trump-and-harris-are-sharply-divided-on-science,-but-share-common-ground-on-us-technology policy

Trump and Harris are sharply divided on science, but share common ground on US technology policy

by Uncategorized

For the first time in American history, quantum computing was mentioned by a candidate during a presidential debate, on Sept. 10, 2024. After Vice President Kamala Harris brought up quantum technology, she and former President Donald Trump went on to have a heated back-and-forth about American chipmaking and China’s rise in semiconductor manufacturing. Science and technology policy usually takes a back seat to issues such as immigration, the economy and health care during election season.

What’s changed for 2024?

From COVID-19 to climate change, ChatGPT to, yes, quantum computers, science-related issues are on the minds of American policymakers and voters alike. The federal government spends nearly US$200 billion each year on scientific research and development to address these challenges and many others. Presidents and Congress, however, rarely agree on how – and how much – money should be spent on science.

With the increasing public focus on global competitiveness, the climate crisis and artificial intelligence, a closer look at Trump’s and Harris’ records on science and technology policy could provide a hint about how they’d approach these topics if elected this fall.

Two distinct visions for science funding

If politics can be described as “who gets what and when,” U.S. science and technology policy can be assessed through the annual budget process for R&D. By this measure, the differences between the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations couldn’t be starker.

In his first budget request to Congress, in 2017, Trump spurned decades of precedent, proposing historic cuts across nearly every federal science agency. In particular, Trump targeted climate-related programs at the Department of Energy, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Trump’s fiscal policy took a page from Reagan-era conservative orthodoxy, prioritizing military spending over social programs, including R&D. Unlike Reagan, however, Trump also took aim at basic research funding, an area with long-standing bipartisan support in Congress. His three subsequent budget proposals were no different: across-the-board reductions to federal research programs, while pushing for increases to defense technology development and demonstration projects.

Congress rebuked nearly all of Trump’s requests. Instead, it passed some of the largest increases to federal R&D programs in U.S. history, even before accounting for emergency spending packages funded as part of the government’s pandemic response.

In contrast, the Biden-Harris administration made science and innovation a centerpiece of its early policy agenda – with budgets to match. Leveraging the slim Democratic majority during the 117th Congress, Biden and Harris shepherded three landmark bills into law: the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the Inflation Reduction Act and the CHIPS and Science Act. These laws contain significant R&D provisions focused on environmental projects (IIJA), clean energy (IRA) and American semiconductor manufacturing (CHIPS).

CHIPS set up programs within the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce to create regional technology hubs in support of American manufacturing. The act also set ambitious funding targets for federal science agencies, especially at NSF, calling for its budget to be doubled from $9 billion to over $18 billion over the course of five years.

Despite its initial push for R&D, the Biden-Harris administration’s final two budget proposals offered far less to science. Years of deficit spending and a new Republican majority in the House cast a cloud of budget austerity over Congress. Instead of moving toward doubling NSF’s budget, the agency suffered an 8% decrease in fiscal year 2024 – its biggest cut in over three decades. For FY2025, which runs from Oct. 1, 2024, through Sept. 30, 2025, Biden and Harris requested a meager 3% increase for NSF, billions of dollars short of CHIPS-enacted spending levels.

An emerging consensus on China

On technology policy, Biden and Harris share more with Trump than they let on.

Their approach to competing with China on tech follows Trump’s lead: They’ve expanded tariffs on Chinese goods and severely limited China’s access to American-made computer chips and semiconductor manufacturing equipment.

Biden and Harris have also ramped up research security efforts intended to protect U.S. ideas and innovation from China. Trump launched the China Initiative as an attempt to stop the Chinese government from stealing American research. The Biden-Harris administration ended the program in 2022, but pieces of it remain in place. Scientific collaborations between the United States and China continue to decline, to the detriment of American scientific leadership.

The Biden-Harris administration has also drawn from Trump-era policy to strengthen America’s leadership in “industries of the future.” The term, coined by Trump’s then-chief science adviser Kelvin Droegemeier, refers to five emerging technology areas: AI, quantum science, advanced manufacturing, advanced communications and biotechnology. This language has been parroted by the Biden-Harris administration as part of its focus on American manufacturing and throughout Harris’ campaign, including during the debate.

