UPDATE: The Senate passed the Fiscal Year 2022 Omnibus late in the evening on March 10th, sending it to President Biden to be signed into law. Therefore, Fiscal Year 2022 is complete.
Original Post: Over six months after the fiscal year began, Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) is inching closer to being passed into law by Congress. Unfortunately, this massive legislative package does not contain good news for many of the research accounts that the computing community is concerned about, most especially NSF.
Released in the early hours of March 9th, the FY22 Omnibus funding legislation is a legislative behemoth of over three thousand pages combining all twelve appropriation bills, a new four day continuing resolution (till March 15th), and two supplemental funding requests (one for the Ukraine War and the other for COVID response; to add to the drama, the COVID supplemental was ultimately yanked from the final package). Not only is there a lot going on with this legislative package but there is also not a lot of time for Congress to act, with the current continuing resolution (CR) only running until Friday March 11th.
Before getting into the details of the Omnibus, it’s worth taking a step back to understand what thinking that has shaped the funding plans for Fiscal Year 2022. Both the Biden Administration and Congressional Democrats were adamant that they were increasing non-defense spending (which includes most of the research agencies we care about), while keeping defense spending flat. Their view is that during the sequestration budget years, non-defense spending had disproportionally received cuts and Democrats would be making up for lost time. The Administration budget request, and both the House and Senate budget plans, were developed with this mindset.
But when Democrat and Republican appropriators came to an agreement on final top line numbers for FY22 in mid-February, it was decided that defense and non-defense spending would be raised equally. This was because Democrats needed Senate Republicans to pass a final bill into law and this was the price of that support. At a high level, the details of the FY22 Omnibus confirm this agreement: the bill provides $730B in non-defense funds, a $46 billion increase over fiscal 2021, while it includes $782B in defense funds, a $42 billion increase. Unfortunately, that means the increases for non-defense spending in both the House and Senate plans had to be pared back; in NSF’s case, that meant a significant change in fortunes.
CJS: NSF, NIST, and NASA
The National Science Foundation would receive $8.84 billion for FY22, an increase of $350 million over last year or +4.1 percent. The Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account, which hosts NSF’s research portfolio, would receive a similar 4.2 percent increase, up from $6.91 billion in FY21 to $7.2 billion for FY22. Finally, the Education and Human Resources (EHR) account would also see an increase of 4.3 percent, going from $996 million in FY21 to $1.01 billion in FY22.
As for the new TIP Directorate, no dollar amount is given for establishing it. However, in the explanatory statements for Division B, which covers NSF, the appropriators say, “the agreement (meaning the omnibus) supports the new Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) within R&RA that builds upon and consolidates existing NSF programs.” This gives the agency the greenlight to start spending money on new initiatives within TIP. The Administration had requested $865 million in its initial request for the agency, so that will likely be what the agency will spend.
Regular readers will notice these numbers are well below both the House (+13.4 percent) and Senate (+11.8 percent) marks, to say nothing of what the President proposed (+19.8 percent). But when you consider that inflation is currently running at 7.5 percent, this increase is an effective cut; the agency won’t be able to maintain the same level of effort. This is a terrible way for the agency to close out the fiscal year, especially given what Congress is planning for NSF with the USICA and COMPETES bills. In fact, it’s fair to ask how the agency is supposed to keep the nation competitive without providing sufficient funding?
FY21
FY22 PBR
FY22 House
FY22 Senate
FY22 Final
$ Change
% Change
NSF Total
$8.49B
$10.20B
$9.63B
$9.49B
$8.84B
+$350M
+4.1%
R&RA
$6.91B
$8.14B
$7.70B
$7.67B
$7.20B
+$290M
+4.2%
EHR
$968M
$1.29B
$1.27B
$1.10B
$1.01B
+$42M
+4.3%
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) numbers are better and it’s the big winner within the CJS section of the Omnibus. The top line for the agency would be well funded, receiving $1.23 billion in FY22, which would be an increase of $200 million or a 19 percent increase. The institutes’ Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, where the majority of the agency’s research is housed, would also see a healthy increase for FY22: $850 million, which is $62 million more (+7.9 percent) than it received for FY21. Despite being objectively good numbers, these are well below either the House or Senate plans for either the agency’s top line (House +33 percent; Senate +35 percent) or STRS (House +19 percent; Senate +16 percent).
FY21
FY22 PBR
FY22 House
FY22 Senate
FY22 Final
$ Change
% Change
NIST Total
$1.03B
$1.50B
$1.37B
$1.39B
$1.23B
+$200M
+19%
STRS
$788M
$916M
$938M
$913M
$850M
+$62M
+7.9%
NASA’s budget is similar to NSF, in that it will receive increases that don’t keep up with inflation. The top line for the agency goes from $23.27 billion in FY21 to $24 billion in FY22, an increase of $730 million or 3.1 percent. That is well below both the House (+7.6 percent) and Senate (+6.6 percent) marks.
As for the NASA Science account, it would receive a 4.1 percent increase and go from $7.30 billion in FY21 to $7.60 billion in FY22. Much like the agency’s top line, these numbers are well below both the House (+9.2 percent) and Senate (+8.2 percent) marks.
FY21
FY22 PBR
FY22 House
FY22 Senate
FY22 Final
$ Change
% Change
NASA Total
$23.27B
$24.80B
$25.04B
$24.80B
$24.00B
+$730M
+3.1%
Science
$7.30B
$7.93B
$7.97B
$7.90B
$7.60B
+$300M
+4.1%
Energy: Dept of Energy, ASCR, and ARPA-E
The Department of Energy’s Office of Science would receive a relatively good increase in the FY22 Omnibus. The agency’s budget would go from $7.03 billion in FY21 to $7.475 billion in FY22, an increase of 6.3 percent or $445 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 deceptively good increase of 2.0 percent – going from $1.02 billion in FY21 to $1.04 billion in FY22. I say deceptive because, much like the House and Senate plans, the ASCR construction subaccounts receive large decreases due to their projects coming closer to be completed. Meanwhile the ASCR research subaccounts would receive increases of 6 to 7 percent.
Finally, the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy, or ARPA-E, would receive an increase but not near the House (+41 percent) or Senate (+17 percent) plans. The agency would be funded at $450 million in FY22, an increase of 5.4 percent or $23 million over FY21. Additionally, the proposed ARPA-C (Climate) was not funded in the FY22 Omnibus.
FY21
FY22 PBR
FY22 House
FY22 Senate
FY22 Final
$ Change
% Change
DOE SC Total
$7.03B
$7.44B
$7.32B
$7.50B
$7.475B
+$445M
+6.3%
ASCR
$1.02B
$1.04B
$1.03B
$1.04B
$1.04B
+$20M
+2.0%
ARPA-E
$427M
$500M
$600M
$500M
$450M
+$23M
+5.4%
Defense: DOD and DARPA
In some good news, the Defense Department’s research accounts fared much better in the final Omnibus agreement. Regular readers will recall that the House numbers were not good (though not as bad as the Biden Administration’s request), while the Senate numbers were pretty good. The final numbers were very much a compromise between the two chambers but provided increases for all the accounts.
Basic Research (6.1) would receive an increase, going from $2.67 billion in FY21 to $2.76 billion in FY22, an increase of 3.4 percent or $90 million. The Administration originally requested a 14.5 percent cut for the account; the House had proposed an 8.7 percent cut, while the Senate numbers suggested a 12.5 percent increase.
The Applied Research (6.2) account fairs better. The account would see an increase of 7.1 percent compared to last year’s budget, going from $6.45 billion in FY21 to $7.1 billion (+$460 million) in FY22. These were both better than the House (-8.3 percent) and the Senate, (+1.3 percent) marks.
