|
What's
New @ IEEE-USA Vol. 2005, No. 7 (8 April 2005) |
This newsletter includes:
2) WHITE HOUSE & EXECUTIVE AGENCY WATCH
3) REPORTS, SPEECHES & DOCUMENTS OF NOTE
7) U.S. STATES WATCH (All 50 state legislatures meet in 2005, almost all between the months of January and June.)
8) OTHER ITEMS OF POSSIBLE INTEREST
COMMON THEME EMERGES IN CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS: DESPITE COMPETITION FOR LIMITED FY 2006 FUNDS, S&T PROGRAMS MUST BE FULLY FUNDED Recent House and Senate committee hearings reveal a predicament - how to appropriate limited funds among competing interests. They also raised concerns about the lasting effects of the low FY 2006 S&T funding proposals, and continued U.S. competitiveness. For example, a 9 March hearing by the Senate Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities demonstrated the potential of Department of Defense S&T programs. However, the DoD’s FY 2006 request cut almost $3 billion for S&T programs compared to FY 2005, and fell short of a 3% goal stated in the 2001 Quadrennial Defense Review. (The goal states that 3% of total defense spending should be allocated to 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 programs – basic national security research programs that focus on long-term goals leading to new technologies.) Concerned, Subcommittee Chairman John Cornyn (R-TX) asked Ronald Sega, Director of Defense Research and Engineering, for an explanation of the strategy behind the low request. Sega acknowledged the 3% figure as a goal, but also said we are "in a time of a lot of competing demands," and that a balanced investment is required across all components of DOD's budget. Cornyn went on to stress that decades of investment in basic research at laboratories and universities have resulted in technologies that save lives on today’s battlefields. He also outlined his concerns about ensuring a scientifically and technically trained workforce. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) reiterated, "I hope the witnesses can explain how it was decided to reduce investments in science and technology, especially at a time when the benefits of those investments are becoming so easy to see." For the written testimony of the DoD officials appearing at this hearing, see http://armed-services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=1408 Another Senate supporter of federal S&T programs, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), inserted S&T supportive language in the forthcoming Senate Budget Committee report accompanying the Senate Budget Resolution. He says, "The budget resolution recognizes the importance of the research and education initiatives of the [DOE's] Office of Science and the [NSF] to the nation's economic future and our position as the world's leader in technology innovation. Investment in the physical sciences, life sciences, engineering, mathematics, and computing is critical to our national security, energy security, as well as development of the next generation of America's scientists and engineers." On the House side, during another 9 March hearing on the NSF’s budget request by the House Science Subcommittee on Research, Chairman Bob Inglis (R-SC) enthusiastically supported NSF, its basic research and science education responsibilities, and the value of basic research to America’s future competitiveness. "Basic research is surely the lifeblood of innovation," he said. "Without NSF supporting basic research, our edge in science will slip away." Ranking Member Darlene Hooley (D-OR) called NSF’s request "clearly inadequate to meet [NSF’s] wide-ranging responsibilities." Both subcommittee members questioned the proposed reductions in NSF science education programs and the transfer of $48 million to fund icebreakers at the Coast Guard. NSF Director Arden Bement explained that the decision to transfer funds for the icebreakers was made by the White House out of concern that the Coast Guard’s homeland security responsibilities would not support maintenance of the ships for scientific research, thus putting NSF's "polar programs at risk.” Bement went on to say that NSF has spent over 10 years supporting rural and urban systemic education initiatives, and now the best practices and lessons learned “need to be propagated across all school districts in the country.” The place with the resources to do so, he said, is "in the Department of Education." Congressman Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), chairman of the House Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards of the House Science Committee, echoed the theme of balancing the need for increased S&T funding in times of limited availability when he appeared before the newly established House Appropriations Subcommittee on Science, State, Justice, and Commerce and Related Agencies. Ehlers said, "I know your Subcommittee must consider many pressing national priorities as you prepare the FY 2006 Appropriations bill,… In choosing among the important programs in the new Science, State, Justice, and Commerce Appropriations bill, we must not overlook the fact that scientific research and development forms the foundation of increased innovation, economic vitality, and national security for our nation." Ehlers comments also included the following:
"One of our nation's most critical science organizations is the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Almost every Federal agency and U.S. industry sector uses the standards, measurements, and certification services that NIST labs provide. The future of many cutting-edge technologies depends on the research and technical expertise of NIST's laboratories. Emerging fields such as nanotechnology, quantum computing, and bioengineering will not mature into U.S. job-creating industries and markets without the existence of scientifically-based industrial standards. …NIST's expertise in this kind of cutting-edge science is crucial for U.S. industry to remain competitive in the increasingly globalized economy. "I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that you provide the President's requested funding of $426 million in FY 2006 for the Scientific and Technical Research Services (STRS) account at NIST. This is the bare minimum level necessary for NIST laboratories to continue their vital contribution to our national economy and security." "Also …, I would like to mention the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program. …it is critical to help provide the edge that U.S. manufacturers need to compete in the global economy. Without funding MEP at $106 million in FY 2006, MEP centers across the country will be forced to cut back their vital services … that are not replicated by any other private or public organization."