In short, both candidates align with the emerging Washington bipartisan consensus on China: innovation policy at home, strategic decoupling abroad.

Science advice not always a welcome resource

Trump’s dismissal of and at times outright contempt for scientific consensus is well documented. From “Sharpiegate,” when he mapped his own projected path for Hurricane Dorian, to pulling out of the Paris climate agreement, World Health Organization and the Iran nuclear deal, Trump has demonstrated an unwillingness to accept any advice, let alone from scientists.

Indeed, Trump took over two years to hire Droegemeier as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, or OSTP, doubling the previous record for the length of time a president has gone without a scientific adviser. This absence was no doubt reflected in Trump’s short-on-science budget requests to Congress, especially during the beginning of his administration.

On the other hand, the Biden-Harris administration has promoted science and innovation as a core part of its broader economic policy agenda. It elevated the role of OSTP: Biden is the first president to name his science adviser – a position currently held by Arati Prabhakar – as a member of his Cabinet.

By law, the president is required to appoint an OSTP director. But it is up to the president to decide how and when to use their advice. If the new White House wants the U.S. to remain a global leader in R&D, the science adviser will need to continue to fight for it.

The Conversation

Kenneth Evans, Scholar in Science and Technology Policy, Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

does-trump-have-the-right-idea-about-dismantling-the-deep-state?

Does Trump have the right idea about dismantling the Deep State?

by Uncategorized

The lynchpin of Donald Trump’s “plan to dismantle the deep state” is to assert authority to dismiss senior civil servants at will: “First, I will immediately re-issue my 2020 executive order restoring the president’s authority to remove rogue bureaucrats. And I will wield that power very aggressively.”

Trump’s diagnosis is correct in part but his reform proposal badly misses the target. He is correct that, instead of a “merit system,” federal civil service has become a kind of anti-merit system:

  • Federal employees are largely unaccountable: 99% of federal employees are rated “fully successful.” Poor performers are practically impossible to fire, even when caught spending their days surfing porn sites.
  • Many federal employees also are unmanageable: Supervisors must collectively bargain with “union reps” rudimentary management choices—who does what, even who sits at what desk. 
  • Federal officials can subvert lawful directives from political officials by the pretext of following the bureaucratic labyrinth. True believers within agencies simply drag their feet until the next election. There’s an acronym for it: Webehwyg (We-be-wig): “We’ll be here when you’re gone.”

Trump’s proposed Schedule F addresses only one of these flaws, bureaucratic subversion. By giving Trump the authority to fire senior civil servants for almost any reason, Schedule F goes too far while doing too little. The proposed overhaul should aspire to be a “merit system,” not a new spoils system, and must be far bolder to attract the talent needed in 21st century government.

Schedule F goes too far. Trump’s executive order would transfer 50,000 or more senior civil servants into a new Schedule F of “at will” employees.

Schedule F presumes that public employees should do whatever the president wants. But civil servants have dual loyalty— to honor the direction of political leaders within the boundaries of law and ethics. A “merit system” requires a culture of professionalism, in which civil servants are accountable for performance but also protected from partisan retribution.

Schedule F would instead create an ethos of fear, inducing senior civil servants to act like toadies—to follow any presidential dictate even if contrary to fact or science. This is not an abstract fear with Trump, as demonstrated in the “Sharpiegate” incident when he pressured weather officials to affirm his inaccurate assertion that Hurricane Dorian would impact Alabama, and when he tried to get FDA officials to reauthorize the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid.

Schedule F also allows the president to hire senior civil service staff without regard to qualifications. Giving serious public responsibilities to inept political hacks, not their partisanship, was considered the principal defect of the 19th century spoils system. It’s hard to see how a new version of the spoils system is in the public interest. 

Schedule F does too little. Schedule F does nothing to empower senior civil servants to manage the employees below them. Elaborate legal procedures require a supervisor, for example, to prove in a grievance proceeding that Mr. X doesn’t try hard, or is unresponsive to citizen needs. How does a supervisor prove a bad attitude or poor judgment? Personnel judgments can be readily reviewed by other co-workers, but they are judgments, not objective facts. The near-impossibility of proving ineffectiveness is why there’s near-zero accountability.