The Advanced Technology Development (6.3) account would also receive the biggest increase, going from $7.76 billion in FY21 to $9.22 billion in FY22; an increase of $1.46 billion or 19 percent. This is significantly better than both the House (-1.5 percent) and Senate (+4.98 percent).
Finally, DARPA would also receive a healthy increase over FY21. The agency would go from $3.50 billion in FY21 to $3.87 billion under the FY22 Omnibus, an increase of 10.6 percent or $370 million. This is better than the House mark (-0.6 percent) but below the Senate’s (+12.1 percent).
FY21
FY22 PBR
FY22 House
FY22 Senate
FY22 Final
$ Change
% Change
DOD 6.1
$2.67B
$2.28B
$2.44B
$3.00B
$2.76B
+$90M
+3.4%
DOD 6.2
$6.45B
$5.51B
$5.92B
$6.53B
$6.91B
+$460M
+7.1%
DOD 6.3
$7.76B
$6.89B
$7.64B
$8.13B
$9.22B
+$1.46B
+19%
DARPA
$3.50B
$3.53B
$3.48B
$3.93B
$3.87B
+$370M
+10.6%
Unless something extraordinary happens, these are likely to be the final numbers for FY22. While Congress currently has until the end of the week to pass this package, the House included a new CR (running until March 15th) in their flurry of votes, just in case extra time is needed. But that’s likely the last CR Congress will consider for this fiscal year. The House passed the Omnibus late last night. It now heads to the Senate and will likely receive expedited consideration, but the timing will be incredibly close to avoid a break in funding authority (hence the four-day CR). Expect the Senate to move slowly but it will pass, short of some incredible political grandstanding (which can’t be ruled out these days).
In conclusion, this is a very disappointing way to close out this fiscal year, particularly for NSF. While a four percent increase in previous years may have been something to celebrate – or at least not something to complain very loudly about – given the House and Senate proposed funding levels, the urgency around competitiveness, and the President’s budget request for the agency, hopes were considerably higher. When we add the impact of inflation, the four percent stops looking like an increase entirely and instead looks like we’re failing to keep pace with our current level of effort. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the importance of the investment in science and technology needed to remain competitive in an increasingly competitive world.
Looking ahead, we’re still waiting for the President to release his Fiscal Year 2023 request; we are now hearing it will be release by the end of this month but only as a “skinny” budget plan (meaning top line numbers and few details). And given that this is a mid-term election year, it’s safe to expect another slow budget process for FY23.
Technically begun back on October 1st, Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) is proving to be very difficult for Congressional appropriators to finish. Now, almost six months after the fiscal year was supposed to begin, Congress is set this week to vote on the third continuing resolution (CR) of FY22. This CR will fund the government until March 11th.
Regular readers will recall that back in December we mentioned that a full year continuing resolution was a real possibility and would constitute the worst-case scenario of how FY22 could end. That possibility is a little less right now, as all signs are pointing to Congressional leaders needing a little more time to iron out a compromise. While that sounds good, it worth keeping expectations in check; as we saw with the America COMPETES Act, bipartisanship can collapse quickly.
We can expect Congress to have this CR passed into law by the end of the week, barring any hiccups. After that, we should have an idea by the end of February whether FY22 is complete or we’re onto CR Number 4, which may or may not be a dreaded full year. And keep in mind, the budget process for Fiscal Year 2023 has yet to begin. Please be sure to check back for more updates.
Original Post:Last week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) introduced the America COMPETES Act of 2022. Very long-term readers will notice the call back to the original America COMPETES Act of 2007, which was a landmark piece of bipartisan legislation which called for the doubling of the research budgets of NSF, NIST, and the DOE Office of Science, as well as a major investment in the country’s STEM education. While those commitments weren’t fully realized, the House Democratic leadership is clearly hoping to rekindle the spirit of national importance from 2007.
This new COMPETES Act is a package of legislation that will allow simpler conferencing with the Senate’s US Innovation and Competitiveness Act (USICA), which passed last summer. Both are considered “China competition” bills, as the main goal of both COMPETES and USICA is to bolster the country’s competitiveness with China and respond to its rise as peer-rival to the US. Support for research, and the National Science Foundation specifically, figures heavily into both bills.
In addition to those two parts, there are additional titles in Division B of the bill, which is devoted to “Research and Innovation.” Division B is the House Science Committee’s section of the legislation and is made of several bills the committee has moved over the last several years (you can read detailed breakdowns on the Science Committee’s website). Some of the legislation of note includes:
NIST for the Future Act – Much like its NSF and DOE counterparts, this is a reauthorization of NIST and calls for bold funding for the research agency for the next five years.
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.
Combatting Sexual Harassment in Science Act – 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.
Supporting Early-Career Researchers Act – 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 while navigating the disruptions to the academic research job market due to the pandemic. Modeled after CRA’s CI Fellows program, the legislation calls for two cohorts of 1,600 fellows working in all STEM disciplines to carry out their research at the U.S. institutions of their choosing.
Malign Foreign Talent Recruitment Program Prohibition – A general prohibition for American-based researchers, who accept federal research dollars, from participating in talent recruitment programs run by China, Russia, and Iran, as well as any other country deemed by the State Department to be a malign state.
Looking elsewhere in the legislation, Division A of the bill is the House version of the CHIPS Act. It calls for $52 billion in R&D funding for semiconductor industry, as well as financial support to encourage the industry to bring some of its manufacturing back to the United States. The R&D funding sections are identical to what’s in the Senate’s USICA bill; however, the House language goes further and provides an additional $45B in loans and grants to support domestic manufacturing of critical goods. While the money and assistance to the semiconductor industry is quite popular, and has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress, this extra provision is likely to cause partisan problems (more on that in a moment).
In short, this is a huge piece of legislation, covering a large number of topics, not all of it directly relevant to the research community. There are additional sections on foreign policy and import taxes on commercial products, to give just two examples. But it does provide for a better legislative counterpart to the Senate’s USICA bill and will allow an easier conferencing process. At least, from a nuts-and-bolts-legislative-process perspective it will be easier.
Here is where the politics come into play: House Republicans don’t like this bill. Even normal science allies, like House Science Committee Ranking Member Frank Lucas (R-OK), an original co-sponsor of the NSF for the Future Act, don’t like this bill. Many of the complaints are centered around the additional funding in the CHIPS Act section, though other sections are receiving criticism. There is likely some electoral politics in the calculus, with the mid-term elections in November on everyone’s minds and Republicans expecting to recapture the majority in both chambers. It’s unclear at present whether Senate Republicans, who have been supportive of the Senate USICA bill, will take up their House counterparts’ objections during the conference process. Only time will tell.
House leadership is planning on moving COMPETES this week, so we should have an idea soon on how deep the political divides have become. And conference negotiations with the Senate should start soon thereafter. We will be following events closely, so be sure to check back for more updates.
Last week the Biden Administration announced several new immigration actions they are taking to attract STEM talent and strengthen the nation’s competitiveness. The actions are being taken by both the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and are designed to ease the pathway for foreign students studying in the US to stay and work in the country once their studies have finished. The changes are more technical tweaks, rather than broad reforms, which would require new legislation from Congress. However, many of the changes have long been advocated by the higher education and high-tech communities and should provide some relief.
Of perhaps most note for the computing community are the 22 new fields of study being added to the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program. OPT is a program that permits F-1 students earning bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degrees in certain STEM fields to remain in the US for up to 36 months to work in their field of study. CS and IT fields are heavily represented in the group of new fields. Of particular note is data science; its exclusion from the OPT STEM category has come up in several instances with CS and CE departments recently. CRA has been helping these affected departments navigate the byzantine regulatory system of OPT, so the inclusion of several new CS/IT fields of study is a welcome win for the community.
