous than the Administration’s request or the House appropriators’ mark.
FY22
FY23 PBR
FY23 House
FY23 Senate
$ Change
% Change
NASA Total
$24.00B
$26.00B
$25.50B
$26.00B
+$1.90B
+8.3%
Science
$7.60B
$7.99B
$7.91B
$8.00B
+$431M
+5.3%
Now, back to the politics question: do these numbers have a chance of becoming law? Unfortunately, it’s not likely. It goes back to the 50-50 split of the Senate: for any piece of legislation to move in the chamber, it requires some Republican support. Seeing as these bills and their budget numbers were put together without Republican support, it makes it very difficult for these bills to be passed into law. In all likelihood, we will have a repeat of the Fiscal Year 2022 budget, namely long months of negotiations and then final budget numbers that are lower than any of the individual plans.
In the near term, we can definitely expect a Continuing Resolution to get us through the first few months of the approaching Fiscal Year (which begins on October 1st). After that, we must wait and see what happens in the Midterm Elections. The results of those elections will likely dictate when the final appropriation bills, or a single omnibus bill, or some combination, will get a final vote. We’ll be tracking events closely, so please keep checking back for updates.
We last left the NSF reauthorization legislation (also known as USICA, the COMPETES Act, China competition bill, bipartisan innovation bill, and a couple of other names) in the middle of June. At that time, things were not looking promising for the bill’s future. The conference negotiation process appeared to be bogged down and it didn’t seem that the legislation would move forward. Much has changed in the last month and a half, as the bill now heads to the President’s desk for signing into law.
What has happened is a scaling back of the bill’s scope. Rather than a huge legislative package of several thousand pages covering a wide range of topics, the bill is now a scaled back bill with only the most popular pieces. Foremost is the CHIPS Act, which contains $52 billion dollars in emergency appropriations for subsidies for semiconductor manufacturing and R&D. This has always been the most popular part of the legislation and has been the main driver of its progress. In fact, the latest name for this scaled down package is the “Chips and Science bill.”
When this “Chips and Science bill” was first introduced, it appeared that the research provisions, including all the language pertaining to NSF, would not make the cut. However, last week, Senator Young (R-IN) and Senator Sinema (D-AZ) introduced an amendment that inserted compromised language pertaining to NSF, the Department of Energy, NIST, and NASA.
The bill’s language provides healthy funding authorizations to NSF’s top line, stipulating that the agency’s budget should double in five years. Additionally, the Foundation’s Research and Related Activities (RRA) account, where the majority of the agency’s research funding is located, would grow at a similar rate. The Directorates for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) and Education & Human Resources (EHR) also received increased funding authorizations. Please see the charts at the end of this post for detailed budget authorization numbers.
There are several things to note in these numbers. First, RRA gets increases that are in addition to what TIP would receive. One of the concerns with the new directorate is that Congress could stipulate that any funding increases to the Foundation would only go to TIP, thus depriving the traditional research directorates of much needed funds and growth. This approach makes clear that TIP should grow with the Foundation, not independent of it. However, keep in mind that these are not appropriations but authorizations levels, which is to say that these are the levels Congress says the accounts should be funded at. Congressional appropriators, who decided on the actual funding level, aren’t required to follow these numbers when providing annual funding.
FY22 Final
FY27 Auth
$ Change
% Change
NSF Total
$8.84B
$18.92B
+$10.08B
+114%
R&RA
$7.20B
$14.70B
+$7.50B
+104%
Without TIP
$7.20B
$10.60B
+$3.40B
+47%
TIP Only
NA
$4.10B
—
—
EHR/EDU
$1.01B
$3.00B
+$2.99B
+197%
The language also codifies NSF’s new TIP Directorate, using the Biden Administration’s name for the directorate. Both the House and Senate had proposed their own names for the “tech directorate” in their legislative plans but the fact that the Administration’s approach is already started, and has the backing of Congressional appropriators, seemed enough to put it into law. In terms of policy, in what can only be called an interesting compromise, TIP’s research mission will be governed by both 5 broad societal, national, & geostrategic challenges and 10 key technology focus areas. That would include the major organizational principles of both the House and Senate bills. These challenges and technology focus areas will also be reviewed annually and changed if deemed necessary (see the initial lists below, though they are mostly unchanged from the earlier legislative proposals). Also, the new directorate’s program managers will not be required to operate like their counterparts at DARPA, something put forward originally in the Senate legislation. There are several other provisions with regard to TIP, such as codifying the Regional Innovation Engines and the Translation Accelerator programs, but little that can be described as prescriptive toward the Foundation.
There are also several provisions pertaining to NSF’s STEM education and broadening participation efforts. Much of that, which was originally in the House NSF for the Future Act, is codifying programs and efforts that the Foundation is already doing.
There are several other pieces of scientific legislation in Division B (the R&D section) of the package:
– Expansion of the amount of money NSF must use for its EPSCOR program (Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. This is NSF’s program to set aside money for states that do not receive the majority of the agency’s research funding. This expansion was in the Senate’s USICA legislation and eventually in the House’s COMPETES Act.
– STEM Opportunities Act – Calls for policy reforms, research, and data collection to identify and lower barriers facing women, minorities, and other groups underrepresented in STEM studies and research careers. This was part of the House’s COMPETES Act.