"Given NSF's importance to both national defense and homeland security, it is critical to provide for at least inflationary increases each year. … Due to the importance of NSF objectives, including support for core science research, the development of information technology, engineering research, and K-12 education programs, I believe it is necessary for us to quickly remedy [proposed FY 2006] reductions. …I respectfully request that you fund NSF at $6.1 billion for FY06 and would appreciate your consideration of any additional amounts." "I am particularly concerned about the trend of the current budget request that reduces the Education and Human Resources (EHR) budget at [NSF] by more than $104 million, or 12 percent. … Now more than ever, workers need a fundamental understanding of math, science and engineering as well as technical know-how to succeed. This type of education research is performed at NSF,… I ask that the committee restore the funding to NSF in this year's appropriations process to a level that recognizes the important role NSF plays in education, defense, homeland security, and a healthy national economy." THE NEXT STEP The committees you’ve heard about thus far in the budget process are merely authorizing the spending items. They give agencies permission to spend money. Ultimately, the appropriations committees, which provide the actual amount of money to spend, will decide funding. Now that both the House and Senate have now passed their versions of a budget resolution, its time to move on to the final compromise resolution which will guide the FY 2006 appropriations process in each chamber. The new chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, Jerry Lewis (R-CA), has told his subcommittee chairmen to put their draft appropriations bills on a fast track. What does this all mean? On the one hand, S&T programs have many allies in Congress. But the opportunity to ensure sufficient funding will be gone if those allies don’t gain support among their colleagues… soon. Remember, many of the legislators supported R&D funding last year and budgets were still cut. So, where do we go from here? POLICYMAKERS SAY CONTITUENTS WHO ACT HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE On 5-6 April, IEEE-USA along with ASME, ASCE and many of the other engineering societies sponsored an Engineering R&D Symposium on Capitol Hill to discuss the federal budget outlook for FY 2006. Many of the speakers – from federal agencies, private entities and Congress - played on the themes of “innovation means a strong economy” and “the current budget doesn’t support innovation” that we’ve heard over and over since the 109th Congress began 3 months ago. Bill Bonvillian, Senator Joe Lieberman’s (D-CT) Legislative Director, said that federal R&D is the “engine” that has historically played a role in powering our economic engine. Therefore, we can not be stingy when it comes to funding R&D. Bonvillian also reminded us that R&D funding is seen as a “discretionary” budget item. If it is true that innovation, a result of R&D, drives economic growth, then we can no longer allow R&D to be discretionary. He warned of the risks of continuing the traditional mindset that R&D items are optional in the face of big economic challenges such as globalization, outsourcing and loss of manufacturing, and asks, “What will our economy look like?” Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ), himself a physicist and one of the few scientists in Congress, quickly impressed upon the audience that the future of R&D funding is not hopeless. Holt stressed that he wants the engineering community to pull together and work together to provide strong feedback to policymakers. “Its easy to get funding for things like prostate cancer research, but its not easy to find funding for the tools and technology used in that research. …You must invest in the foundation.” Holt, in looking for ways to point out how it important it was for constituents to mobilize and act, pointed out an unpleasant truth, “Engineers and scientists are known to be politically impotent.” A careful listen told us that Holt was not merely criticizing but trying to point out the missed potential of the engineering community. Holt stressed the importance of action among not just the engineering societies in Washington, but of individual constituents out in the districts. Congresswoman Judy Biggert (R-Ill.) expressed her admiration for the S&T community and added to Holt’s plea by asking engineers to individually inform their congressional representatives of the importance of increased funding to continued U.S. innovation. Continuing the call for action, David Goldston, chief of staff for the House Science Committee stressed the potential of and opportunity for those outside the Washington Beltway. “Congressional support for science is broad but not deep.” There’s a general feeling of goodwill towards the issues but not many advocates. Few members of Congress define their congressional agenda as supportive of R&D. This is not due to lack of interest or desire. It’s merely a result of nature of the public policy process – those who speak the loudest, get the most attention. SO WHAT DO YOU DO? An example of a solid opportunity for constituent involvement exists immediately. One of the best methods to demonstrate support for a program is through a joint letter signed by many Members of Congress. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) are attempting to increase funding for the Department of Energy's Office of Science next year by gathering their colleagues’ signatures on a letter they plan to send to Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Pete Domenici(R-NM) and Ranking Member Harry Reid (D-NV). The letter requests their, "support for an inflation-adjusted increase of 3.2 percent over FY05 budget levels for this Office, a 7 percent increase above the Administration's FY06 request." The success of their effort directly depends upon the extent to which constituents contact their senators before April 14th. The following 26 senators have agreed to sign the letter: Alexander (TN), Allen (VA), Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Bingaman (NM), Boxer (CA), Cantwell (WA), Dodd (CT), Dorgan (ND), Durbin (IL), Harkin (IA), Inouye (HI), Kennedy (MA), Kerry (MA), Lautenberg (NJ), Levin (MI), Lieberman (CT), Mikulski (MD), Murray (WA), Nelson (FL), Obama (IL), Pryor (AR), Salazar (CO), Specter (PA), Stabenow (MI) and Warner (VA). A similar letter last year was signed by these 55 senators (unseated members’ names removed): Akaka (HI), Alexander (TN), Baucus (MT), Bayh (IN), Biden (DE), Bingaman (NM), Boxer (CA), Cantwell (WA), Clinton (NY), Coleman (MN), Cornyn (TX), Corzine (NJ), Dayton (MN), DeWine (OH), Dodd (CT), Dorgan (ND), Durbin (IL), Feinstein (CA), Graham (SC), Harkin (IA), Hutchinson (TX), Inouye (HI), Kennedy (MA), Kerry (MA), Kohl (WI), Landrieu (LA), Lautenberg (NJ), Leahy (VT), Levin (MI), Lieberman (CT), Lincoln (AR), Lugar (IN), Mikulski (MD), Murray (WA), Nelson (FL), Pryor (AR), Reed (RI), Roberts (KS), Rockefeller (WV), Santorum (PA), Sarbanes (MD), Schumer (NY), Smith (OR), Snowe (ME), Specter (PA), Stabenow (MI), Voinovich (OH), Warner (VA) and Wyden (OR) Members of Congress receive many "Dear Colleague" letters requesting their signatures in support for a program. Thus, the probability that a Member will sign a letter greatly increases if constituents contact their congressional representatives and ask the Member to sign. Members who have previously signed a similar letter are more likely to do so again. To find your members, go to www.senate.gov. The letter that Senators Alexander and Bingaman will send in the middle of April states: "There is no room for complacency about maintaining the United States' current scientific strength and technological leadership. …This Office, the largest funding source for research in the physical sciences, keeps the United States at the leading edge of discovery in high performance computing, nanotechnology, and in basic energy research and related biosciences. "This Office, the largest funding source for research in the physical sciences, keeps the United States at the leading edge of discovery in high performance computing, nanotechnology, and in basic energy research and related biosciences.' If you wish to read the full text of the letter, please write to me at e.wissolik@ieee.org and I will send it to you. In summary, to build support, you must be a 'voice' for R&D. But how can you do this and who should be your audience? Ideally, everyone in Congress is a target. But of particular importance are the new members still learning what issues their constituents find important. Easy allies also include members representing districts where the economy depends on R&D funding. Becoming involved isn’t complicated but it does mean making more than one attempt. The secret is building a relationship that you can use. Writing letters and making phone calls helps, but also take advantage of opportunities that allow you to put a face on the engineering community. Go to town hall meetings and local events attended by your Senator or Congressman. Introduce yourself whenever possible. As Goldston said during the symposium, 'A presence in DC is helpful but it must be supplemented by lobbying at home. Do it over and over until they know who you are and what you represent." Also, as you may know IEEE-USA sponsors career fly-in days and Congressional Visits Days, both of which give you the opportunity to actually sit down with your members and discuss the issues. The bottom line is that no one is against the sciences, innovation or R&D. There just aren't enough voices telling Congress that the issues should be moved to the top of the list. As another symposium speaker said, “If innovation is truly the only way to grow the economy, we don't have any other moves."