The main harm of no accountability is not a mass of poor performers, but a dispirited public culture. Mutual trust is difficult when everyone knows performance doesn’t matter.

“We note deep disaffection within the public service,” the 2003 Volcker Commission concluded. “They resent the protections provided to those poor performers among them who impede their own work and drag down the reputation of all government workers.”

Nor does Schedule F remove the chokehold of public union collective bargaining agreements, which require even minor managerial choices—such as training for a software upgrade—to be separately negotiated.   

Modernizing civil service by executive order. Like obsolete infrastructure, America’s civil service framework should be largely scrapped. Designed to accommodate clerks processing forms, and then amended in the 1960s to appease federal unions, the civil service system is a rusty industrial age machine disconnected from performance and repellant to highly qualified people. The imperative to overhaul civil service was first sounded in 1989 by Paul Volcker, but numerous reform proposals have gone nowhere because of congressional indifference and union opposition.  

Trump’s Schedule F, although ham-fisted, points the way to a bolder approach—to start remaking civil service by executive order. By asserting the constitutional powers of the executive, the president can disavow rigid congressional and union controls, and provoke a constitutional challenge to be decided by the Supreme Court. This dispute will also likely catapult civil service reform from a back closet to the top of Congress’s agenda.

The Constitution in Article II provides that “the executive Power shall be vested in a President.” Numerous rulings by the Supreme Court have limited Congress’s ability to impinge on “executive power” regarding personnel judgments. Under these rulings, a president could disavow key aspects of civil service law, including refusing to comply with:

  • the detailed disciplinary procedures that make it impractical to terminate, discipline, or even give an honest job performance evaluation;
  • collective bargaining powers that preempt managerial authority; and
  • the mechanistic hiring procedures that drive away good candidates.  

In the place of these statutory provisions, a president by executive order could provide a framework aimed at implementing the goals of a merit system—generally, empowering officials to take responsibility and empowering other officials to hold them accountable. Protecting against unfair personnel decisions can be achieved by giving oversight authority to an independent group or committee, not by legal trials.

Congress will continue to kick the can down the road until forced to act. Remaking civil service by executive order could prod Congress into a long overdue modernization of the operating machinery of government. 

omb-gives-agencies-new-considerations-when-buying-ai

OMB gives agencies new considerations when buying AI

by Uncategorized

As artificial intelligence becomes more ingrained in all aspects of technology, agencies and vendors alike must consider new factors when it comes to buying these capabilities.

In a new memo released today, the Office of Management and Budget outlined these considerations in three buckets:

  • Proactively manage AI risk and performance
  • Promote a competitive AI marketplace
  • Create structures to govern and manage business processes related to acquiring AI in acquisition

“This new memo provides agencies with the tools and information they need as they acquire AI capturing his promise while managing its risks,” said Jason Miller, OMB’s deputy director for management, in a call with reporters. “The AI landscape is rapidly shifting and today’s guidance is an initial means for responsible AI acquisition by federal agencies.”

Jason Miller is the deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget.

Miller said the memo both fulfills one of the requirements in President Joe Biden’s executive order on responsible AI from last October and tries to get ahead of the learning curve as more and more agencies go deeper into use AI.

In fact, OMB is expected to release an updated governmentwide inventory of AI uses cases on or around Dec. 16. The 2023 inventory showed there were more than 700 AI use cases, but the expectation is that number could easily double or triple given the excitement around generative AI and expanded use of predictive AI. A Government Accountability Office report from last December found 1,200 existing use cases, but most of the reported AI use cases are “in the planning phase, and not yet in production.

This is why OMB’s 36-page memo is trying to address some current and emerging questions around buying AI.

“Acquisition of AI presents some novel challenges, even though in some respects, much of the acquisition is similar to purchases of software without AI,” Miller said. “The due diligence that informs our buying process is a critical moment to ensure we’re setting ourselves up for success, that federal agencies are setting themselves up for success consistent with our expectations of agencies that when they are using AI to improve mission delivery for American citizens, they’re doing so in a way that is consistent.”

To ensure that agencies are applying the right rigor to the AI tools that are aimed at improving agency missions, OMB defined what type of AI falls under this memo and what type does not.