– Combating Sexual Harassment in Science – This is to combat sexual harassment in the country’s science enterprise. It does so through a research grant program at NSF to study the problem, data collection on the prevalence of harassment, and directs OSTP to issue policy guidelines for research agencies awarding extramural research grants, emphasizing the importance of information sharing among Federal science agencies, among other provisions. Part of the COMPETES Act.
– Supporting Early-career Researchers – Establishes a two-year, $250 million agency-wide early career fellowship pilot program at NSF, providing a bridge for recent Ph.D. graduates to stay in their research career. This is modeled after CRA’s CI Fellows program. It was also in the COMPETES Act.
– And an extensive section on Research Security which includes prohibitions on malign foreign talent recruitment programs and funding for higher education institutions that continue to host Confucius Institutes (there is a carve out for institutions to get an exemption). Much of this was in the COMPETES Act.
On the whole, this looks increasingly like a solid win for the NSF community: strong funding authorizations which the community can use in their advocacy efforts; an expansion of the agency’s missions, which is in-line with its culture; codification of many programs and efforts the Foundation is currently undertaking; and several pieces of ancillary science legislation of good note. While the authorization levels are unlikely to be passed into law as appropriations, it does show a strong vote of Congressional confidence in NSF.
Events have moved very quickly. The Senate passed the bill on Wednesday by a vote of 64-33. It then headed to the House for consideration, where it passed in the chamber Thursday afternoon on a bipartisan vote of 243-187. It now heads to the chief executive and we can expect President Biden to sign it into law in a few days.
This has certainly been a long two-year process, starting in 2020 with the introduction of the first Endless Frontier Act in the Senate. Given that over a month ago it was not a sure thing that this legislation would be passed into law, the fact that the process is almost done is great news.
Detailed Authorization Levels, Fiscal Year 2023 through Fiscal Year 2027 (FY22 Final for comparison)
FY22 Final
FY23 Auth
$ Change
% Change
FY24 Auth
$ Change
% Change
NSF Total
$8.84B
$11.80B
+$2.96B
+33.5%
$15.65B
+$3.85B
+32.6%
R&RA
$7.20B
$9.05B
+$1.85B
+25.7%
$12.05B
+$3.00B
+33.1%
Without TIP
$7.20B
$7.55B
+$350M
+4.9%
$8.70B
+$1.15B
+15.2%
TIP Only
NA
$1.50B
—
—
$3.35B
+$1.85B
+123%
EHR/EDU
$1.01B
$1.95B
+$940M
+93.1%
$2.50B
+$550M
+28.2%
FY25 Auth
$ Change
% Change
FY26 Auth
$ Change
% Change
FY27 Auth
$ Change
% Change
NSF Total
$16.71B
+$1.06B
+6.8%
$17.83B
+$1.12B
+6.7%
$18.92B
+$1.09B
+6.1%
R&RA
$12.85B
+$800M
+6.6%
$13.80B
+$950M
+7.4%
$14.70B
+$900M
+6.5%
Without TIP
$9.30B
+$600M
+6.9%
$10.00B
+$700M
+7.5%
$10.60B
+$600M
+6.0%
TIP Only
$3.55B
+$200M
+6.0%
$3.80B
+$250M
+7.0%
$4.10B
+$300M
+7.9%
EHR/EDU
$2.70B
+$200M
+8.0%
$2.85B
+$150M
+5.6%
$3.00B
+$150M
+5.3%
Initial List of Societal, National, and Geostrategic Challenges for TIP Directorate:
(1) United States national security.
(2) United States manufacturing and industrial productivity.
(3) United States workforce development and skills gaps.
(4) Climate change and environmental sustainability.
(5) Inequitable access to education, opportunity, or other services.
Initial List of Key Technology Focus Areas for TIP Directorate:
(1) Artificial intelligence, machine learning, autonomy, and related advances.
(2) High performance computing, semiconductors, and advanced computer hardware and software.
(3) Quantum information science and technology.
(4) Robotics, automation, and advanced manufacturing.
(5) Natural and anthropogenic disaster prevention or mitigation.
(6) Advanced communications technology and immersive technology.
(7) Biotechnology, medical technology, genomics, and synthetic biology.
(8) Data storage, data management, distributed ledger technologies, and cybersecurity, including bio metrics.
(9) Advanced energy and industrial efficiency technologies, such as batteries and advanced nuclear technologies, including but not limited to for the purposes of electric generation (consistent with section 15 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1874).
(10) Advanced materials science, including composites 2D materials, other next-generation materials, and related manufacturing technologies.
[Editor’s Note: This post was written by CRA’s Tisdale Policy Fellow for Summer 2022, Dalton Hellwege.]
In our continuing series looking at the Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) budget, we turn to the House Appropriations Committee and their Commerce, Justice, and Science bill. This piece of legislation is of great interest to the computing community, as it contains the budgets for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), among other federal science agencies.
Digging a little deeper into the details of the House’s plans, the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account, home to NSF’s research portfolio, would receive $7.71 billion for FY23. That would represent a $510 million increase over FY22 enacted levels (+7.1 percent). The Directorate for Education & Human Resources account (EHR), soon to be renamed the Directorate for STEM Education (EDU) (the name gets approval from House Appropriators in this bill), would receive $1.25 billion or a $240 million increase from FY22 (+24 percent).
While these numbers are objectively good, it’s worth noting that all of the House Appropriations Committee’s marks are below what the Biden Administration requested in their budget plan in March.