4 APRIL: Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) and John Cornyn (R-Tex.) held a roundtable discussion on the subject of foreign student visas. Excerpts of Alexander’s comments follow. The complete text can be read at http://alexander.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=692&Month=4&Year=2005 "When I was president of the University of Tennessee in 1989, about the time of Tiananmen Square, I remember suggesting to George Herbert Walker Bush that he should grant immediate citizenship to the 30,000 Chinese students who were then studying in our country. I wish I’d been stronger in my recommendation because if he had or we had as a country," it would've done for this generation what the German scientists did for the U.S. after World War II. "We have 572,000 international students studying in the United States... Many of them are scientists, engineers and computer specialists. … They do us a favor by coming," and creating jobs. The senators have not yet announced subsequent meetings or discussions.
House Small Business Committee Chairman Donald Manzullo (R-Ill) plans to use a 6 April hearing to try to convince the Export-Import Bank to grant a $770 million syndicated loan guarantee to a Chinese company, Shanghai-based Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. Manzullo says that if the loan doesn’t go through, chip-making equipment that could be sold by U.S. suppliers instead will be sold to the Chinese by Japanese suppliers.
Manzullo along with members of the Texas congressional delegation, some of whom represent companies like Texas Instruments and a division of AMD, argue that the loan guarantee would protect the jobs of people now working in the domestic semiconductor equipment industry.
Congressional allies of American chip maker Micron Technology Inc. oppose the loan because U.S. tax money would be used to guarantee a loan that strengthens China, a competitor in the global marketplace.
Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle are eager to preserve a tax break that rewards companies for boosting their research spending, and encourages the risks inherent in R&D of products and ideas that may or may not yield profits.
Congress renews the credit every year or two to keep a check on deficit estimates. The current tax break which expires at 2005’s end, costs $6 billion a year. A bill to extend it is one of the few tax measures likely to be enacted this year and word has it that Senate tax writers want to make the credit even more generous. The President has called for making the credit permanent at a 10-year cost of $76 billion.
Critics of the credit say it does not always deliver what it promises, and charge that it often pays for mundane and redundant work. For example, companies regularly claim the credit for rediscovering patents they already own and expired patents that are in the public domain. No one can point to an academic or government study that proves the credit has actually stimulated extra research. “This story unfortunately has epic qualities about it,” said David Martin, a patent consultant who has become a self-styled R&D whistleblower. “We think we’re funding innovation, but we’re not.” Other criticisms decry that the tax breaks are given for research that was funded by the federal government in the first place.
“There are some instances where the entirety of the company is government research and they’re claiming the credit,” said Martin. His company, M-CAM, studied publicly traded firms that disclose use of the credit in their financial filings. Of those, 20 percent reported that government contracts and grants were a major source of research funding.
On the other hand, the drug makers, software developers and other high-tech interests who support the credit say it keeps R&D at home and keeps U.S. companies on the cutting edge of the global economy.
To be fair to the companies, they and their accountants are not necessarily to blame for claiming credits when maybe they shouldn’t. The credit has been a part of the tax code for more than two decades, but the Treasury Department didn’t issue final regulations defining research until 2004. Even tax lawyers say it still isn’t clear which activities qualify and which do not. And Treasury rules don’t require companies claiming the credit to do work that hasn’t already been patented or published. Treasury considered it too burdensome to ask companies to review scholarly journals to make sure their research wasn’t already available, according to a senior Treasury official. And the IRS didn’t want its auditors, who typically don’t have scientific expertise, to evaluate research.
Last month, Senate Finance Chairman Charles E. Grassley, (R-Iowa), called the first hearing in years on the subject. Grassley is eager to extend the research credit and the only change being considered is a request that companies get a prior IRS approval before claiming the credit.
9 MARCH: Today, 33 IEEE members from across the United States descended upon Capitol Hill to express their concerns over the state of the engineering profession. Participants represented 18 states. After a training session on March 8th, they met with their legislators and/or staff in private meetings arranged by IEEE-USA. Among the legislators they spoke with were House Speaker Dennis Hastert, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, House Judiciary Chair James Sensenbrenner and Senate Judiciary Chair Arlen Specter.
Participants communicated their concern that the engineering profession in America is weakening. The number of technology engineers employed in the US is declining, even as the overall economy continues to recover. Worse, the number of American students receiving advance degrees in engineering and other technical fields has fallen sharply in recent years, which is not surprising given their declining job prospects upon graduation.