Other actions being taken by DHS include:
– Updating its policy manual related to “extraordinary ability” (O-1A) nonimmigrant status regarding what evidence may satisfy the O-1A evidentiary criteria. O-1A nonimmigrant status is available to persons of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, business, education, or athletics, though it has rarely been used by the STEM community. DHS is clarifying how it determines “extraordinary abilities,” such as PHD holders, in the STEM fields and will provide examples of evidence that can be submitted by petitioners, as well as how to provide evidence of comparable significance.
– DHS is also issuing an update to its policy manual on how U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) adjudicates national interest waivers for certain immigrants with exceptional abilities in their field of work. Current law provides that USCIS may waive a job offer requirement, allowing immigrants whose work is in the national interest to petition for themselves, without an employer; the USCIS policy update clarifies how the national interest waiver can be used for persons with advanced degrees in STEM fields and entrepreneurs.
Additionally, the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) is announcing a new “Early Career STEM Research Initiative.” This is to facilitate non-immigrant BridgeUSA exchange visitors coming to the US to engage in STEM research through research, training or educational exchange visitor programs with host organizations, including businesses. ECA is also announcing new guidance that will allow undergraduate and graduate students in STEM fields on the J-1 visa to stay in the US for periods of up to 36 months after their programs conclude. The 36-month timeframe is the current amount of time just for PhD students; other educational levels had less time.
While these are good and long-overdue changes that provide much needed assistance to the STEM community and the nation’s high-tech workforce, they are technical tweaks, rather than transformative reforms. Given the US governmental system, the executive branch is constrained in how far they are able to make changes without the input of the legislature. Hopefully, Congress will see these actions and take up broader high-skilled immigration changes in order to provide more relief for the country’s STEM community and workforce. CRA will continue to monitor these issues and report on any new developments.
Early last week, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released it’s long-awaited guidance to all federal research agencies on how to implement the requirements in National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 (NSPM-33). That memorandum, issued in the closing days of the previous administration, is meant to, “strengthen protections of United States Government-supported R&D against foreign government interference and exploitation,” while, “maintaining an open environment to foster research discoveries and innovation that benefit our nation and the world.” The NSPM-33 was issued in response to multiple incidents over the years of foreign governments (primarily China, though Russia and Iran are also frequently cited) attempting to illicitly obtain research from federally supported researchers. The guidance is meant to clear up conflicts of interest, so research agencies know where researchers are receiving support, while also providing a framework of penalties for deliberate noncompliance or evasion of these new requirements.
An on-going concern with efforts to crack down on this “research security” problem is that it could lead to singling out people of specific ethnicities, particular those of Chinese descent. OSTP and the National Science and Technology Council were as concerned about not fueling prejudice and xenophobia as they were about protecting research. In fact, the “General Implementation Guidance” (page 1) states that research agencies need to engage with the research community throughout their implementation process, as well as to adopt measures that are “risk-based,” while avoiding retroactive application of measures. While this appears to be a good first step, there is still much work to be do, most significantly each research agency will need to put out their specific policies.
We have already seen some of those first steps and there are concerns. Back in September, the Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) released their initial rubric for identifying researchers and placing them in risk categories. Those instructions focused heavily on relationships and ties (family, professional, financial) of researchers and less on actions that researchers have taken (ex: participation in a foreign government talent recruitment program or accepting gifts from people or companies aligned with foreign governments). It also named specific countries of concern, with China, Russia, and Iran used prominently. As an example, a foreign-born Chinese American researcher, regardless of citizenship status, could be labeled as “high risk” if they still had family in their home country. As another example, a native-born US researcher with foreign-born grad students from the listed countries could be labelled as “high risk.”
Once CRA became aware of this rubric, we engaged with DARPA leadership to voice the community’s concerns with this approach, its likely negative impact on the nation’s research enterprise, and to offer possible revisions. Among them, we recommended removing mention of specific countries; this would not only reduce the chance of prejudice against researchers from specific countries, but it would also help the rubric to age better. We also suggested that the focus should be more on actions taken by researchers and not on their professional or kinship relationships. Thankfully, DARPA listened and substantially changed their rubric to reflect these edits; they released the revised rubric in early December, along with a FAQ.
This is not the end of the process; it is only the initial guidance for all federal research agencies. Each agency will now need to individualize it for implementation with their communities. As well, this guidance does not explain how the federal government will use this information in making decisions about research funding and support for researchers; OSTP and the National Science and Technology Council are now beginning the initial steps in those areas. This will require constant vigilance on the part of research community to make sure it is implemented correctly and fairly. As actions are taken by the assorted research agencies, we will provide updates, so please keep checking back.
Last week, Congress rushed to pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) in order to keep the government’s operations from shutting down. Those who have followed our updates on the Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) budget already know that both Appropriations Committees have finished their work on their respective slate of bills, and we are waiting for compromised legislation to be negotiated. Unfortunately, finishing out FY22 is not that simple.
The new deadline created by the current CR is February 18th. Originally, Congressional Democrats wanted the deadline to be in mid-January. However, Congressional Republicans successfully pushed for the later date, saying that they needed more time for negotiations, specifically to eliminate any “poison pill” policy provisions or keep in so called “legacy riders” (language that has been included in funding legislation for years). Unfortunately, this creates a situation where it’s hard to predict how the fiscal year will finally end.
If past is prologue, then another CR will likely be needed; Congress has a long to-do list for early next year and the FY22 budget is only one item. But it’s hard to say how long another CR will last. There are three possible scenarios:
A short CR, as in a few days to a week, to iron out final details;
If negotiations drag on, a CR of a month or more;
If no compromise can be reached, the worst-case scenario is a full-year CR that goes to October 1st (the beginning of the next fiscal year, FY23).
Why would a full-year CR be so bad? Because research agencies would not have the legal authority to start new programs and their funding would be frozen at the previous year’s levels. While Congress could make exceptions in a year-long CR, such as to allow NSF to start new efforts in their proposed new TIP Directorate, it’s not likely they would want to open the metaphorical floodgates on such a process.
The bottom-line is that closing out Fiscal Year 2022 is uncertain at the moment. Hopefully the new year will bring a compromise between the two sides in Congress and the nation’s researchers can be spared the funding hardships that come with a full-year Continuing Resolution. Please check back for more updates.
Chairwoman Johnson is a long-time champion of scientific research, STEM education, and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the scientific fields. Her time as the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Science Committee, which began in 2011, has been marked by efforts to bolster the nation’s research enterprise; Rep. Johnson’s sponsorship of the NSF for the Future Act and the DOE Science for the Future Act are just two recent examples of a long career supporting the nation’s scientists and researchers.
Of equal importance to her championing research, Chairwoman Johnson’s efforts to work in a bipartisan manner with her Republican colleagues on the Science Committee have helped to keep the committee focused on the science. In a statement on her retirement, Ranking Member Frank Lucas (R-OK) said, “there is no one I would rather have as my counterpart across the aisle. EBJ, as I affectionately call her, is a true public servant and she cares deeply about supporting American science. While we don’t always agree on the best way to do that, we are usually able to find common ground and work together to pass strong, bipartisan policies.”
The Computing Research Association has been honored to work with Chairwoman Johnson and her staff over the past several years; we thank her whole-heartedly for her leadership and efforts to make the United States scientific enterprise the best in the world. We wish her well in all her future endeavors.