FY22
FY23 PBR
FY23 House
$ Change
% Change
NSF Total
$8.84B
$10.50B
$9.63B
+$790M
+8.9%
R&RA
$7.20B
$8.43B
$7.71B
+$510M
+7.1%
EHR/EDU
$1.01B
$1.38B
$1.25B
+$240M
+24%
Looking at policy items in the Committee’s report, there are several topics of interest with regard to NSF. First, the Committee voiced their support for the newly created TIP Directorate and provided, “no less than $170 million for the Regional Innovation Engines” program. Additionally, the Committee supports the agency’s efforts in artificial intelligence, QIS, and high-performance computing, providing funding up to the President’s request in these areas. The Committee also accepted the agency’s plans and requested budgets for NSF’s CyberCorps, Graduate Research Fellowship Program, and a number of other broadening participation efforts at the agency.
With regard to the other research agencies in this legislation, the big winner is the National Institute of Standards & Technology’s (NIST). It would receive a significant increase under the House’s plan, going from $1.23 billion in FY22 to $1.47 billion in FY23, a $240 million dollar increase (or +20 percent). Likewise, the Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, where the majority of the agency’s research is housed, would see a nice increase to $953 million for FY23. The STRS FY23 number is $103 million more than the number from FY22 (+12.1 percent). While the House’s mark for NIST is below the President’s requested budgets for the agency, they are not significantly so.
FY22
FY23 PBR
FY23 House
$ Change
% Change
NIST Total
$1.23B
$1.48B
$1.47B
+$240M
+20%
STRS
$850M
$975M
$953M
+$103M
+12.1%
Finally, looking at NASA’s budget, the space agency would receive $25.5 billion, an increase of $1.5 billion from FY22 (+6.3 percent). The agency’s Science account would receive $7.91 billion, an increase of $310 million from FY22 (+4.1 percent). Both of these budget lines are similar to NIST: below President Biden’s budget request but only marginally.
FY22
FY23 PBR
FY23 House
$ Change
% Change
NASA Total
$24.00B
$26.00B
$25.50B
+$1.50B
+6.3%
Science
$7.60B
$7.99B
$7.91B
+$310M
+4.1%
The CJS bill was approved by the Full Appropriations Committee on June 28th and is now waiting to be voted on by the full House of Representatives. After that, we must wait and see what happens in the Senate; it is unclear when they will act on their own CJS bill. Final resolution of all the FY23 appropriation bills is unlikely until after the November 2022 elections, and the results of those elections will likely dictate when the bills (or single omnibus bill, or some combination) will get a final vote. Please keep checking back for updates.
The bill proposes a solid, 7 percent increase for the Office of Science over FY22 enacted levels, bringing the agency’s budget to an even $8.00 billion for FY23 (an increase of $520 million). Within the Office of Science, the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, which houses the majority of the computing research at DOE, would see a less generous increase of just 1 percent – going from $1.04 billion in FY22 to $1.05 billion for FY23. While the Office of Science top line number is better than Biden Administration plan, the ASCR number is slightly below (by about $20 million) what the President recommended.
Much like last year, that 1 percent increase for ASCR is deceptive and contains good news. ASCR’s research subaccounts received increases and together would increase by an average of 7 percent. However, the Exascale Computing Program, which is winding down several large construction projects, received a large 40 percent cut from its FY22 levels. But this decrease is planned, as it is what the Administration requested. As with last year’s ASCR request and House plan, from a research perspective, this plan is better than the overall number would suggest.
In the committee’s report, the House appropriators voiced their support for the agency’s efforts in artificial intelligence and quantum information sciences. They also spoke highly of the Office of Science’s engagement plans with HBCUs and MSIs, in order to build research capacity and further workforce development.
Finally, the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy, or ARPA-E, would receive $550 million for FY23, a 22 percent increase (+$100 million) in comparison to FY22. In terms of policy details, there seems to be a disagreement between what the Administration feels the agency is authorized to spend its funds on and what the House Appropriations Committee thinks. In the committee’s report, it states:
The budget request proposes to expand ARPA–E’s scope to include research and development on climate adaptation and resilience. However, the budget request justification notes that the expansion will require legislation beyond the current authorization. The Committee notes that ARPA–E has authority ‘‘to address the energy and environmental missions of the Department,’’ according to section 5012 of the America COMPETES Act. This includes climate-related innovations, and further, the Committee notes that ARPA–E already funds such activities.
It will be interesting to see how the Senate Appropriations Committee responds to this matter. Other than this disagreement, there are no other policy stipulations for ARPA-E in the report.
FY22
FY23 PBR
FY23 House
$ Change
% Change
DOE SC Total
$7.48B
$7.80B
$8.00B
+$520M
+7.0%
ASCR
$1.04B
$1.07B
$1.05B
+$15M
+1.0%
ARPA-E
$450M
$700M
$550M
+$100M
+22%
The House Appropriations Committee approved their bill on June 28th; next step is for it to go before the full House chamber for passage. That is likely to be soon. Once the bill clears the House, we have to wait and see what happens on the Senate side, as that chamber hasn’t begun public work on their slate of bills. Please check back for more updates.
CRA was consulted on a discussion draft of this legislation and was able to provide feedback and suggestions on how to make the bill stronger. CRA was pleased to release the following statement endorsing the legislation:
CRA STATEMENT ENDORSING H.R. 7710,
The “COUNTER HUMAN TRAFFICKING RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ACT”
The Computing Research Association applauds the introduction of the H.R. 7710, the “Counter Human Trafficking Research and Development Act,” and congratulates Representative Gwen Moore, Representative Don Beyer, and House Science, Space, and Technology Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson for their work crafting legislation that will help enable the research and address the data needs to provide the tools needed to end human trafficking.