Legislators notice when their voters spend time and money to travel to DC. Participants guaranteed that, for at least a few minutes, their legislators were focused on their engineering voters' concerns and proposed solutions. These meetings are the best way to communicate concerns to elected officials and IEEE-USA thanks the participants for their help.
All American IEEE members were invited to participate in the Fly-In. IEEE-USA will be holding a second Fly-In on May 10th and 11th to discuss federal spending on basic research and development. All IEEE members are encouraged to participate. Information on the May Fly-In - called Congressional Visits Day or "CVD" - can be found here. IEEE members who are interested in future legislative events should join the CARE program by e-mailing IEEE-USA staffer Russ Harrison at r.t.harrison@ieee.org or by going to http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/care/default.asp. 2) WHITE HOUSE & EXECUTIVE AGENCY WATCH 28 MARCH: Bureau of Industry and Security, 15 CFR Parts 734 & 772, Federal Register, Revision and Clarification of Deemed Export Related Regulatory Requirements The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is reviewing the recommendations contained in the U.S. Department of Commerce Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report entitled, “Deemed Export Controls May Not Stop the Transfer of Sensitive Technology to Foreign Nationals in the U.S.” Certain of these recommendations would require regulatory changes that would affect existing requirements and policies for deemed export licenses. BIS is seeking comments on how these revisions would affect industry, the academic community, and U.S. government agencies involved in research. For the full text of the notice, visit http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/05-06057.htm DATES: The period for submission of comments will close 27 May 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Lopes, Director, Deemed Exports and Electronics Division, Bureau of Industry and Security, telephone: (202) 482-4875, or e-mail: alopes@bis.doc.gov. Copies of the referenced OIG Report are available at http://www.oig.doc.gov/oig/reports/2004/BIS-IPE-16176-03-2004.pdf
6 APRIL: NASA’s latest budget proposal, eliminates funding for the two Voyager probes — launched in 1977 and now approaching the outer reaches of the solar system — continuing a trend of paring back NASA programs that do not further President Bush’s plan to return to human spaceflight. The administration wants astronauts to return to the moon and eventually travel to Mars. Lawmakers and some space experts are increasingly critical of the White House’s wishes, saying the proposed cuts would harm valuable research. NASA said the Voyagers, whose missions have been extended well beyond their original 5-year task, are facing budget cuts because they were low on a priority list of the agency’s missions drafted in 2003 by outside experts. The probes cost $4.2 million annually. NASA’s fiscal 2006 budget also discontinues funding for the Hubble Space Telescope. 5 APRIL: NASA rolled the shuttle Discovery from the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) to the launch pad this afternoon after a delay. High humidity levels and lack of air conditioning in the VAB posed problems for some last minute application of the adhesive used in between the tiles.
The rollout is one of the last major steps before Discovery's launch, currently targeted for the May 15 to June 3 time frame. 3) REPORTS, SPEECHES & DOCUMENTS OF NOTE
29 MARCH: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in MGM v. Grokster – the entertainment industry’s bid against Silicon Valley to close down services that let users swap music, movies and software online. The entertainment industry contends that copyright owners must be protected; record labels and film studios estimate they lose $7 billion a year to piracy, much of it online. Technology manufacturers argue that file sharing is good for the Internet's future, and argue that a ruling for the entertainment industry might stifle innovation and undermine a 20-year-old precedent shielding manufacturers of products with legitimate uses from liability for copyright infringement by their customers. The 1984 Betamax decision protected Sony from liability for copyright infringement by people using its video recorders. Deciding whether file-sharing companies are liable for copyright infringement when their software is used to trade pirated content has profound implications for both sides of the case. Faced with two very good arguments, it appears that the justices are seeking some middle ground to distinguish the entrepreneurs developing legitimate technology from those who steal intellectual property. That middle ground could come in the form of defining "active inducement," a solution the Court raised during the oral arguments. As reported here several weeks ago, IEEE-USA filed an amicus brief stating that a provider of dual-use technology (capable of both infringing and non-infringing use, such as a VCR or a file-sharing system) should not be liable for the infringements of users unless the provider has actively induced the user to infringe. IEEE-USA Intellectual Property Committee Chair Andrew Greenberg says, "File-sharing technology serves as the basis for the Internet and should be unrestricted to produce future revolutionary digital products. On the other hand, copyright owners must not be left to the mercy of those who set out to knowingly and intentionally induce third parties to infringe. The fact that neither party has embraced the Court's suggestion confirms that active inducement maybe be the middle ground the Court is seeking." The full text of the amicus brief can be found at http://www.ieeeusa.org/volunteers/committees/ipc/ipc-amicus-brief-resource.asp. The Court's decision is not expected until this June or July.