On Friday, the House of Representatives passed the Build Back Better Act, also known as the budget reconciliation bill. Regular readers will recall that in September the House Science Committee advanced its $45 billion section of the then $3.5 trillion overall legislation; the committee’s bill featured investments in research and scientific infrastructure at NSF, DOE Office of Science, NASA, and NIST. Unfortunately, that was the high-water mark in terms of funding; the legislative package ran into heavy resistance in the Senate and was revised downward multiple times over the past several months.
The version that was passed by the House last week totaled roughly $2 trillion overall. NSF was a big winner among the research accounts, receiving almost $3.5 billion dollars. Other research agencies of note received varying amounts; here are some highlights:
NSF – $3.5 billion total; to be spent by 2028, unless otherwise noted.
– $668 million till 2026 for research and other activities;
– $1.52 billion till 2026 to establish the new Directorate for Technology, Innovation, & Partnerships (TIP);
– $25 million for diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts;
– $500 million for climate research;
– $25 million for research security activities;
– $200 million for research capacity building at HBCUs, HSIs, Tribal colleges & universities, and other MSIs;
– $55 million for cyber security research;
– $200 million till 2026 for research facilities;
– $200 million till 2026 for mid-scale and major research facilities;
– $100 million for academic research facilities moderation at HBCUs, Tribal colleges and universities, HSIs, and other MSIs.
DOE – there is no general research or infrastructure money available for the Office of Science; all money for DOE SC is allocated to demonstration programs focused exclusively on low dose radiation and fusion research.
NASA – to be spent by 2028
– $748 million for infrastructure;
– $85 million for climate R&D;
– $30 million for investments in data management and processing to support climate research;
– $225 million for sustainable aviation.
NIST – $650 million to spent by 2028 for upgrade, replacement, maintenance, or renovation of facilities and equipment.
Depending on how one looks at this legislation, it’s either disappointing or good. It is disappointing that the research community didn’t receive what was proposed in the Science Committee’s original September bill. However, this legislation is good in that these research agencies did get something, as there was real worry among the community that the research accounts would be left out of the process entirely. Also, looking at NSF, providing money to TIP is good, as that could take pressure off the other directorates to fund the new one.
This is, unfortunately, far from the end of the process. The reconciliation bill will now head to the Senate for consideration and likely more changes. In fact, the likelihood of passage in the Senate is slim; the only difference in the political calculus from September to now is that there is no longer the carrot of the infrastructure bill to pull in skeptical Senators. We’ll have to see how things play out before we have any definitive answers; the Senate has until the end of the calendar year to act on this legislation. Please check back for more updates.
Dueling updates this week about legislation reorganizing and reauthorizing the National Science Foundation provided only contradictory views of the bills’ future.
Regular readers will recall that the Senate-passed United States Innovation & Competitiveness Act (USICA) contains the Endless Frontier Act (EFA), a major reorganization of the National Science Foundation. It includes large funding authorizations for NSF, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), among other provisions. The legislation passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis back in June.
On Monday, Senator Schumer (D-NY), Majority Leader of the Senate and one of the original sponsors of USICA and EFA, announced that he secured an agreement that would add USICA to the yearly, must-pass defense policy bill in a package of bipartisan amendments. This would have assured that USICA would move when the defense bill progressed in the Senate. But that’s not how it played out.
Wednesday evening, after opposition to including USICA in the defense bill arose from Senate Republicans, Schumer and House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) released a statement saying they had agreed to conference the competing Senate and House NSF legislation directly, without using the defense policy bill as a legislative vehicle. No timeline or plan for accomplishing this was included in their statement.
If you, dear reader, feel like you experienced whiplash reading these paragraphs, that is to be expected.
The progression of the NSF legislation this calendar year is now in doubt. The appeal of attaching USICA to the defense policy bill is that it is must-pass legislation; without that vehicle, it’s not a given USICA will move by itself. It’s also easier for Senate Republicans to filibuster final passage of a standalone bill, in order to deny a legislative victory to Congressional Democrats and the Biden Administration.
But this also creates a conferencing problem in that the House’s legislation, the NSF for the Future Act and the DOE Science for the Future Act, only cover reauthorizing NSF and the DOE research programs; USICA covers many more topics that the House has not considered. Democratic House leaders have repeatedly said they would prefer to pass a China competitiveness bill/NSF reauthorization separate from the defense policy bill; they now have their wish, though it’s unclear if that’s good.
Ultimately, progression of USICA and the two House bills are now in doubt. Given how many major legislative matters Congress has to deal with in the month and a half remaining in the year, will drawn-out negotiations on a non-urgent policy matter be high on Congressional leaders’ to-do list? Likely this will be pushed into 2022; the deadline for passing anything, using the present legislation, would be the end of 2022 (ie: the end of the 117th Congress). Otherwise, the legislative process for both bills would need to be restarted. The one saving grace of this is that both Senate and House bills are bipartisan; there is a real view among Congressional leaders that the nation’s research enterprise needs attention. It’s just a question about when it will be addressed. This situation is still fluid, with new updates possible, please check back for more information.
Over the weekend, the House of Representatives broke the legislative logjam over the long-delayed Infrastructure package, passing it on a bipartisan basis. This allowed the bill to be sent to the President’s desk for signing into law. While having only a few pieces for researchers, the infrastructure bill does contain some notable parts for the computing community.
Regular readers will recall that the Senate passed the infrastructure package, called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, back in August. That was a bipartisan, Senate negotiated bill carefully agreed so that it would pass Congress and become law. However, the House delayed taking up the bill because House leaders were hoping to use it as leverage to get the Senate to pass the Reconciliation spending package. Due to delays in the House crafting that legislation, and the opposition of key Senators to the size and scope of the reconciliation bill, the Senate has yet to take it up. This all created an over two-month delay in Congress passing the infrastructure bill and came close to derailing President Biden’s entire legislative agenda. Faced with likely more delays, Congressional leaders decided to pass the infrastructure bill and consider the reconciliation bill down the road.
As we discussed when it passed the Senate in August, there are a few pieces to the infrastructure bill for the research community, some of particular note to the computing community:
– A five-year, $100 million a year SMART grant program at the Department of Transportation (DOT);
– several intelligent transportation and smart communities pilot programs are established at DOT;
– a new ARPA program (ARPA-Infrastructure) established at DOT;
– an entire title of the bill is dedicated to expanding broadband access; and
– several provisions with regard to cybersecurity, particularly with regard to protecting infrastructure and local governments.
However, this is a traditional infrastructure bill (ie: roads, bridge, etc) and not a vehicle for general research dollars or for scientific infrastructure. The expectations were that a reconciliation spending package would cover that type of funding. The passage of the infrastructure bill, without a corresponding vote on the reconciliation spending, means more money for research is unlikely at the moment. This has little to do with support for research, which is generally quite popular in Congress, and more to with there being great hesitancy among legislators to move another large spending bill.
In terms of good news, Congress closing out the infrastructure package makes it more likely that they will have the bandwidth to consider regular appropriations this calendar year, i.e. Fiscal Year 2022. If so, the National Science Foundation, among other research funding agencies, should do quite well. Movement on these bills is not a given however, as there have been increasing objections voiced by Congressional Republicans on both Appropriations Committees to movement of FY22 legislation and calling for a year-long Continuing Resolution. If Congressional Republicans withhold their support for moving the appropriations bills, the process could be pushed into 2022 or beyond. It’s hard to tell at this point what will happen but the next month will be critical. The current CR expires on December 3rd.
Finally, Congress still has a number of major pieces of legislation on its to-do list. It still has to handle the nation’s debt limit and several pieces of “must pass” legislation, like the yearly defense policy bill. These are not likely to be easy jobs to complete and will be far from bipartisan. While the logjam was cleared with the passage of the infrastructure bill, it could return quickly. We’ll keep track of the situation and report back when new developments happen.