It is vital in moving to eliminate human trafficking that the needs of local actors to collect data be understood and improved. In this research area, the most effective data comes from the local level; information from NGOs, law enforcement, and prosecutors is key to understanding, responding, and countering human trafficking. Funding and support to bolster the data capacity of these groups will improve research which in turn will help in efforts to eliminate human trafficking. We support the inclusion of a section directing the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study, “that includes an assessment of human trafficking data collection needs and practices of Federal agencies, local nongovernmental organizations, law enforcement, and prosecutors to improve Federal research and development to prevent, identify, and disrupt human trafficking.”
The legislation’s emphasis on working with trafficking survivors and bringing them into the research process, while both protecting their privacy and encouraging the development and deployment of Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PETs) will provide a wealth of data to tackle many key research questions.
We commend Reps. Moore and Beyer, and Chairwoman Johnson, for their leadership in this area, and we look forward to working with all parties as this bill moves through the legislative process.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
PCAST Releases Report on Revitalizing the Nation’s Semiconductor Ecosystem, with Investments in a National Research Agenda a Major Component
/In: Funding, Policy, Research /by Brian MosleyOn the heels of the Chips and Science Act passage into law in July, the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) released a report outlining actions President Biden and the Department of Commerce (DOC) should take to, “maximally leveraging the historic $11 billion commitment appropriated for semiconductor R&D,” in the legislation. PCAST’s recommendation can fit into four broad categories: building a broad coalition, focusing on education and the future workforce, fostering innovation, and setting a national research agenda.
The Chips and Science Act provides funding for the Commerce Department to invest $11 billion over 5 years in semiconductor R&D (there is an additional $39 billion the law appropriates for financial assistance for domestic semiconductor manufacturing). Within that, DOC is to establish a National Semiconductor Technology Center (NSTC) and a National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program (NAPMP). Both of these programs figure heavily in the report’s recommendations (particularly 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10).
Of most note to the research community are recommendations 3, 4, 8, and 9 of the report:
3. The Secretary of Commerce in coordination with the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF) should support the establishment of a national microelectronics education and training network by the end of 2023 and allocate funding on the order of $1 billion over the next 5 years to upgrade educational laboratory facilities, support curriculum development, and facilitate hiring of faculty into this field.
4. The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that NSTC-funded research…supports on the order of 2,500 scholarships and research assistantships per year across the educational spectrum.
8. The Secretary of Commerce should ensure that the NSTC founding charter allocates a significant portion of the annual funding, on the order of 30 to 50 percent, to directly fund a national research agenda. This research agenda should be broad in nature and address the following areas: materials, process, and manufacturing technologies; packaging and interconnect technologies; energy-efficient computing and domain-specific accelerators; design automation tools and methods; semiconductor and system security; and semiconductors and life sciences.
9. The NSTC should identify a set of nationwide grand challenges that are enabled through collaboration across the NSTC industrial membership and NSTC-funded research. These grand challenges should span three complementary areas that would benefit from large-scale nationwide collaboration: advanced computing into the zettascale era; significantly reducing design complexity; and proliferating semiconductors in life sciences applications.
The report, in concert with other actions that the Biden Administration has taken, demonstrate that the Biden Administration is moving quickly to implement the Chips and Science Act. But that’s only the “chips” half of the Chips and Science Act; the research policy community here in Washington is working on getting the “science” part of the legislation fulfilled. We are telling Congress to follow through on the research policy provisions of the law and fully fund the research agencies, especially NSF. They can start with the Fiscal Year 2023 budget.
FY23 Appropriations Update: A Continuing Resolution is Coming but When will it Be Passed into Law?
/In: Funding, FY23 Appropriations /by Brian MosleyDespite major legislation passing into law this summer, Congress has been slow in finishing up the yearly Federal budget (ie: Fiscal Year 2023). The delay has been over a number of topics unrelated to science research, such as energy-permitting regulations and supplemental funding for things like Ukrainian military assistance. But with the fast-approaching November Midterm elections, Congress is not interested in shutting down the government just before facing voters at the polls. Hence the need for a continuing resolution (CR). Released Monday night, it would fund the government at Fiscal Year 2022 levels till December 16th. Congress has until Friday to pass it to avoid a shut down; while unlikely to happen, a government shut down can never be completely ruled out.
Once we see the results of the ballot box in November, we will have a better idea of how the budget will be finalized. If Republicans win back control of both chambers of Congress, they may to want to delay final consideration until next calendar year, when they have more control of the process. If Democrats retain control of the legislature, then they will likely want to finish the budget before the end of this calendar year. And if there is a split, it’s hard to tell exactly how matters will play out. Keep checking back for more updates.
Dr. Arati Prabhakar Confirmed as Next Presidential Science Advisor
/In: People, R&D in the Press, Research /by Brian MosleyToday the United States Senate confirmed Dr. Arati Prabhakar as the next Presidential Science Advisor and Director of the Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP). Nominated in June by President Biden, Dr. Prabhakar will be also serve as the President’s Chief Advisor for Science and Technology, a co-chair of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), and a member of the President’s Cabinet.
CRA released a statement applauding the President’s nomination of Dr. Prabhakar back in June. We look forward to working with the new Science Advisor and her team to advance the nation’s computing and information technology research.