NASA will be soliciting proposals to conduct radiation belt storm probes investigations in June 2005. These investigations will aim to provide understanding of how populations of relativistic electrons and ions in space are formed or changed in response to solar variations. Eligibility is unrestricted. Proposals will be due 90 days after the formal solicitation's release. More information is available at: http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/eps/synopsis.cgi?acqid=114726
DOE invites applications for cost-shared research projects directed at minimizing freshwater use and consumption in the generation of coal-based thermoelectric power. Specifically, this solicitation supports the development of cost-effective solutions to emerging regulations and restrictions on water use and impacts on water quality associated with the generation of electricity by coal-fired power plants. Up to $4 million is expected to be available for awards ranging from $200,000 to $1.1 million for a project period of up to three years; cost-sharing of at least 20 percent is required. All types of applicants are eligible to apply, except other federal agencies, Federally Funded Research and Development Center contractors, and some nonprofit organizations. Applications are due June 10, 2005. More information is available at: http://www.fedgrants.gov/Applicants/DOE/PAM/HQ/DE-PS26-05NT42411/listing.html
The Department of the Navy will be soliciting proposals for a contract award to support research and development in distributed simulation technologies, and computer modeling and simulation. The period of performance will be for one base year with two option one-year periods. All responsible sources will be eligible to submit proposals. More information is available at: http://www1.eps.gov/spg/DON/ONR/N00173/N00173%2D05%2DR%2DJK06/listing.html The Army is soliciting proposals for missile defense interceptor technologies. Areas of interest include seekers; guidance, navigation and control; propulsion and divert and attitude control systems; avionics; windows and structures; innovative algorithm concepts; applicable to interceptors; and other applicable interceptor technologies. Awards ranging from $100,000 to $2.5 million for a project period of up to 18 months are anticipated. All sources capable of satisfying the government's needs are eligible to submit proposals, which are due Aug. 15, 2005, for the next round of awards. More information is available at: http://www2.eps.gov/spg/USA/SMDC/DASG60/DASG60%2D03%2D0003%2DP00004/listing.html The Navy will be soliciting proposals for continued research and development in techniques for processing and communicating data that preserve critical system properties, such as security, safety, availability, and timely delivery of computational results, and improve formal methods for analyzing and developing software and hardware systems. One contract award having a project period of 12 months with four 12-month option periods is anticipated. All responsible sources may submit proposals. More information is available at: http://www2.eps.gov/spg/DON/ONR/N00173/N00173%2D05%2DR%2DTB04/listing.html The Navy is seeking sources to participate in a Research and Development Technologies Solutions Counsel. The counsel will identify technologies that could have benefits to current Defense Logistics Information Service systems and business processes. Approximately $20 million to $30 million over fiscal years 2005-10 is expected to be available for awards of up to $500,000 for a project period of five years. All non-governmental entities are eligible to submit white papers, which are due June 6, 2005. More information is available at: http://www2.eps.gov/spg/DON/NAVSEA/N00164/N0016405R6659/listing.html The Navy is soliciting proposals for its Military Flight Operations Quality Assurance Demonstration Project. Sources are sought to assist the Navy in demonstrating and validating innovative concepts and technologies that will reduce operating and maintenance costs, improve operational readiness, and reduce mishap risks associated with flight operations. Interested sources should submit proposals by June 7, 2005, to be considered for the first round of funding. More information is available at: http://www2.eps.gov/spg/DON/NAVSEA/N00167/N0016705BAA08/listing.html The Navy is soliciting white papers proposing innovative approaches and concepts under the Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative. The initiative is a collaborative effort to harness the power of information technologies to modernize structured learning. Phase I awards ranging from $100,000 to $400,000 for a 12-month project period are anticipated. All responsible sources capable of satisfying the needs may submit white papers, which are due 15 April 2005. Full proposals, which are by invitation only, will be due June 1, 2005. More information is available at: http://www2.eps.gov/spg/DON/NAVAIR/N61339/N61339%2D05%2DR%2D0061/listing.html
