Bill Overview
Title: Safeguarding American Innovation Act
Description: This bill addresses the security of federally funded research and development grants and export-controlled goods, technologies, or sensitive information. The bill establishes in the Office of Management and Budget a Federal Research Security Council to develop federally funded research and development grant making policy and management guidance to protect the national and economic security interests of the United States. Each executive agency on the council shall be responsible for assessing federal research security risks posed by persons participating in federally funded research and development. The bill prohibits any individual from knowingly (1) preparing or submitting a federal grant application that fails to disclose the receipt of any outside compensation, including foreign compensation, by the individual; or (2) forging, counterfeiting, or otherwise falsifying a document to obtain a federal grant. An alien shall be inadmissible to the United States if a consulate or the Department of Justice knows the alien seeks to enter the United States to acquire export-controlled goods, technologies, or sensitive information if the Department of State has determined that such acquisition would be contrary to U.S. national security (including economic security). The bill revises provisions relating to the disclosure of foreign gifts.
Sponsors: Sen. Portman, Rob [R-OH]
Target Audience
Population: People involved in federally funded research and development and entities dealing with export-controlled technologies
Estimated Size: 2000000
- The bill affects individuals involved in federally funded research and development, which includes researchers and scientists who apply for federal grants.
- The bill impacts all entities that interact with export-controlled technologies and sensitive information.
- It affects researchers who might have received foreign compensation and did not disclose it while applying for federal grants.
- The bill could impact foreign individuals attempting to access sensitive technologies or data in the U.S.
- The legislation influences the operations of executive agencies that assess security risks in federal research projects.
- The bill also modifies rules around the disclosure of foreign gifts, which could impact universities or researchers receiving such gifts.
Reasoning
- The policy will primarily impact researchers in academia and industry receiving federal grants; this includes a large number of universities and tech companies involved in federal research.
- Some researchers might be negatively impacted if they fail to disclose foreign collaborations or compensation, which could penalize them or make them ineligible for future funding.
- Universities and research organizations will need to adjust their compliance and reporting practices, potentially increasing administrative burdens.
- Foreign researchers may have difficulties working in the U.S. if they are perceived as threats to national security, affecting the diversity and dynamism of U.S. research.
- Most individuals already compliant with regulations may see little change in wellbeing, aside from increased scrutiny.
- The policy's effects will vary significantly among the population, depending on the extent of their involvement in federally funded R&D.
Simulated Interviews
University Professor (Cambridge, MA)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy seems necessary for national security, but it could create a lot of red tape.
- It might become cumbersome for both the administration and researchers who already follow stringent compliance measures.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 8 |
Biotech Researcher (San Diego, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy is likely to increase the complexity of grant application processes, which might delay research timelines.
- However, ensuring security is crucial, especially in sensitive fields like ours.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Postdoc Researcher (New York, NY)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry this policy may discourage beneficial international collaborations.
- It's crucial to have clear guidelines so all researchers understand what's required.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
Tech Company Executive (Seattle, WA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy could increase administrative costs, but these are necessary for protecting our intellectual property.
- It's a worthwhile trade-off to ensure sensitive technologies are secure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
University Administrator (Chicago, IL)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy will increase my workload substantially, but it's essential for risk management.
- Adequate support and clear guidance from federal bodies would help.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Federal Employee (Houston, TX)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is essential for safeguarding national interests.
- It provides a framework to enforce compliance more effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
International Student Advisor (Austin, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This could affect international students badly, leading to fewer enrollments.
- The policy's clarity on what constitutes a security risk will be crucial.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Research Scientist (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support the policy's intent but worry about the bureaucratic hurdles it might create.
- Any barriers could slow down critical research and innovation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Senior Researcher (Los Alamos, NM)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Security is non-negotiable in our work, and this policy aligns well with our goals.
- It could make already stringent protocols even stricter, but this is acceptable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 9 |
Graduate Student (Newark, NJ)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There is a concern that the policy could limit learning opportunities via international projects.
- It's important to balance security with academic freedom and collaboration.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $60000000)
Year 2: $52000000 (Low: $41000000, High: $61000000)
Year 3: $54000000 (Low: $42000000, High: $62000000)
Year 5: $58000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $65000000)
Year 10: $66000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $72000000)
Year 100: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of the Federal Research Security Council in coordinating and implementing security measures across different agencies.
- Potential resistance or compliance challenges faced by researchers or institutions adapting to new disclosure requirements.
- The geopolitical context and its influence on the legislation's focus on foreign threats and export-controlled items.
- The potential for unintended consequences impacting international collaboration and partnerships in research.