White House Action on Open Access & Ending 12-Month Embargo on Federally Funded Science Articles
/In: Policy, Research /by Brian MosleyLast week the White House, acting through the Office of Science and Technology Policy, released guidance to federal research agencies to, “update their public access policies as soon as possible to make publications and research funded by taxpayers publicly accessible, without an embargo or cost.” Current policy allows journal publishers the option to embargo for 12 months (ie: put behind a paywall) any scientific paper they publish which is tax-payer funded. This new guidance from the White House will do away with that embargo period and require the articles to be publicly available immediately. All federal research agencies must update their policies for this to take effect by 2026.
Along with the announcement, OSTP explained the Biden Administration’s actions in a White House Blog post. Much of the justification for this is in a recent report OSTP released, titled “Economic Landscape of Federal Public Access Policy”.
This new guidance will likely have wide ranging impacts on the research and scientific publishing communities. If past events are any guide, there will also be an extensive variety of views from the research community on whether these actions are good or bad news. CRA is monitoring the situation and is reaching out to our membership and allies within the scientific community to gauge the impacts of these new guidelines.
FY23 Appropriations Update: Senate Appropriators Provide Generous Numbers to DOE Research Accounts
/In: Funding, FY23 Appropriations /by Brian MosleyContinuing our coverage of the Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) federal budget process, we turn to the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Energy and Water bill. This bill contains the budgets for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science (DOE SC) and ARPA-E, as well as funding for the Exascale Computing R&D program, for which DOE is the lead federal agency. Similar to their CJS bill, which covers NSF, NIST, and NASA, the Senate appropriators were quite generous to the energy programs, providing larger increases than the House appropriators’ mark or the President’s March budget request.
The bill proposes an 8.3 percent increase for the Office of Science over FY22 enacted levels, bringing the agency’s budget to $8.10 billion for FY23 (an increase of $625 million). That is $100 million more than the House mark and $300 million more than the President requested. Within the Office of Science, the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, which houses the majority of the computing research at DOE, would see an increase of 3.8 percent – going from $1.04 billion in FY22 to $1.08 billion for FY23.
Much like last year, that 3.8 percent increase for ASCR is deceptive and contains good news. ASCR’s research subaccounts received increases and together would increase by an average of 10 percent. However, the Exascale Computing Program, which is winding down several large construction projects, received a large 40 percent cut from its FY22 levels. But this decrease is planned, as it is what the Administration requested. So, from a research perspective, this plan is better than the overall number would suggest. This mirrors what the House appropriators did in their FY23 mark.
In the committee’s report, the Senate appropriators voiced their support for the agency’s efforts in artificial intelligence and quantum information sciences. The appropriators also spoke highly of the Office of Science’s engagement plans with HBCUs and MSIs, particularly the agency’s RENEW and FAIR programs, in order to build research capacity and further workforce development.
Finally, the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy, or ARPA-E, would receive $570 million for FY23, a 27 percent increase (+$120 million) in comparison to FY22. While that is slightly above the House number, it is below the President’s requested level.
Unfortunately, as mentioned with the Senate’s CJS bill, these generous numbers are not likely to be passed into law. That’s because these budgets only represent Senate Democrats’ plans and have little input or support from Senate Republicans. Because of the chamber’s 50-50 split, any legislation requires at least some minority party support in order to be passed into law. We’ll have to let the budget process play out more before we have an idea of what final FY23 numbers will look like.
In the meantime, with the beginning of the new Fiscal Year fast approaching (October 1st), a Continuing Resolution (CR) is looking to be the next step in the process. A CR would continue the funding of the Federal agencies at last year’s levels, buying Democrats and Republicans time to work on negotiations. What happens with those negotiations will depend greatly on the outcome of the Midterm Elections in November. Please check back for more updates.
FY23 Appropriations Update: Strong Budget Numbers for NSF, NIST, & NASA from Senate Appropriators; but How Likely Are They to Become Law?
/In: Funding, FY23 Appropriations /by Brian MosleyIn our continuing series looking at the Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) budget, we turn to the Senate Appropriations Committee. Last week, the Democrats on the committee released their slate of appropriations bills, all at once. While this is significantly earlier than in past years, it’s also a political move: the bills only represent the Democratic priorities for the federal budget and have no input from Senate Republicans. We’ll get to the implications of that in a moment but what it means in the immediate is that the numbers for many of the research agencies that the computing cares are quite good, on the surface. In point of fact, the numbers in the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) bill, which contains the budgets for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), are among the most robust and generous.
NSF, in particular, is a big winner under the Senate plan. The Foundation’s topline budget would receive $10.34 billion, an increase of $1.5 billion (+17 percent) over the FY22 number ($8.84 billion). That is almost as generous as the President’s 19 percent requested increase from March, and almost double the House’s mark of +8.9 percent.
Getting into the details of the Senate’s plans, the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account, home to NSF’s research portfolio, would receive $8.30 billion for FY23. That would be an increase of $1.10 billion increase over FY22 enacted levels, or +15.3 percent. The Directorate for Education & Human Resources account (EHR), soon to be renamed the Directorate for STEM Education (EDU) (the name gets approval from Senate Appropriators in the committee’s explanatory statement), would receive a similarly generous increase of 28.7 percent, going from $1.01 billion in FY22 to $1.30 billion, with the Senate’s FY23 mark (+$290 million).