Please use the Category and Archive Filters below, to find older posts. Or you may also use the search bar.
FY22 Update: Omnibus Numbers Released; NSF Fares Badly While Defense Research Does Well
/In: Funding, FY22 Appropriations, Research /by Brian MosleyUPDATE: The Senate passed the Fiscal Year 2022 Omnibus late in the evening on March 10th, sending it to President Biden to be signed into law. Therefore, Fiscal Year 2022 is complete.
Original Post: Over six months after the fiscal year began, Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) is inching closer to being passed into law by Congress. Unfortunately, this massive legislative package does not contain good news for many of the research accounts that the computing community is concerned about, most especially NSF.
Released in the early hours of March 9th, the FY22 Omnibus funding legislation is a legislative behemoth of over three thousand pages combining all twelve appropriation bills, a new four day continuing resolution (till March 15th), and two supplemental funding requests (one for the Ukraine War and the other for COVID response; to add to the drama, the COVID supplemental was ultimately yanked from the final package). Not only is there a lot going on with this legislative package but there is also not a lot of time for Congress to act, with the current continuing resolution (CR) only running until Friday March 11th.
Before getting into the details of the Omnibus, it’s worth taking a step back to understand what thinking that has shaped the funding plans for Fiscal Year 2022. Both the Biden Administration and Congressional Democrats were adamant that they were increasing non-defense spending (which includes most of the research agencies we care about), while keeping defense spending flat. Their view is that during the sequestration budget years, non-defense spending had disproportionally received cuts and Democrats would be making up for lost time. The Administration budget request, and both the House and Senate budget plans, were developed with this mindset.
But when Democrat and Republican appropriators came to an agreement on final top line numbers for FY22 in mid-February, it was decided that defense and non-defense spending would be raised equally. This was because Democrats needed Senate Republicans to pass a final bill into law and this was the price of that support. At a high level, the details of the FY22 Omnibus confirm this agreement: the bill provides $730B in non-defense funds, a $46 billion increase over fiscal 2021, while it includes $782B in defense funds, a $42 billion increase. Unfortunately, that means the increases for non-defense spending in both the House and Senate plans had to be pared back; in NSF’s case, that meant a significant change in fortunes.
CJS: NSF, NIST, and NASA
The National Science Foundation would receive $8.84 billion for FY22, an increase of $350 million over last year or +4.1 percent. The Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account, which hosts NSF’s research portfolio, would receive a similar 4.2 percent increase, up from $6.91 billion in FY21 to $7.2 billion for FY22. Finally, the Education and Human Resources (EHR) account would also see an increase of 4.3 percent, going from $996 million in FY21 to $1.01 billion in FY22.
As for the new TIP Directorate, no dollar amount is given for establishing it. However, in the explanatory statements for Division B, which covers NSF, the appropriators say, “the agreement (meaning the omnibus) supports the new Directorate for Technology, Innovation, and Partnerships (TIP) within R&RA that builds upon and consolidates existing NSF programs.” This gives the agency the greenlight to start spending money on new initiatives within TIP. The Administration had requested $865 million in its initial request for the agency, so that will likely be what the agency will spend.
Regular readers will notice these numbers are well below both the House (+13.4 percent) and Senate (+11.8 percent) marks, to say nothing of what the President proposed (+19.8 percent). But when you consider that inflation is currently running at 7.5 percent, this increase is an effective cut; the agency won’t be able to maintain the same level of effort. This is a terrible way for the agency to close out the fiscal year, especially given what Congress is planning for NSF with the USICA and COMPETES bills. In fact, it’s fair to ask how the agency is supposed to keep the nation competitive without providing sufficient funding?
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) numbers are better and it’s the big winner within the CJS section of the Omnibus. The top line for the agency would be well funded, receiving $1.23 billion in FY22, which would be an increase of $200 million or a 19 percent increase. The institutes’ Science and Technical Research and Services (STRS) account, where the majority of the agency’s research is housed, would also see a healthy increase for FY22: $850 million, which is $62 million more (+7.9 percent) than it received for FY21. Despite being objectively good numbers, these are well below either the House or Senate plans for either the agency’s top line (House +33 percent; Senate +35 percent) or STRS (House +19 percent; Senate +16 percent).
NASA’s budget is similar to NSF, in that it will receive increases that don’t keep up with inflation. The top line for the agency goes from $23.27 billion in FY21 to $24 billion in FY22, an increase of $730 million or 3.1 percent. That is well below both the House (+7.6 percent) and Senate (+6.6 percent) marks.
As for the NASA Science account, it would receive a 4.1 percent increase and go from $7.30 billion in FY21 to $7.60 billion in FY22. Much like the agency’s top line, these numbers are well below both the House (+9.2 percent) and Senate (+8.2 percent) marks.
Energy: Dept of Energy, ASCR, and ARPA-E
The Department of Energy’s Office of Science would receive a relatively good increase in the FY22 Omnibus. The agency’s budget would go from $7.03 billion in FY21 to $7.475 billion in FY22, an increase of 6.3 percent or $445 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 deceptively good increase of 2.0 percent – going from $1.02 billion in FY21 to $1.04 billion in FY22. I say deceptive because, much like the House and Senate plans, the ASCR construction subaccounts receive large decreases due to their projects coming closer to be completed. Meanwhile the ASCR research subaccounts would receive increases of 6 to 7 percent.
Finally, the Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy, or ARPA-E, would receive an increase but not near the House (+41 percent) or Senate (+17 percent) plans. The agency would be funded at $450 million in FY22, an increase of 5.4 percent or $23 million over FY21. Additionally, the proposed ARPA-C (Climate) was not funded in the FY22 Omnibus.
Defense: DOD and DARPA
In some good news, the Defense Department’s research accounts fared much better in the final Omnibus agreement. Regular readers will recall that the House numbers were not good (though not as bad as the Biden Administration’s request), while the Senate numbers were pretty good. The final numbers were very much a compromise between the two chambers but provided increases for all the accounts.
Basic Research (6.1) would receive an increase, going from $2.67 billion in FY21 to $2.76 billion in FY22, an increase of 3.4 percent or $90 million. The Administration originally requested a 14.5 percent cut for the account; the House had proposed an 8.7 percent cut, while the Senate numbers suggested a 12.5 percent increase.
The Applied Research (6.2) account fairs better. The account would see an increase of 7.1 percent compared to last year’s budget, going from $6.45 billion in FY21 to $7.1 billion (+$460 million) in FY22. These were both better than the House (-8.3 percent) and the Senate, (+1.3 percent) marks.
The Advanced Technology Development (6.3) account would also receive the biggest increase, going from $7.76 billion in FY21 to $9.22 billion in FY22; an increase of $1.46 billion or 19 percent. This is significantly better than both the House (-1.5 percent) and Senate (+4.98 percent).
Finally, DARPA would also receive a healthy increase over FY21. The agency would go from $3.50 billion in FY21 to $3.87 billion under the FY22 Omnibus, an increase of 10.6 percent or $370 million. This is better than the House mark (-0.6 percent) but below the Senate’s (+12.1 percent).
Unless something extraordinary happens, these are likely to be the final numbers for FY22. While Congress currently has until the end of the week to pass this package, the House included a new CR (running until March 15th) in their flurry of votes, just in case extra time is needed. But that’s likely the last CR Congress will consider for this fiscal year. The House passed the Omnibus late last night. It now heads to the Senate and will likely receive expedited consideration, but the timing will be incredibly close to avoid a break in funding authority (hence the four-day CR). Expect the Senate to move slowly but it will pass, short of some incredible political grandstanding (which can’t be ruled out these days).
In conclusion, this is a very disappointing way to close out this fiscal year, particularly for NSF. While a four percent increase in previous years may have been something to celebrate – or at least not something to complain very loudly about – given the House and Senate proposed funding levels, the urgency around competitiveness, and the President’s budget request for the agency, hopes were considerably higher. When we add the impact of inflation, the four percent stops looking like an increase entirely and instead looks like we’re failing to keep pace with our current level of effort. Hardly a ringing endorsement of the importance of the investment in science and technology needed to remain competitive in an increasingly competitive world.
Looking ahead, we’re still waiting for the President to release his Fiscal Year 2023 request; we are now hearing it will be release by the end of this month but only as a “skinny” budget plan (meaning top line numbers and few details). And given that this is a mid-term election year, it’s safe to expect another slow budget process for FY23.
Budget Update: Congress Set to Pass Third Continuing Resolution of FY2022 but the Endgame May be In Sight
/In: Funding, FY22 Appropriations /by Brian MosleyTechnically begun back on October 1st, Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) is proving to be very difficult for Congressional appropriators to finish. Now, almost six months after the fiscal year was supposed to begin, Congress is set this week to vote on the third continuing resolution (CR) of FY22. This CR will fund the government until March 11th.
Regular readers will recall that back in December we mentioned that a full year continuing resolution was a real possibility and would constitute the worst-case scenario of how FY22 could end. That possibility is a little less right now, as all signs are pointing to Congressional leaders needing a little more time to iron out a compromise. While that sounds good, it worth keeping expectations in check; as we saw with the America COMPETES Act, bipartisanship can collapse quickly.
We can expect Congress to have this CR passed into law by the end of the week, barring any hiccups. After that, we should have an idea by the end of February whether FY22 is complete or we’re onto CR Number 4, which may or may not be a dreaded full year. And keep in mind, the budget process for Fiscal Year 2023 has yet to begin. Please be sure to check back for more updates.
Speaker Pelosi and Chairwoman Johnson Introduce America COMPETES Act of 2022
/In: Funding, Policy, Research /by Brian MosleyUPDATE: The House passed the COMPETES Act on February 4th on a 222-to-210 vote.
Original Post: Last week House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) introduced the America COMPETES Act of 2022. Very long-term readers will notice the call back to the original America COMPETES Act of 2007, which was a landmark piece of bipartisan legislation which called for the doubling of the research budgets of NSF, NIST, and the DOE Office of Science, as well as a major investment in the country’s STEM education. While those commitments weren’t fully realized, the House Democratic leadership is clearly hoping to rekindle the spirit of national importance from 2007.
This new COMPETES Act is a package of legislation that will allow simpler conferencing with the Senate’s US Innovation and Competitiveness Act (USICA), which passed last summer. Both are considered “China competition” bills, as the main goal of both COMPETES and USICA is to bolster the country’s competitiveness with China and respond to its rise as peer-rival to the US. Support for research, and the National Science Foundation specifically, figures heavily into both bills.
Of most note within this new COMPETES Act are the titles containing the NSF for the Future Act and the DOE Science for the Future Act. Both bills are the same, or have minor additions, to what was passed by the House last summer and the language still calls for significant increases to the budgets of NSF (+111 percent over five years) and DOE Office of Science (+59 percent over five years). CRA endorsed the NSF for the Future Act in May of 2021.
In addition to those two parts, there are additional titles in Division B of the bill, which is devoted to “Research and Innovation.” Division B is the House Science Committee’s section of the legislation and is made of several bills the committee has moved over the last several years (you can read detailed breakdowns on the Science Committee’s website). Some of the legislation of note includes:
Looking elsewhere in the legislation, Division A of the bill is the House version of the CHIPS Act. It calls for $52 billion in R&D funding for semiconductor industry, as well as financial support to encourage the industry to bring some of its manufacturing back to the United States. The R&D funding sections are identical to what’s in the Senate’s USICA bill; however, the House language goes further and provides an additional $45B in loans and grants to support domestic manufacturing of critical goods. While the money and assistance to the semiconductor industry is quite popular, and has enjoyed bipartisan support in Congress, this extra provision is likely to cause partisan problems (more on that in a moment).
House Democratic Leadership released a section-by-section breakdown of the entire COMPETES Act, which provides more details on all of the sections of the legislative package.
In short, this is a huge piece of legislation, covering a large number of topics, not all of it directly relevant to the research community. There are additional sections on foreign policy and import taxes on commercial products, to give just two examples. But it does provide for a better legislative counterpart to the Senate’s USICA bill and will allow an easier conferencing process. At least, from a nuts-and-bolts-legislative-process perspective it will be easier.
Here is where the politics come into play: House Republicans don’t like this bill. Even normal science allies, like House Science Committee Ranking Member Frank Lucas (R-OK), an original co-sponsor of the NSF for the Future Act, don’t like this bill. Many of the complaints are centered around the additional funding in the CHIPS Act section, though other sections are receiving criticism. There is likely some electoral politics in the calculus, with the mid-term elections in November on everyone’s minds and Republicans expecting to recapture the majority in both chambers. It’s unclear at present whether Senate Republicans, who have been supportive of the Senate USICA bill, will take up their House counterparts’ objections during the conference process. Only time will tell.
House leadership is planning on moving COMPETES this week, so we should have an idea soon on how deep the political divides have become. And conference negotiations with the Senate should start soon thereafter. We will be following events closely, so be sure to check back for more updates.
Biden Administration Announces Immigration Actions to Attract STEM Talent
/In: CS Education & IT Workforce Highlights, People, Policy, STEM /by Brian MosleyLast week the Biden Administration announced several new immigration actions they are taking to attract STEM talent and strengthen the nation’s competitiveness. The actions are being taken by both the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and are designed to ease the pathway for foreign students studying in the US to stay and work in the country once their studies have finished. The changes are more technical tweaks, rather than broad reforms, which would require new legislation from Congress. However, many of the changes have long been advocated by the higher education and high-tech communities and should provide some relief.
Of perhaps most note for the computing community are the 22 new fields of study being added to the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program. OPT is a program that permits F-1 students earning bachelor’s, master’s, or doctoral degrees in certain STEM fields to remain in the US for up to 36 months to work in their field of study. CS and IT fields are heavily represented in the group of new fields. Of particular note is data science; its exclusion from the OPT STEM category has come up in several instances with CS and CE departments recently. CRA has been helping these affected departments navigate the byzantine regulatory system of OPT, so the inclusion of several new CS/IT fields of study is a welcome win for the community.
Other actions being taken by DHS include:
– Updating its policy manual related to “extraordinary ability” (O-1A) nonimmigrant status regarding what evidence may satisfy the O-1A evidentiary criteria. O-1A nonimmigrant status is available to persons of extraordinary ability in the fields of science, business, education, or athletics, though it has rarely been used by the STEM community. DHS is clarifying how it determines “extraordinary abilities,” such as PHD holders, in the STEM fields and will provide examples of evidence that can be submitted by petitioners, as well as how to provide evidence of comparable significance.
– DHS is also issuing an update to its policy manual on how U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) adjudicates national interest waivers for certain immigrants with exceptional abilities in their field of work. Current law provides that USCIS may waive a job offer requirement, allowing immigrants whose work is in the national interest to petition for themselves, without an employer; the USCIS policy update clarifies how the national interest waiver can be used for persons with advanced degrees in STEM fields and entrepreneurs.
Additionally, the State Department’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA) is announcing a new “Early Career STEM Research Initiative.” This is to facilitate non-immigrant BridgeUSA exchange visitors coming to the US to engage in STEM research through research, training or educational exchange visitor programs with host organizations, including businesses. ECA is also announcing new guidance that will allow undergraduate and graduate students in STEM fields on the J-1 visa to stay in the US for periods of up to 36 months after their programs conclude. The 36-month timeframe is the current amount of time just for PhD students; other educational levels had less time.
While these are good and long-overdue changes that provide much needed assistance to the STEM community and the nation’s high-tech workforce, they are technical tweaks, rather than transformative reforms. Given the US governmental system, the executive branch is constrained in how far they are able to make changes without the input of the legislature. Hopefully, Congress will see these actions and take up broader high-skilled immigration changes in order to provide more relief for the country’s STEM community and workforce. CRA will continue to monitor these issues and report on any new developments.
OSTP Releases Guidance to Federal Research Agencies to Protect the Country’s Research Security and Openness
/In: Policy, Research, Security /by Brian MosleyEarly last week, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released it’s long-awaited guidance to all federal research agencies on how to implement the requirements in National Security Presidential Memorandum 33 (NSPM-33). That memorandum, issued in the closing days of the previous administration, is meant to, “strengthen protections of United States Government-supported R&D against foreign government interference and exploitation,” while, “maintaining an open environment to foster research discoveries and innovation that benefit our nation and the world.” The NSPM-33 was issued in response to multiple incidents over the years of foreign governments (primarily China, though Russia and Iran are also frequently cited) attempting to illicitly obtain research from federally supported researchers. The guidance is meant to clear up conflicts of interest, so research agencies know where researchers are receiving support, while also providing a framework of penalties for deliberate noncompliance or evasion of these new requirements.
An on-going concern with efforts to crack down on this “research security” problem is that it could lead to singling out people of specific ethnicities, particular those of Chinese descent. OSTP and the National Science and Technology Council were as concerned about not fueling prejudice and xenophobia as they were about protecting research. In fact, the “General Implementation Guidance” (page 1) states that research agencies need to engage with the research community throughout their implementation process, as well as to adopt measures that are “risk-based,” while avoiding retroactive application of measures. While this appears to be a good first step, there is still much work to be do, most significantly each research agency will need to put out their specific policies.
We have already seen some of those first steps and there are concerns. Back in September, the Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) released their initial rubric for identifying researchers and placing them in risk categories. Those instructions focused heavily on relationships and ties (family, professional, financial) of researchers and less on actions that researchers have taken (ex: participation in a foreign government talent recruitment program or accepting gifts from people or companies aligned with foreign governments). It also named specific countries of concern, with China, Russia, and Iran used prominently. As an example, a foreign-born Chinese American researcher, regardless of citizenship status, could be labeled as “high risk” if they still had family in their home country. As another example, a native-born US researcher with foreign-born grad students from the listed countries could be labelled as “high risk.”
Once CRA became aware of this rubric, we engaged with DARPA leadership to voice the community’s concerns with this approach, its likely negative impact on the nation’s research enterprise, and to offer possible revisions. Among them, we recommended removing mention of specific countries; this would not only reduce the chance of prejudice against researchers from specific countries, but it would also help the rubric to age better. We also suggested that the focus should be more on actions taken by researchers and not on their professional or kinship relationships. Thankfully, DARPA listened and substantially changed their rubric to reflect these edits; they released the revised rubric in early December, along with a FAQ.
This is not the end of the process; it is only the initial guidance for all federal research agencies. Each agency will now need to individualize it for implementation with their communities. As well, this guidance does not explain how the federal government will use this information in making decisions about research funding and support for researchers; OSTP and the National Science and Technology Council are now beginning the initial steps in those areas. This will require constant vigilance on the part of research community to make sure it is implemented correctly and fairly. As actions are taken by the assorted research agencies, we will provide updates, so please keep checking back.
Current Status of Fiscal Year 2022: It’s Complicated
/In: Funding, FY22 Appropriations /by Brian MosleyLast week, Congress rushed to pass a Continuing Resolution (CR) in order to keep the government’s operations from shutting down. Those who have followed our updates on the Fiscal Year 2022 (FY22) budget already know that both Appropriations Committees have finished their work on their respective slate of bills, and we are waiting for compromised legislation to be negotiated. Unfortunately, finishing out FY22 is not that simple.
The new deadline created by the current CR is February 18th. Originally, Congressional Democrats wanted the deadline to be in mid-January. However, Congressional Republicans successfully pushed for the later date, saying that they needed more time for negotiations, specifically to eliminate any “poison pill” policy provisions or keep in so called “legacy riders” (language that has been included in funding legislation for years). Unfortunately, this creates a situation where it’s hard to predict how the fiscal year will finally end.
If past is prologue, then another CR will likely be needed; Congress has a long to-do list for early next year and the FY22 budget is only one item. But it’s hard to say how long another CR will last. There are three possible scenarios:
Why would a full-year CR be so bad? Because research agencies would not have the legal authority to start new programs and their funding would be frozen at the previous year’s levels. While Congress could make exceptions in a year-long CR, such as to allow NSF to start new efforts in their proposed new TIP Directorate, it’s not likely they would want to open the metaphorical floodgates on such a process.
The bottom-line is that closing out Fiscal Year 2022 is uncertain at the moment. Hopefully the new year will bring a compromise between the two sides in Congress and the nation’s researchers can be spared the funding hardships that come with a full-year Continuing Resolution. Please check back for more updates.
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chair of the House Science, Space, & Technology Committee and Long-time Champion of Scientific Research, to Retire
/In: People, R&D in the Press /by Brian MosleyLate last week, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), the current chair of the House Science, Space, & Technology Committee, announced that she would not seek reelection and would retire after nearly thirty years in Congress.
Chairwoman Johnson is a long-time champion of scientific research, STEM education, and diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the scientific fields. Her time as the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Science Committee, which began in 2011, has been marked by efforts to bolster the nation’s research enterprise; Rep. Johnson’s sponsorship of the NSF for the Future Act and the DOE Science for the Future Act are just two recent examples of a long career supporting the nation’s scientists and researchers.
Of equal importance to her championing research, Chairwoman Johnson’s efforts to work in a bipartisan manner with her Republican colleagues on the Science Committee have helped to keep the committee focused on the science. In a statement on her retirement, Ranking Member Frank Lucas (R-OK) said, “there is no one I would rather have as my counterpart across the aisle. EBJ, as I affectionately call her, is a true public servant and she cares deeply about supporting American science. While we don’t always agree on the best way to do that, we are usually able to find common ground and work together to pass strong, bipartisan policies.”
The Computing Research Association has been honored to work with Chairwoman Johnson and her staff over the past several years; we thank her whole-heartedly for her leadership and efforts to make the United States scientific enterprise the best in the world. We wish her well in all her future endeavors.
House Passes Reconciliation Legislation; NSF Big Winner Among Research Agencies; Legislation’s Prospects in Senate Uncertain
/In: Funding, Research /by Brian MosleyOn Friday, the House of Representatives passed the Build Back Better Act, also known as the budget reconciliation bill. Regular readers will recall that in September the House Science Committee advanced its $45 billion section of the then $3.5 trillion overall legislation; the committee’s bill featured investments in research and scientific infrastructure at NSF, DOE Office of Science, NASA, and NIST. Unfortunately, that was the high-water mark in terms of funding; the legislative package ran into heavy resistance in the Senate and was revised downward multiple times over the past several months.
The version that was passed by the House last week totaled roughly $2 trillion overall. NSF was a big winner among the research accounts, receiving almost $3.5 billion dollars. Other research agencies of note received varying amounts; here are some highlights:
NSF – $3.5 billion total; to be spent by 2028, unless otherwise noted.
– $668 million till 2026 for research and other activities;
– $1.52 billion till 2026 to establish the new Directorate for Technology, Innovation, & Partnerships (TIP);
– $25 million for diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts;
– $500 million for climate research;
– $25 million for research security activities;
– $200 million for research capacity building at HBCUs, HSIs, Tribal colleges & universities, and other MSIs;
– $55 million for cyber security research;
– $200 million till 2026 for research facilities;
– $200 million till 2026 for mid-scale and major research facilities;
– $100 million for academic research facilities moderation at HBCUs, Tribal colleges and universities, HSIs, and other MSIs.
DOE – there is no general research or infrastructure money available for the Office of Science; all money for DOE SC is allocated to demonstration programs focused exclusively on low dose radiation and fusion research.
NASA – to be spent by 2028
– $748 million for infrastructure;
– $85 million for climate R&D;
– $30 million for investments in data management and processing to support climate research;
– $225 million for sustainable aviation.
NIST – $650 million to spent by 2028 for upgrade, replacement, maintenance, or renovation of facilities and equipment.
Depending on how one looks at this legislation, it’s either disappointing or good. It is disappointing that the research community didn’t receive what was proposed in the Science Committee’s original September bill. However, this legislation is good in that these research agencies did get something, as there was real worry among the community that the research accounts would be left out of the process entirely. Also, looking at NSF, providing money to TIP is good, as that could take pressure off the other directorates to fund the new one.
This is, unfortunately, far from the end of the process. The reconciliation bill will now head to the Senate for consideration and likely more changes. In fact, the likelihood of passage in the Senate is slim; the only difference in the political calculus from September to now is that there is no longer the carrot of the infrastructure bill to pull in skeptical Senators. We’ll have to see how things play out before we have any definitive answers; the Senate has until the end of the calendar year to act on this legislation. Please check back for more updates.
Dueling Updates on NSF Reauthorization Bills; Legislation’s Progression Uncertain
/In: Funding, Policy, Research /by Brian MosleyDueling updates this week about legislation reorganizing and reauthorizing the National Science Foundation provided only contradictory views of the bills’ future.
Regular readers will recall that the Senate-passed United States Innovation & Competitiveness Act (USICA) contains the Endless Frontier Act (EFA), a major reorganization of the National Science Foundation. It includes large funding authorizations for NSF, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA), among other provisions. The legislation passed the Senate on a bipartisan basis back in June.
On Monday, Senator Schumer (D-NY), Majority Leader of the Senate and one of the original sponsors of USICA and EFA, announced that he secured an agreement that would add USICA to the yearly, must-pass defense policy bill in a package of bipartisan amendments. This would have assured that USICA would move when the defense bill progressed in the Senate. But that’s not how it played out.
Wednesday evening, after opposition to including USICA in the defense bill arose from Senate Republicans, Schumer and House Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) released a statement saying they had agreed to conference the competing Senate and House NSF legislation directly, without using the defense policy bill as a legislative vehicle. No timeline or plan for accomplishing this was included in their statement.
If you, dear reader, feel like you experienced whiplash reading these paragraphs, that is to be expected.
The progression of the NSF legislation this calendar year is now in doubt. The appeal of attaching USICA to the defense policy bill is that it is must-pass legislation; without that vehicle, it’s not a given USICA will move by itself. It’s also easier for Senate Republicans to filibuster final passage of a standalone bill, in order to deny a legislative victory to Congressional Democrats and the Biden Administration.
But this also creates a conferencing problem in that the House’s legislation, the NSF for the Future Act and the DOE Science for the Future Act, only cover reauthorizing NSF and the DOE research programs; USICA covers many more topics that the House has not considered. Democratic House leaders have repeatedly said they would prefer to pass a China competitiveness bill/NSF reauthorization separate from the defense policy bill; they now have their wish, though it’s unclear if that’s good.
CRA endorsed the NSF for the Future Act when it was introduced in May.
Ultimately, progression of USICA and the two House bills are now in doubt. Given how many major legislative matters Congress has to deal with in the month and a half remaining in the year, will drawn-out negotiations on a non-urgent policy matter be high on Congressional leaders’ to-do list? Likely this will be pushed into 2022; the deadline for passing anything, using the present legislation, would be the end of 2022 (ie: the end of the 117th Congress). Otherwise, the legislative process for both bills would need to be restarted. The one saving grace of this is that both Senate and House bills are bipartisan; there is a real view among Congressional leaders that the nation’s research enterprise needs attention. It’s just a question about when it will be addressed. This situation is still fluid, with new updates possible, please check back for more information.
What does passage of the Infrastructure Bill mean for researchers?
/In: Funding, Policy, Research /by Brian MosleyOver the weekend, the House of Representatives broke the legislative logjam over the long-delayed Infrastructure package, passing it on a bipartisan basis. This allowed the bill to be sent to the President’s desk for signing into law. While having only a few pieces for researchers, the infrastructure bill does contain some notable parts for the computing community.
Regular readers will recall that the Senate passed the infrastructure package, called the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, back in August. That was a bipartisan, Senate negotiated bill carefully agreed so that it would pass Congress and become law. However, the House delayed taking up the bill because House leaders were hoping to use it as leverage to get the Senate to pass the Reconciliation spending package. Due to delays in the House crafting that legislation, and the opposition of key Senators to the size and scope of the reconciliation bill, the Senate has yet to take it up. This all created an over two-month delay in Congress passing the infrastructure bill and came close to derailing President Biden’s entire legislative agenda. Faced with likely more delays, Congressional leaders decided to pass the infrastructure bill and consider the reconciliation bill down the road.
As we discussed when it passed the Senate in August, there are a few pieces to the infrastructure bill for the research community, some of particular note to the computing community:
– A five-year, $100 million a year SMART grant program at the Department of Transportation (DOT);
– several intelligent transportation and smart communities pilot programs are established at DOT;
– a new ARPA program (ARPA-Infrastructure) established at DOT;
– an entire title of the bill is dedicated to expanding broadband access; and
– several provisions with regard to cybersecurity, particularly with regard to protecting infrastructure and local governments.
However, this is a traditional infrastructure bill (ie: roads, bridge, etc) and not a vehicle for general research dollars or for scientific infrastructure. The expectations were that a reconciliation spending package would cover that type of funding. The passage of the infrastructure bill, without a corresponding vote on the reconciliation spending, means more money for research is unlikely at the moment. This has little to do with support for research, which is generally quite popular in Congress, and more to with there being great hesitancy among legislators to move another large spending bill.
In terms of good news, Congress closing out the infrastructure package makes it more likely that they will have the bandwidth to consider regular appropriations this calendar year, i.e. Fiscal Year 2022. If so, the National Science Foundation, among other research funding agencies, should do quite well. Movement on these bills is not a given however, as there have been increasing objections voiced by Congressional Republicans on both Appropriations Committees to movement of FY22 legislation and calling for a year-long Continuing Resolution. If Congressional Republicans withhold their support for moving the appropriations bills, the process could be pushed into 2022 or beyond. It’s hard to tell at this point what will happen but the next month will be critical. The current CR expires on December 3rd.
Finally, Congress still has a number of major pieces of legislation on its to-do list. It still has to handle the nation’s debt limit and several pieces of “must pass” legislation, like the yearly defense policy bill. These are not likely to be easy jobs to complete and will be far from bipartisan. While the logjam was cleared with the passage of the infrastructure bill, it could return quickly. We’ll keep track of the situation and report back when new developments happen.