USDA announces the availability of up to $22.8 million in FY 2005 grant funds to purchase renewable energy systems and make energy improvements for agricultural producers and rural small businesses. Of the $22.8 million, $11.4 million will be set aside through Aug. 31, 2005, for guaranteed loans. Any guaranteed loan funds not obligated by that time will be made available for competitive grants. To be eligible, agricultural producers or rural small business must demonstrate financial need. Grant requests may not exceed 25 percent of the eligible project costs. Applications are due no later than 90 days after this solicitation's publication date, which was March 28. More information is available at: ttp://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-5793.htm USDA invites applications for funding under the Community Connect Grant Program to provide broadband transmission service in currently unserved areas. The program seeks to promote economic growth in extremely rural, lower-income communities on a "community-oriented connectivity" basis. Approximately $8.9 million is available for minimum grant awards of $50,000. Matching contributions of at least 15 percent are required. Eligibility is unrestricted. Applications are due 31 May 2005. More information is available at: http://www.usda.gov/rus/telecom/commconnect.htm
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) announces the availability of up to $5 million for grants to eligible Workforce Investment Boards that have demonstrated successfully the ability to form working partnerships with grassroots faith-based and community organizations, including minority- or immigrant-led nonprofit or community development organizations, or other small nonprofit organizations. ETA is investing in demonstration projects in 12 high-growth sectors: advanced manufacturing, automotive services, biotechnology, construction, energy, financial services, geospatial technology, healthcare, hospitality, information technology (IT) & IT business-related services, retail, and transportation. Up to 20 awards ranging from $300,000 to $500,000 for a project period of 18 months will be made. Applications are due May 4, 2005. More information is available at: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-6022.htm
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) invites applications for funding under the Minority Institutions of Higher Education (MIHE) Competitive Technical Assistance Program. This program is limited to participation by Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, American Indian Serving Institutions, Alaskan Native Serving Institutions, and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions. The goal is to foster MIHE participation in research and technology activities that contribute substantially to the FHWA mission and to prepare the faculty and students at MIHEs to successfully participate in the competitive research arena. Three awardsare anticipated; cost-sharing of at least 20 percent is required. Applications are due 3 May 2005. More information is available at: http://www.fedgrants.gov/Applicants/DOT/FHA/HAAM/DTFH61-05-RA-00105/listing.html
SF is soliciting proposals for funding under the Faculty Early Career Development Program. This program offers the agency's most prestigious awards for the early career-development activities of those teacher-scholars who most effectively integrate research and education within the context of the mission of their organization. Approximately $85 million is expected to be available for 300-400 awards of at least $400,000 for a five-year project period. Eligible are nonprofit organizations and academic institutions in the U.S., its territories or possessions, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, that award degrees in a field supported by NSF. Proposal deadlines for 2005 projects range from July 19 to July 21 of 2005. More information is available at: http://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf05579 NSF is soliciting proposals for funding under the Teacher Professional Continuum program. This program addresses critical issues and infrastructure needs regarding the recruitment, preparation, induction, retention, and lifelong development of K-12 science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) teachers. Approximately $15 million in FY 2006 funding is expected to be available for 25-30 awards. Eligibility is unrestricted. Required preliminary proposals are due 31 May 2005; full proposals are due 16 Sept. 2005. More information is available at: ttp://www.nsf.gov/publications/pub_summ.jsp?ods_key=nsf05580
The SBC Foundation is accepting applications for funding under the SBC Excelerator technology grants program. This program seeks to fund projects that build the technology infrastructure of nonprofits, enabling them to increase their organizational effectiveness or service delivery capability. Examples of qualifying projects include expanding or enhancing Internet access, data networking, online outreach, increasing staff technology capacity, and pooled technology resources. Approximately $9 million is available for one-year grants of up to $25,000. Collaborations by two or more organizations will be considered for grants of up to $50,000. To be eligible, organizations must have an emphasis in education, community development, health and human services, or arts and culture. Applications are due June 15, 2005. More information is available at: http://www.sbc.com/gen/corporate-citizenship?pid=58
The American Association for the Advancement of Science has a new service called GrantsNet Express. Each week GrantsNet will provide a listing of science funding opportunities from private foundations and organizations, and new U.S. government grant announcements in the sciences. AAAS will send GrantsNet by e-mail to AAAS member subscribers. The weekly emails will include: -- New science funding programs, divided into opportunities for postdocs/graduate students and undergraduates -- Submission deadlines for funding opportunities scheduled in the upcoming week -- A new listing of funding for science-related grant programs from U.S. government agencies To register, visit http://www2.sciencecareers.org/promos/grantsubmit.asp Examples of this week's grants are:
6) CONFERENCES, FELLOWSHIPS, PROGRAMS & INTERNSHIPS FOR ENGINEERS, and STUDENTS and SCHOLARS OF ENGINEERING An engineer once changed careers to serve as Calvin Coolidge's Vice President. As vice president, Charles Dawes influenced the public policy process and won a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. Dawes might be an extreme example, but that doesn't mean engineers can't influence the public policy process in other ways. If you don't want to run for office but would like to take a year off from your regular job, IEEE-USA is now accepting applications for the 2007 government fellowship program that links engineers with government. Our 2005 fellows are working on issues such as homeland security and R&D funding. For more information on what past fellows have learned and experienced, see http://ieeeusa.com/policy/govfel/cfalumni.html. The deadline is 20 February 2006 and application materials are available at: http://ieeeusa.com/policy/govfel/index.html
U.S. Senator Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) announced the formation of the Arkansas Nanotechnology Alliance (ANA) during a recent visit to the Arkansas Research & Technology Park. Pryor will chair the statewide consortium, bringing together "universities, federal agencies, and private sector partners to develop, launch and nurture nanotechnology initiatives." Some of the possibilities include:
8) OTHER ITEMS OF POSSIBLE INTEREST
1 APRIL: John Moore, a writer for CIO Insight, an on-line news source for the IT business community wrote, "There's little controversy on whether offshoring lets IT services firms become more cost-effective. The wage disparity between the United States and countries like India is well documented, and brand-name integrators and even some mid-tier players have benefited from cost cutting via the outsourcing route." If companies have the "choice of whether to save money by outsourcing or spend more money by keeping U.S. workers, it's pretty obvious they are going to save money," noted Ronil Hira, assistant professor of public policy at Rochester Institute of Technology. Hira also is vice president of career activities at the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers-USA.
And saving money on outsourcing should allow some companies to keep some jobs in the United States that they might otherwise have had to eliminate.
The premise that outsourcing—regardless of flavor or variation—can preserve jobs at home generates plenty of reaction. For complete text of this article, go to http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,1397,1781796,00.asp
Both the Pittsburgh Technology Council (PTC) and the Sacramento Area Regional Technology Alliance (SARTA) recently released statistics on the health of their region's technology sectors. The reports analyze the impact of technology clusters on the local economy.
PTC's annual State of the Industry report gathers growth indicators from state and federal resources to track southwestern Pennsylvania's employment statistics, number of tech companies, and total annual payroll for information technology, life science, advanced manufacturing, advanced materials, and environmental technology industries. According to PTC, the goal is to quantify the impact and draw attention to the region's significant technological resources.
The 13-county analysis also features an overview of eight emerging clusters such as robotics, supercomputing and nanotechnology. In addition to industry-specific measurements, the report provides numerical data that include R&D expenditures at universities, average annual SBIR funding, and venture capital disbursements.
The SARTA Technology Index tracks the 50 leading high-tech and life science companies driving growth in a 9-county region. SARTA uses proprietary software to calculate movement in the financial metrics of revenue, employees, and equity capital raised. SARTA is able to monitor the tech sector within the region and identify companies that demonstrate success in order to attract venture capital to the area. Both PTC and SARTA reported overall growth for their respective regions. The Pittsburgh State of the Industry Report 2005 is available at: http://news.pghtech.org/report.cfm. More information on SARTA's Technology Index is available at: http://www.sarta.org/TechIndex.aspx NEXT ISSUE: 22 April 2005 Top of Page | What's New@IEEE | EyeOnWash Archive | Policy Forum | IEEE-USA What's New @ IEEE-USA's Eye on Washington highlights important federal legislative and regulatory developments that affect U.S. engineers and their careers. In addition to this biweekly newsletter, subscribers receive legislative bulletins and action alerts on IEEE-USA priority issues, including: retirement security, employment benefits, research & development funding, computers and information policy, immigration reform, intellectual property protection and privacy of health/medical information. EDITOR: Erica Wissolik, IEEE-USA, 2001 L Street, N.W., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20036-5104, Email: ewissolik@ieee.orgYou can subscribe to receive IEEE-USA's Eye on Washington by e-mail by using the forms at http://whatsnew.ieee.org/ or at http://www.ieeeusa.org/emailupdates/ or by contacting e.wissolik@ieee.org with your request. Copyright © 2005, The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Permission granted to copy for personal use or for non-commercial republication with appropriate attribution. |