Looking at policy items in the Committee’s report, there are several topics of interest. First, the Senate appropriators, much like their House counterparts, voiced their support for the newly created TIP Directorate and provided, “up to $200 million for the Regional Innovation Engines” program, saying the committee, “believes that NSF Engines will be transformative for communities across the country.” Additionally, the Committee supports the agency’s efforts in artificial intelligence and QIS, providing funding up to the President’s request in these areas. Finally, in a nod to the need for more regional diversity in research funding, the Senate appropriators provided EPSCoR, NSF’s program to build research capacity in states that do not receive the majority of the agency’s research funding, with $250 million, an increase of $35 million over FY22 enacted levels. The committee believes, “that good ideas and high-quality research are not bound to certain geographical areas but exist across the country.”
With regard to the other research agencies in this legislation, the National Institute of Standards & Technology’s (NIST) would receive a similarly healthy increase. The Senate’s plans for the agency would include a large increase, going from $1.23 billion in FY22 to $1.70 billion in FY23, a $470 million dollar increase (or +38 percent). Likewise, the Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, where the majority of the agency’s research is housed, would see a push-up of +15 percent, going from $850 million in FY22 to $975 million for FY23, an increase of $125 million. While the Senate’s topline mark is well above the President’s request, the number for STRS is exactly what the Administration requested for the account.
Finally, looking at NASA’s budget, the space agency would receive $26.0 billion, an increase of $1.9 billion from FY22 (+8.3 percent). The agency’s Science account would receive $8.00 billion, an increase of $431 million from FY22 (+5.3 percent). These numbers are more generous than the Administration’s request or the House appropriators’ mark.
Now, back to the politics question: do these numbers have a chance of becoming law? Unfortunately, it’s not likely. It goes back to the 50-50 split of the Senate: for any piece of legislation to move in the chamber, it requires some Republican support. Seeing as these bills and their budget numbers were put together without Republican support, it makes it very difficult for these bills to be passed into law. In all likelihood, we will have a repeat of the Fiscal Year 2022 budget, namely long months of negotiations and then final budget numbers that are lower than any of the individual plans.
In the near term, we can definitely expect a Continuing Resolution to get us through the first few months of the approaching Fiscal Year (which begins on October 1st). After that, we must wait and see what happens in the Midterm Elections. The results of those elections will likely dictate when the final appropriation bills, or a single omnibus bill, or some combination, will get a final vote. We’ll be tracking events closely, so please keep checking back for updates.
“Chips and Science” NSF Legislation, Formerly the USICA and COMPETES Acts, Heads Towards Passage Into Law
/In: Funding, Research /by Brian MosleyWe last left the NSF reauthorization legislation (also known as USICA, the COMPETES Act, China competition bill, bipartisan innovation bill, and a couple of other names) in the middle of June. At that time, things were not looking promising for the bill’s future. The conference negotiation process appeared to be bogged down and it didn’t seem that the legislation would move forward. Much has changed in the last month and a half, as the bill now heads to the President’s desk for signing into law.
What has happened is a scaling back of the bill’s scope. Rather than a huge legislative package of several thousand pages covering a wide range of topics, the bill is now a scaled back bill with only the most popular pieces. Foremost is the CHIPS Act, which contains $52 billion dollars in emergency appropriations for subsidies for semiconductor manufacturing and R&D. This has always been the most popular part of the legislation and has been the main driver of its progress. In fact, the latest name for this scaled down package is the “Chips and Science bill.”
When this “Chips and Science bill” was first introduced, it appeared that the research provisions, including all the language pertaining to NSF, would not make the cut. However, last week, Senator Young (R-IN) and Senator Sinema (D-AZ) introduced an amendment that inserted compromised language pertaining to NSF, the Department of Energy, NIST, and NASA.
The bill’s language provides healthy funding authorizations to NSF’s top line, stipulating that the agency’s budget should double in five years. Additionally, the Foundation’s Research and Related Activities (RRA) account, where the majority of the agency’s research funding is located, would grow at a similar rate. The Directorates for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) and Education & Human Resources (EHR) also received increased funding authorizations. Please see the charts at the end of this post for detailed budget authorization numbers.
There are several things to note in these numbers. First, RRA gets increases that are in addition to what TIP would receive. One of the concerns with the new directorate is that Congress could stipulate that any funding increases to the Foundation would only go to TIP, thus depriving the traditional research directorates of much needed funds and growth. This approach makes clear that TIP should grow with the Foundation, not independent of it. However, keep in mind that these are not appropriations but authorizations levels, which is to say that these are the levels Congress says the accounts should be funded at. Congressional appropriators, who decided on the actual funding level, aren’t required to follow these numbers when providing annual funding.
The language also codifies NSF’s new TIP Directorate, using the Biden Administration’s name for the directorate. Both the House and Senate had proposed their own names for the “tech directorate” in their legislative plans but the fact that the Administration’s approach is already started, and has the backing of Congressional appropriators, seemed enough to put it into law. In terms of policy, in what can only be called an interesting compromise, TIP’s research mission will be governed by both 5 broad societal, national, & geostrategic challenges and 10 key technology focus areas. That would include the major organizational principles of both the House and Senate bills. These challenges and technology focus areas will also be reviewed annually and changed if deemed necessary (see the initial lists below, though they are mostly unchanged from the earlier legislative proposals). Also, the new directorate’s program managers will not be required to operate like their counterparts at DARPA, something put forward originally in the Senate legislation. There are several other provisions with regard to TIP, such as codifying the Regional Innovation Engines and the Translation Accelerator programs, but little that can be described as prescriptive toward the Foundation.