“Data systems, software, applications, tools or utilities established primarily for the purpose of researching, developing or implementing artificial intelligence technology, as well as data systems, software, applications, tools or utilities where an AI capability is integrated into another system or agency business process, operational activity or technology system,” OMB wrote. “The term excludes, however, any common commercial product within which artificial intelligence is embedded, such as a word processor or map navigation system.”

Avoiding AI vendor lock-in

OMB also detailed what types of AI the memo doesn’t apply to, such as “evaluations of particular AI applications because the AI provider is the target or potential target of a regulatory enforcement, law enforcement or national security action;” or “agencies’ acquisition of AI to carry out basic, applied or experimental research except where the purpose of such research is to develop particular AI applications within the agency.”

Once agencies have decided these rules apply to the AI tools or capabilities they are buying, OMB says another key factor to consider when trying to ensure a competitive market.

OMB’s Miller said the memo focused on concepts like interoperability, transparency, data portability and intellectual property rights.

“We want to ensure choice and diversification in the federal marketplace, to demonstrate our agility for our vendors can continue to innovate to improve AI use,” he said. “We want to ensure we’re always, always getting the best price for U.S. taxpayers on the products and services that we are acquiring.”

For example, agencies should “develop an approach to IP that considers what rights and deliverables are necessary for the agency to successfully accomplish its mission, protects federal information used by vendors in the development and operation of AI systems and services for the federal government, considers the exploration of open-source development practices of AI code, avoids vendor lock-in and avoids unnecessary costs.”

CXO coordination is essential

This could include negotiating the appropriate scope of licensing rights and other rights as well as creating a process and timeline for delivery of components needed to operate and monitor the AI system, including as appropriate: data; inputs to the development, testing and operation process.

The third bucket OMB is asking agencies to focus on is managing their business and acquisition processes.

Miller said this means creating a “tight loop” between leaders inside the agency and across the government.

The memo both calls for increased cross-agency coordination of the different councils like chief information officer, chief acquisition officer, chief data officer and chief AI officer as well as efforts inside agencies to bring together these C-suite leaders.

“We are sharing and we are reviewing the use case inventory together. We’re bringing cohorts of people together. We’re all learning fast here. And by bringing folks together and finding that multiple teams are trying to solve the exact same thing so by bringing them together, we are learning from a pilot that is already further down the path than somebody else’s, we are really trying to focus on moving quickly,” said a senior administration official. “We are making sure that we are sharing those key learnings and people are sharing non-sensitive procurement and acquisition information … so that we can all learn from each other. I think this is one of the most powerful ways that we’re going to go fast and not duplicate efforts by buying the same thing 400 times.”

OMB has been working on this memo since April when it issued a request for information and held an industry roundtable as part of it effort to gather feedback on how best to address challenges of acquiring AI.

A second senior administration official said OMB received more than 60 comments, which equaled more than 430 pages, from the RFI.

“We have coordinated this work consistently with all of those  council groups. Then we have been working on the specific guidance individually with each agency. This is no surprise to them,” said the first administration official. “They have been partners with us because we have wanted to hear from the people on the ground who are doing the work to make sure that we are writing guidance that both achieves the administration’s goals and also is actionable, so that the agencies have clear comprehension and understanding so they can meet the deadlines and that we can continue to manage this effectively.”

Quinn Anex-Ries, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Democracy & Technology, said in a statement that OMB’s new memo provides agencies with a clear roadmap to ensure the AI they buy protects the rights and safety of the public.

“As federal spending on AI increases, this guidance is not only an important framework for protecting the public from potential harms but for encouraging responsible AI practices throughout the AI marketplace more broadly,” Anex-Ries said.

Copyright © 2024 Federal News Network. All rights reserved. This website is not intended for users located within the European Economic Area.

uss-beloit-delivered-to-navy

USS Beloit Delivered to Navy

by Uncategorized

The U.S. Navy has accepted the delivery of the USS Beloit, or LCS 29, from Lockheed Martin at the Fincantieri Marinette Marine shipyard in Marinette, Wisconsin on Sept. 30.

The Naval Sea Systems Command said Tuesday the USS Beloit, named after the city of Beloit, Wisconsin, completed its acceptance trials in August, which involved testing its combat and electrical systems, main propulsion and auxiliaries.

The LCS 29 will undergo post-delivery certifications and qualifications to ensure its readiness in actual fleet operations. Commissioning will be conducted later this year and then homeported in Mayport, Florida.

The Beloit, the 15th Freedom-variant Littoral Combat Ship, is equipped with the Freedom-class combining gear correction, which addresses a class-wide issue and enables unrestricted operations.

Capt. Matthew Lehmann, program manager of the Littoral Combat Ship program office, commended the prompt delivery, saying, “Beloit is another shining example of what it means to finish strong. Our industry partners stood up to the challenge to deliver this ship on an aggressive schedule.”

The future USS Cleveland, or LCS 31, is nearing completion and is expected to be delivered in 2025.

nist-releases-3rd-entry-in-5g-cybersecurity-white-paper-series-for-public-comment

NIST Releases 3rd Entry in 5G Cybersecurity White Paper Series for Public Comment

by Uncategorized

The National Institute of Standards and Technology‘s National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence has released the initial public draft version of the third white paper in its “Applying 5G Cybersecurity and Privacy Capabilities” series and is calling for public comments on the document.

The white paper series is meant for professionals in technology, cybersecurity and privacy tasked with securing 5G even as its usage and deployment evolve, the NIST Computer Security Resource Center said Monday.

The third paper in the series is titled “Using Hardware-Enabled Security to Ensure 5G System Platform Integrity” and tackles the fostering of trust in a 5G server infrastructure through the use of hardware-enabled security capabilities. According to the initial public draft, the paper aims to address the problem arising from threat actors increasingly targeting a server’s firmware and hardware amid greater security focus on the system’s software layers.

Interested parties have until Oct. 30 to comment on the document.

nasa-awards-contracts-for-space-comms-&-exploration-tech

NASA Awards Contracts for Space Comms & Exploration Tech

by Uncategorized

Intuitive Machines and Aalyria Technologies have received contracts from NASA to conduct studies aimed at advancing space communications and exploration technologies. 

NASA said Tuesday the firm fixed-price, milestone-based contracts, under the Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships-2 Broad Agency Announcement Appendix Q, are intended to provide NASA insights into capabilities and technologies commercial communications and navigation providers can offer.

Intuitive Machines has been awarded $647,600 to conduct a study on lunar user terminals and network orchestration. This potential moon surface terminal will be used for exploration and to ensure compatibility with LunaNet service providers.

Aalyria received $393,004 to study the potential of a network orchestration and management system, which is intended to integrate commercial and government service providers into the Near Space Network.

Greg Heckler, new capability lead for the Space Communications and Navigation program, pointed out that the awards are part of NASA’s efforts to build commercial partnerships for high-demand space missions. “Seamless interoperability across networks, from here on Earth to cislunar space, is an essential element of SCaN’s emerging ‘one network’ approach. These awards will move us one step closer to realizing that future.”

us-partners-with-allies-on-operational-technology-cybersecurity-guidebook

US Partners With Allies on Operational Technology Cybersecurity Guidebook

by Uncategorized

The Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, National Security Agency, the FBI and the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center have collaborated with counterparts in Australia, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Japan and South Korea to establish guidelines on creating and maintaining a safe and secure environment for operational technology. 

The 14-page document titled “Principles of Operational Technology Cybersecurity” outlines six principles to help organizations pinpoint business decisions with potential adverse impact on OT cybersecurity, according to CISA, which announced the guidebook’s release on Monday.

One of the principles cited in the guidance covers the supply chain and suggests that it has to be subject to an assurance program encompassing large and small suppliers of equipment and software, vendors and managed service providers.

Another guidebook principle focuses on expanding the internal segmentation and segregation of OT networks from the internet and from IT networks to include connections with outside organizations. 

The Australian Signals Directorate’s Australian Cyber Security Centre authored the guidance, with the co-seals of the U.S. agencies and other partners from the six allied countries.

Join the Potomac Officers Club’s 2024 Homeland Security Summit on Nov. 13 to learn more about technology initiatives and advancements to protect the United States amid the evolving geopolitical landscape.

opm-announces-leave-transfer-program-for-feds-affected-by-helene

OPM announces leave transfer program for feds affected by Helene

by Uncategorized

The Office of Personnel Management on Wednesday announced that it would establish a temporary leave-sharing program to help federal employees who need time off from work to recover after Hurricane Helene caused widespread destruction across more than half a dozen states.

The storm, which made landfall as a category 4 hurricane in Florida last week, has reportedly caused at least 180 deaths in the U.S. and created widespread flooding and other storm damage as far north as Virginia.

In a memo to agency heads Wednesday, Acting OPM Director Rob Shriver announced that his agency and the Office of Management and Budget will establish an emergency leave transfer program for federal employees across seven states. Such programs enable agencies to set up banks so that federal workers may donate unused paid leave to their colleagues impacted by natural disasters can take time off without needing to use their own paid—or unpaid—leave.

“Agencies with employees adversely affected by Tropical Cyclone, Tropical Storm, and Hurricane Helene 2024 are in the best position to determine whether, and how much, donated annual leave is needed by their employees and which of their employees have been adversely affected by the disaster within the meaning of OPM regulations,” Shriver said. “[Therefore], OPM is authorizing agency and department heads to [set up and administer leave transfer programs].”

Employees wishing to donate leave should therefore contact their own agency, not OPM, to volunteer to donate a portion of their unused leave, OPM stressed.

The leave transfer program will be available to help affected employees in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina and Tennessee. For a complete list of which counties are included, check OPM’s complete memo announcing the program.

bae-systems-awarded-darpa-contract-for-autonomous-software-communications

BAE Systems Awarded DARPA Contract for Autonomous Software Communications

by Uncategorized

BAE Systems has received a $6 million contract from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency to produce autonomous software capabilities for military communications.

Under Phase 2 of the Mission-Integrated Network Control, or MINC, program, BAE Systems’ Fast Labs research and development unit aims to improve algorithms and software that predict and align network services, the aerospace and security company announced Wednesday.

Brian Decleene, chief scientist at FAST Labs, said, “The technology we are maturing will act as the brains of this highly complex and mission-critical networked communications system.”

MINC is designed to create a system that fosters a secure communication apparatus to aid multi-domain operations. 

“This award allows us to continue our work to deliver the right information to the right user at the right time across multiple domains,” Decleene added. 

BAE Systems will perform the work in Burlington, Massachusetts, and Arlington, Virginia.

va-proposes-grant-program-offering-vets-legal-services-to-help-obtain-benefits

VA proposes grant program offering vets legal services to help obtain benefits

by Uncategorized

The Veterans Affairs Department in the Federal Register on Wednesday proposed establishing a pilot program to award grants to veterans-focused nonprofits and local, state and tribal governments in order to support legal assistance for former service members seeking VA benefits. 

Specifically, the department hopes the program will help veterans whose current military discharge status prevents them from receiving VA benefits. Former service members who were discharged under dishonorable conditions generally are not eligible for such benefits, but they may request actions like a discharge review board to possibly qualify. 

“We encourage former service members with other than honorable discharges to apply for VA care and benefits today. Although VA cannot change your discharge status, we want to provide you with any health care or benefits we can — and we will work with you every step of the way to do exactly that,” said VA Secretary Denis McDonough in a statement. “We also know that the process to navigate the review boards and determination process can be daunting — but access to legal support can make all the difference, and we believe this new grant program will help fill that gap.”

The VA over the past 10 years has extended benefits eligibility to 75% of veterans with an other-than-honorable discharge status, according to a press release. This corresponds to more than 57,000 individuals. 

VA in April issued a final rule modifying regulations regarding benefit determinations based on the character of discharges in order to expand eligibility, such as by removing the “homosexual acts involving aggravating circumstances or other factors affecting the performance of duty” bar to receiving benefits. 

Comments on VA’s proposed legal assistance grant program must be received on or before Dec. 2, 2024. Authority for the pilot comes from a provision in the fiscal 2021 National Defense Authorization Act. 

The proposed rule would prohibit grant recipients from charging a fee to veterans and require them to submit annual reports on activities funded by the grants. 

VA also recently established a grant program for legal services to assist homeless veterans.