There are also several provisions pertaining to NSF’s STEM education and broadening participation efforts. Much of that, which was originally in the House NSF for the Future Act, is codifying programs and efforts that the Foundation is already doing.
There are several other pieces of scientific legislation in Division B (the R&D section) of the package:
– Expansion of the amount of money NSF must use for its EPSCOR program (Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. This is NSF’s program to set aside money for states that do not receive the majority of the agency’s research funding. This expansion was in the Senate’s USICA legislation and eventually in the House’s COMPETES Act.
– STEM Opportunities Act – Calls for policy reforms, research, and data collection to identify and lower barriers facing women, minorities, and other groups underrepresented in STEM studies and research careers. This was part of the House’s COMPETES Act.
– Combating Sexual Harassment in Science – This is to combat sexual harassment in the country’s science enterprise. It does so through a research grant program at NSF to study the problem, data collection on the prevalence of harassment, and directs OSTP to issue policy guidelines for research agencies awarding extramural research grants, emphasizing the importance of information sharing among Federal science agencies, among other provisions. Part of the COMPETES Act.
– Supporting Early-career Researchers – Establishes a two-year, $250 million agency-wide early career fellowship pilot program at NSF, providing a bridge for recent Ph.D. graduates to stay in their research career. This is modeled after CRA’s CI Fellows program. It was also in the COMPETES Act.
– And an extensive section on Research Security which includes prohibitions on malign foreign talent recruitment programs and funding for higher education institutions that continue to host Confucius Institutes (there is a carve out for institutions to get an exemption). Much of this was in the COMPETES Act.
On the whole, this looks increasingly like a solid win for the NSF community: strong funding authorizations which the community can use in their advocacy efforts; an expansion of the agency’s missions, which is in-line with its culture; codification of many programs and efforts the Foundation is currently undertaking; and several pieces of ancillary science legislation of good note. While the authorization levels are unlikely to be passed into law as appropriations, it does show a strong vote of Congressional confidence in NSF.
Events have moved very quickly. The Senate passed the bill on Wednesday by a vote of 64-33. It then headed to the House for consideration, where it passed in the chamber Thursday afternoon on a bipartisan vote of 243-187. It now heads to the chief executive and we can expect President Biden to sign it into law in a few days.
This has certainly been a long two-year process, starting in 2020 with the introduction of the first Endless Frontier Act in the Senate. Given that over a month ago it was not a sure thing that this legislation would be passed into law, the fact that the process is almost done is great news.
Detailed Authorization Levels, Fiscal Year 2023 through Fiscal Year 2027 (FY22 Final for comparison)
Initial List of Societal, National, and Geostrategic Challenges for TIP Directorate:
(1) United States national security.
(2) United States manufacturing and industrial productivity.
(3) United States workforce development and skills gaps.
(4) Climate change and environmental sustainability.
(5) Inequitable access to education, opportunity, or other services.
Initial List of Key Technology Focus Areas for TIP Directorate:
(1) Artificial intelligence, machine learning, autonomy, and related advances.
(2) High performance computing, semiconductors, and advanced computer hardware and software.
(3) Quantum information science and technology.
(4) Robotics, automation, and advanced manufacturing.
(5) Natural and anthropogenic disaster prevention or mitigation.
(6) Advanced communications technology and immersive technology.
(7) Biotechnology, medical technology, genomics, and synthetic biology.
(8) Data storage, data management, distributed ledger technologies, and cybersecurity, including bio metrics.
(9) Advanced energy and industrial efficiency technologies, such as batteries and advanced nuclear technologies, including but not limited to for the purposes of electric generation (consistent with section 15 of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950 (42 U.S.C. 1874).
(10) Advanced materials science, including composites 2D materials, other next-generation materials, and related manufacturing technologies.
FY23 Appropriations Update: House Appropriators Provide Heathy Increases for NSF, NIST, NASA; Will They be Passed into Law?
/In: Funding, FY23 Appropriations /by Brian Mosley[Editor’s Note: This post was written by CRA’s Tisdale Policy Fellow for Summer 2022, Dalton Hellwege.]
In our continuing series looking at the Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) budget, we turn to the House Appropriations Committee and their Commerce, Justice, and Science bill. This piece of legislation is of great interest to the computing community, as it contains the budgets for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), among other federal science agencies.
NSF, which funds 79 percent of all Federal support for fundamental computing research at American universities, fares well in this bill. Under the House’s plan, NSF’s topline budget would receive $9.63 billion, an increase of $790 million (+8.9 percent) over the FY22 number ($8.84 billion). While not as generous as the President’s 19 percent requested increase from March, it is still a good number for the agency and demonstrates that NSF still maintains the confidence and support of key members of Congress.
Digging a little deeper into the details of the House’s plans, the Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account, home to NSF’s research portfolio, would receive $7.71 billion for FY23. That would represent a $510 million increase over FY22 enacted levels (+7.1 percent). The Directorate for Education & Human Resources account (EHR), soon to be renamed the Directorate for STEM Education (EDU) (the name gets approval from House Appropriators in this bill), would receive $1.25 billion or a $240 million increase from FY22 (+24 percent).
While these numbers are objectively good, it’s worth noting that all of the House Appropriations Committee’s marks are below what the Biden Administration requested in their budget plan in March.
Looking at policy items in the Committee’s report, there are several topics of interest with regard to NSF. First, the Committee voiced their support for the newly created TIP Directorate and provided, “no less than $170 million for the Regional Innovation Engines” program. Additionally, the Committee supports the agency’s efforts in artificial intelligence, QIS, and high-performance computing, providing funding up to the President’s request in these areas. The Committee also accepted the agency’s plans and requested budgets for NSF’s CyberCorps, Graduate Research Fellowship Program, and a number of other broadening participation efforts at the agency.
With regard to the other research agencies in this legislation, the big winner is the National Institute of Standards & Technology’s (NIST). It would receive a significant increase under the House’s plan, going from $1.23 billion in FY22 to $1.47 billion in FY23, a $240 million dollar increase (or +20 percent). Likewise, the Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, where the majority of the agency’s research is housed, would see a nice increase to $953 million for FY23. The STRS FY23 number is $103 million more than the number from FY22 (+12.1 percent). While the House’s mark for NIST is below the President’s requested budgets for the agency, they are not significantly so.
Finally, looking at NASA’s budget, the space agency would receive $25.5 billion, an increase of $1.5 billion from FY22 (+6.3 percent). The agency’s Science account would receive $7.91 billion, an increase of $310 million from FY22 (+4.1 percent). Both of these budget lines are similar to NIST: below President Biden’s budget request but only marginally.
The CJS bill was approved by the Full Appropriations Committee on June 28th and is now waiting to be voted on by the full House of Representatives. After that, we must wait and see what happens in the Senate; it is unclear when they will act on their own CJS bill. Final resolution of all the FY23 appropriation bills is unlikely until after the November 2022 elections, and the results of those elections will likely dictate when the bills (or single omnibus bill, or some combination) will get a final vote. Please keep checking back for updates.
FY23 Appropriations Update: House Numbers for the Energy Department’s Programs are Good, Similar to the President’s Request
/In: Funding, FY23 Appropriations /by Brian MosleyContinuing our coverage of the Fiscal Year 2023 (FY23) federal budget process, we turn to the House Appropriations Committee’s Energy and Water bill. This bill contains the budgets for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science (DOE SC) and ARPA-E, as well as funding for the Exascale Computing R&D program, for which DOE is the lead federal agency. Very similar to last year’s mark from the chamber, the House’s plan provides healthy, robust funding for these programs, and are very close to what the President requested in May.
The bill proposes a solid, 7 percent increase for the Office of Science over FY22 enacted levels, bringing the agency’s budget to an even $8.00 billion for FY23 (an increase of $520 million). Within the Office of Science, the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program, which houses the majority of the computing research at DOE, would see a less generous increase of just 1 percent – going from $1.04 billion in FY22 to $1.05 billion for FY23. While the Office of Science top line number is better than Biden Administration plan, the ASCR number is slightly below (by about $20 million) what the President recommended.
Much like last year, that 1 percent increase for ASCR is deceptive and contains good news. ASCR’s research subaccounts received increases and together would increase by an average of 7 percent. However, the Exascale Computing Program, which is winding down several large construction projects, received a large 40 percent cut from its FY22 levels. But this decrease is planned, as it is what the Administration requested. As with last year’s ASCR request and House plan, from a research perspective, this plan is better than the overall number would suggest.
In the committee’s report, the House appropriators voiced their support for the agency’s efforts in artificial intelligence and quantum information sciences. They also spoke highly of the Office of Science’s engagement plans with HBCUs and MSIs, in order to build research capacity and further workforce development.
Finally, the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy, or ARPA-E, would receive $550 million for FY23, a 22 percent increase (+$100 million) in comparison to FY22. In terms of policy details, there seems to be a disagreement between what the Administration feels the agency is authorized to spend its funds on and what the House Appropriations Committee thinks. In the committee’s report, it states:
It will be interesting to see how the Senate Appropriations Committee responds to this matter. Other than this disagreement, there are no other policy stipulations for ARPA-E in the report.
The House Appropriations Committee approved their bill on June 28th; next step is for it to go before the full House chamber for passage. That is likely to be soon. Once the bill clears the House, we have to wait and see what happens on the Senate side, as that chamber hasn’t begun public work on their slate of bills. Please check back for more updates.
CRA Endorsement of H.R. 7710, the “Counter Human Trafficking Research & Development Act”
/In: CRA, Policy, Research, Statements /by Brian MosleyLast month, Representative Gwen Moore (D-WI), joined by Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) and House Science, Space, and Technology Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), introduced the H.R. 7710, the Counter Human Trafficking Research and Development Act.
This legislation will create a National Counter Human Trafficking Research and Development Initiative at the White House, specifically within the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The initiative will be tasked with developing “anti-trafficking technologies and accelerate scientific understanding of human trafficking, including tools to better measure the prevalence of human trafficking and to detect and disrupt human trafficking demand.” Additionally, the bill will, “support federal agency coordination of survivor-informed research and development, coordinate data sharing, establish an advisory committee that brings voices and perspectives of researchers, higher education, law enforcement, non-profit organizations the table, and fund critical research in human trafficking through the National Science Foundation.” Rep. Moore’s office created a one-page summary of the legislation.
CRA was consulted on a discussion draft of this legislation and was able to provide feedback and suggestions on how to make the bill stronger. CRA was pleased to release the following statement endorsing the legislation: