Order Code
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
IB10130
The Federal Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development Program:
Funding Issues and Activities
Updated July 1, 2004
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Overview of the Federal NITRD Program
Enabling/Governing Legislation
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991
Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998
Context of Federal Technology Funding
NCO and Related Activities
Activity in the 108th Congress
Issues for Congress
Relevant Laws
LEGISLATION
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
IB10130
07-01-04
The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Program: Funding Issues and Activities
SUMMARY
In the early 1990s, Congress recognized
pated results.
that several federal agencies had ongoing
high-performance computing programs, but no
Another aspect of government-funded IT
central coordinating body existed to ensure
research is that it often leads to open stan-
long-term coordination and planning. To
dards, something that many perceive as bene-
provide such a framework, Congress passed
ficial, encouraging deployment and further
the High-Performance Computing and Com-
investment. Industry, on the other hand, is
munications Program Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-
more inclined to invest in proprietary products
194) to enhance the effectiveness of the vari-
and will diverge from a common standard
ous programs. In conjunction with the passage
when there is a potential competitive or finan-
of the act, the White House Office of Science
cial advantage to do so.
and Technology Policy (OSTP) released
Grand Challenges: High-Performance Com-
Finally, proponents of government sup-
puting and Communications. That document
port believe that the outcomes achieved
outlined a research and development (R&D)
through the various funding programs create a
strategy for high-performance computing and
synergistic environment in which both funda-
a framework for a multiagency program, the
mental and application-driven research are
High-Performance Computing and Communi-
conducted, benefitting government, industry,
cations (HPCC) Program.
academia, and the public. Supporters also
believe that such outcomes justify govern-
The HPCC Program has evolved over
ment’s role in funding IT R&D, as well as the
time and is now called the Networking and
growing budget for the NITRD Program.
Information Technology Research and Devel-
opment (NITRD) Program, to better reflect its
Critics assert that the government,
expanded mission. The NITRD Program is
through its funding mechanisms, may be
composed of 12 agencies; its members work
picking “winners and losers” in technological
in collaboration to increase the overall effec-
development, a role more properly residing
tiveness and productivity of federal informa-
with the private sector. For example, the size
tion technology (IT) R&D. A National Coor-
of the NITRD Program may encourage indus-
dinating Office coordinates the activities of
try to follow the government’s lead on re-
the NITRD Program and reports to OSTP and
search directions rather than selecting those
the National Science and Technology Council.
directions itself.
Proponents assert that federal support of
The FY2004 budget provides $2.2 billion
IT R&D has produced positive outcomes for
for the NITRD Program; $2.0 billion has been
the country. Federally funded programs have
proposed for FY2005. During the 108th Con-
played a crucial role in supporting long-term
gress, four bills (S. 2176, H.R. 824, H.R.
research into fundamental aspects of comput-
4218, and H.R. 4516) were introduced that
ing. Such fundamentals provide broad practi-
would have an impact on high-performance
cal benefits, but generally take years to realize.
computing R&D. H.R. 4218 and H.R. 4516
Additionally, the unanticipated results of
were approved by the House Science Commit-
research are often as important as the antici-
tee on June 16, 2004.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
IB10130
07-01-04
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
The FY2004 budget provides $2.2 billion for the Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program,1 a 6% increase over FY2003.
The President has proposed a budget of $2.0 billion for FY2005. The FY2004 budget
provides $2.2 billion for the NITRD Program; $2.0 billion has been proposed for FY2005.
During the 108th Congress, four bills (S. 2176, H.R. 824, H.R. 4218, and H.R. 4516)
were introduced that would have an impact on high-performance computing R&D. H.R.
4218 and H.R. 4516 were approved by the House Science Committee on June 16, 2004. The
other two bills await action in their respective committees.
On May 13, 2004, the House Science Committee held a hearing on H.R. 4218, High-
Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004. The hearing focused on the status of
U.S. competitiveness in high-end computing research and development. At the hearing, Dr.
John H. Marburger, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP), released the Federal Plan for High-End Computing, the report of the High-End
Computing Revitalization Task Force (HECRTF). This report presents a plan for addressing
issues related to U.S. competitiveness in high-end computing. Specifically, the report
provides “preliminary roadmaps, and initiates a path forward to making high-end computing
a vigorous interagency activity.”2
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
The federal government has long played a key role in the country’s information
technology (IT) research and development (R&D) activities. The Government's support of
R&D began because it had an important interest in creating computers that would be capable
of addressing the problems and issues the government needed to solve and study. One of the
first such problems was planning the trajectories of artillery and bombs; more recently such
problems include simulations of nuclear testing, cryptanalysis, and weather modeling. That
interest continues today. That complexity requires there be adequate coordination to ensure
the government’s evolving needs (e.g., homeland security) will continue to be met in the
most effective manner possible.
Overview of the Federal NITRD Program
The NITRD Program is a collaborative effort in which 12 agencies coordinate and
cooperate to help increase the overall effectiveness and productivity of federal IT R&D.3 Of
1 The main website of the NITRD Program is [http://www.nitrd.gov].
2 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Federal Plan for
High-End Computing, May 2004. This report is available online at [http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/
2004_hecrtf/20040510_hecrtf.pdf].
3 The members of the NITRD Program, as listed in the FY2004 Supplement to the President’s
Budget are: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); Defense Advanced Research
(continued...)
CRS-1
IB10130
07-01-04
those 12 members, the majority of funding goes to the National Science Foundation, National
Institutes of Health, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, and the Department of Energy, Office of Science.
The National Coordinating Office (NCO) for IT R&D coordinates the activities of the
NITRD Program and reports to OSTP and the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC). The NCO also works in conjunction with the Interagency Working Group for IT
R&D (IWG/IT R&D) and the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee
(PITAC)4:
! The IWG/IT R&D provides policy, program, and budget planning for the
NITRD Program and is composed of representatives from each of the
participating agencies, OSTP, Office of Management and Budget, and the
NCO. Six Coordinating Groups reporting to the IWG/IT R&D focus their
work in seven Program Component Areas (PCAs).5
3 (...continued)
Projects Agency (DARPA); Department of Defense, Office of the Director, Defense Research &
Engineering (DODDR&E); Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration
(DOE/NNSA); Department of Energy, Office of Science (DOE/SC); Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); National Institutes of
Health (NIH); National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); National Security Agency (NSA); and National Science
Foundation (NSF). The history of agency participation can be found online at [http://www.nitrd.gov/
about/history/agency-participants.pdf].
4 The PITAC was established on February 11, 1997 to provide the President, OSTP, and the federal
agencies involved in IT R&D with guidance and advice on all areas of high performance computing,
communications, and information technologies. Representing the research, education, and library
communities and including network providers and representatives from critical industries, the
Committee advises the Administration’s effort to accelerate development and adoption of
information technologies. The membership roster of the PITAC is available online at
[http://www.nitrd.gov/pitac/members.html].
5 The seven PCAs are: (1) High-End Computing Infrastructure and Applications (HEC I&A) — to
extend the state of the art in high-end computing systems, applications, and infrastructure; (2) High-
End Computing R&D (HEC R&D) — to optimize the performance of today's high-end computing
systems and develop future generations of high-end computing systems; (3) Human Computer
Interaction and Information Management (HCI&IM) — to develop new user interaction
technologies, cognitive systems, information systems, and robotics that benefit humans; (4) Large
Scale Networking (LSN) — to develop leading-edge network technologies, services, and techniques
to enhance performance, security, and scalability; (5) Software Design and Productivity (SDP) —
to advance concepts, methods, techniques, and tools that improve software design, development, and
maintenance to produce more usable, dependable and cost-effective software-based systems; (6)
High Confidence Software and Systems (HCSS) — to develop the scientific foundations and IT to
achieve affordable and predictable high levels of safety, security, reliability, and survivability,
especially in U.S. national security and safety-critical systems; and (7) Social, Economic, and
Workforce Implications of IT and IT Workforce Development (SEW) — to study the impact of IT on
people and social and economic systems; develop the IT workforce; and develop innovative IT
applications in education and training. Additional information about the program component areas
is available online at [http://www.nitrd.gov/iwg/index.html]. HEC R&D and HEC I&A are both
(continued...)
CRS-2
IB10130
07-01-04
! The PITAC is composed of representatives of private industry and academia
who are appointed by the President. The group provides expert independent
advice to the President on the federal role in maintaining U.S. preeminence
in advanced IT and works with the NITRD Program agencies and the
IWG/IT R&D.
Figure 1 below illustrates the management structure of the NITRD Program.
The NITRD Program has undergone a series of structural changes since its inception
in 1991 and both it and the NCO have had a number of different names over the years. When
the program was created in September 1992, it was named the National Coordination Office
for High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC). The name was changed
to the National Coordination Office for Computing, Information, and Communications per
the FY1997 Supplement to the President’s Budget (also known as the “Blue Book”) and then
to its current name, the National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research
and Development, per the FY2001 Blue Book (that change was effective October 2000).
These changes were made to reflect the evolution of the program as it came to encompass
a broader range of related topics. The chronology of funding since the NITRD Program was
created as the HPCC Program in 1991 is detailed in Figure 2 on the next page.
Figure 1: Management Structure of the NITRD Program6
5 (...continued)
covered by the HEC Coordinating Group. A diagram illustrating the evolution of the PCAs, 1992-
present, is available online at [http://www.nitrd.gov/about/history/new-pca-names.pdf].
6 This diagram is available on the NITRD Program website, [http://www.nitrd.gov]. The Defense
Information Systems Agency does not appear in the diagram; however it is included in the list of
NITRD Program Agencies on page 2 of the FY2004 Supplement to the President’s Budget.
CRS-3
IB10130
07-01-04
Figure 2: History of NITRD Program Funding7
Enabling/Governing Legislation
The NITRD Program is governed by two laws. The first, the High-Performance
Computing Act of 1991, P.L. 102-194,8 expanded federal support for high-performance
computing R&D and called for improving interagency planning and coordination. The
second, the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998, P.L. 105-305,9 amended the
original law to expand the mission of the NITRD Program to cover Internet-related research,
among other goals.
7 This chart was developed using data available in the FY2004 Supplement to the President’s Budget
(available online at [http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/blue04/]) and the President’s proposed FY2005
budget (available online at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2005/pdf/spec.pdf]).
8 High Performance Computing Act of 1991, Public Law 102-194, 15 U.S.C. 5501, 105 Stat. 1595,
December 9, 1991. The full text of this law is available online at
[http://www.nitrd.gov/congressional /laws/pl_102-194.html].
9 Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998, Public Law 105-305, 15 U.S.C. 5501, 112 Stat.
2919, October 28, 1998. The full text of this law is available online at [http://www.nitrd.gov/
congressional/laws/pl_h_105-305.html].
CRS-4
IB10130
07-01-04
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. This law was the original enabling
legislation for what is now the NITRD Program. Among other requirements, it called for:
! Setting goals and priorities for federal high-performance computing
research, development, and networking
! Technical support and research and development of software and hardware
needed to address fundamental problems in science and engineering
! Educating undergraduate and graduate students
! Fostering and maintaining competition and private sector investment in
high-speed data networking within the telecommunications industry
! Promoting the development of commercial data communications and
telecommunications standards
! Providing security, including protecting intellectual property rights
! Developing accounting mechanisms allowing users to be charged for the use
of copyrighted materials.
This law also requires an annual report to Congress on grants and cooperative R&D
agreements and procurements involving foreign entities.10
Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998. This law amended the High-
Performance Computing Act of 1991. The act had two overarching purposes. The first was
to authorize research programs related to high-end computing and computation, human-
centered systems, high confidence systems, and education, training, and human resources.
The second was to provide for the development and coordination of a comprehensive and
integrated U.S. research program to focus on (1) computer network infrastructure that would
promote interoperability among advanced federal computer networks, (2) economic high-
speed data access that does not impose a “geographic penalty”, and (3) flexible and
extensible networking technology.
Context of Federal Technology Funding
In the early 1990s, Congress recognized that several federal agencies had ongoing high-
performance computing programs,11 but no central coordinating body existed to ensure long-
term coordination and planning. To provide such a framework, Congress passed the High-
10 The first report mandated information on the “Supercomputer Agreement” between the United
States and Japan be included in this report. A separate one-time only report was required on network
funding, including user fees, industry support, and federal investment.
11
"High-performance" computing is a term that encompasses both "supercomputing" and "grid
computing." In general, high-performance computers are defined as stand-alone or networked
computers that can perform "very complex computations very quickly." Supercomputing
involves a single, stand-alone computer located in a single location. Grid computing involves a
group of computers, in either the same location or spread over a number of locations, that are
networked together (e.g., via the Internet or a local network). House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Supercomputing: Is the United States on the Right Path (Hearing
Transcript), [http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy88231.000/hsy88231_0f.htm],
2003, p. 5-6.
CRS-5
IB10130
07-01-04
Performance Computing and Communications Program Act of 1991 to enhance the
effectiveness of the various programs.
In conjunction with the passage of the act, OSTP released, “Grand Challenges: High-
Performance Computing and Communications.” That document outlined an R&D strategy
for high-performance computing and a framework for a multi-agency program, the HPCC
Program.
The NITRD Program is part of the larger federal effort to promote fundamental and
applied IT R&D. The government sponsors such research through a number of channels,
including:
! Federally-funded research and development laboratories, such as Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory
! Single-agency programs
! Multi-agency programs, including the NITRD Program, but also programs
focusing on nanotechnology and combating terrorism
! Funding grants to academic institutions
! Funding grants to industry.
In general, supporters contend that federal funding of IT R&D has produced positive
results. In 2003, the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) of the
National Research Council (NRC) released a “synthesis report” based on eight previously
released reports that examined “how innovation occurs in IT, what the most promising
research directions are, and what impacts such innovation might have on society.”12 One of
the most significant of the CSTB’s observations was that the unanticipated results of research
are often as important as the anticipated results. For example, electronic mail and instant
messaging were by-products of [government-funded] research in the 1960s that was aimed
at making it possible to share expensive computing resources among multiple simultaneous
interactive users.
Additionally, the report noted that federally funded programs have played a crucial role
in supporting long-term research into fundamental aspects of computing. Such
“fundamentals” provide broad practical benefits, but generally take years to realize.
Furthermore, supporters state that the nature and underlying importance of fundamental
research makes it less likely that industry would invest in and conduct more fundamental
research on its own. As noted by the CSTB, “companies have little incentive to invest
significantly in activities whose benefits will spread quickly to their rivals.”13 Further, in the
Board’s opinion:
government sponsorship of research, especially in universities, helps develop the IT talent
used by industry, universities, and other parts of the economy. When companies create
12 National Research Council, Innovation in Information Technology, 2003, p. 1. This report
discusses all federal funding for R&D, not only the NITRD Program.
13 Ibid, p. 4.
CRS-6
IB10130
07-01-04
products using the ideas and workforce that result from federally-sponsored research, they
repay the nation in jobs, tax revenues, productivity increases, and world leadership.14
Another aspect of government-funded IT R&D is that it often leads to open standards,
something that many perceive as beneficial, encouraging deployment and further investment.
Industry, on the other hand, is more likely to invest in proprietary products and will diverge
from a common standard if it is sees a potential competitive or financial advantage; this has
happened, for example with standards for instant messaging.15
Finally, proponents of government R&D support believe that the outcomes achieved
through the various funding programs create a synergistic environment in which both
fundamental and application-driven research are conducted, benefitting government,
industry, academia, and the public. Supporters also believe that such outcomes justify
government’s role in funding IT R&D, as well as the growing budget for the NITRD
Program.
Critics assert that the government, through its funding mechanisms, may be setting itself
up to pick “winners and losers” in technological development, a role more properly residing
with the private sector.16 For example, the size of the NITRD Program may encourage
industry to follow the government’s lead on research directions rather than selecting those
directions itself.
Overall, CSTB states that, government funding appears to have allowed research on a
larger scale and with greater diversity, vision, and flexibility than would have been possible
without government involvement.17
NCO and Related Activities
As explained earlier, the NCO provides technical and administrative support to the
NITRD Program, the IWG/IT R&D, and the PITAC. This includes supporting meetings and
workshops and preparing reports. The NCO interacts with OSTP and OMB on NITRD
Program and PITAC matters.
At the request of OSTP and the NSTC, the NCO has supported the work of the HECRTF.
The task force was charged in 2003 with developing a five-year plan to guide federal
investment in high-end computing R&D. In conjunction with the Computing Research
Association, the task force released its first report, Workshop on the Road Map for the
Revitalization of High End Computing in January 2004.18 The report detailed findings in
14 Ibid, p. 4.
15 Ibid, p. 18.
16 Cato Institute, Encouraging Research: Taking Politics Out of R&D, September 13, 1999,
[http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/990913catord.html].
17 National Research Council, Innovation in Information Technology, 2003, p. 22.
18 Materials related to this panel and the report itself are available online at [http://www.cra.org/
Activities/workshops/nitrd/] and [http://www.nitrd.gov/ hecrtf-outreach/sc03.html]. Additional
(continued...)
CRS-7
IB10130
07-01-04
eight areas, for example, how to encourage the development of more advanced enabling
technologies, such as power management systems, and commercial, off-the-shelf
technologies. The task force released its second report, the Federal Plan for High-End
Computing,19 in May 2004, at a House Committee on Science hearing on H.R. 4218, the
High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act of 2004. The report presents a plan for
R&D in HEC hardware, software, and systems; federal agency access to capability and
capacity HEC resources; and improving how federal agencies procure HEC systems.
Activity in the 108th Congress
Other than the agency-specific appropriations bills, three bills have been introduced in
the 108th Congress that would have a direct impact on high-performance computing or
networking R&D.
Representative Larson introduced H.R. 824, the Research on High-Performance
Networking for Science Education Act, “to authorize the National Science Foundation (NSF)
to carry out research projects to develop and assess novel uses of high-performance computer
networks for use in science, mathematics, and technology education in elementary and
secondary schools.” The bill was referred to the House Committee on Science on February
13, 2003, and then forwarded to the Subcommittee on Research on February 20, 2003. No
further action has been taken.
Senator Bingaman introduced S. 2176, the High-End Computing Revitalization Act, to
establish a high-end computing R&D program within the Department of Energy; it would
authorize appropriations of $150 million for FY2005 and $155 million for FY2006. The bill
was introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on
March 8, 2004.
Representative Biggert introduced H.R. 4218, the High-Performance Computing
Revitalization Act, to amend the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. The bill would
further delineate the responsibilities of the NITRD Program, including setting the goals and
priorities for federal high-performance computing research, development, networking, and
other activities and providing more specific definitions for the responsibilities of the PCAs.
The bill was introduced and referred to the House Committee on Science on April 27, 2004.
The House Committee on Science has held two hearings on high-performance computing
The first hearing, held on July 16, 2003, examined whether the United States has been losing
ground to foreign competitors in the production and use of supercomputers and whether
federal agencies’ proposed paths for advancing the nation’s supercomputing capabilities are
adequate to maintain or regain the U.S. lead.20 The second hearing, held on May 13, 2004,
18 (...continued)
materials related to the HECRTF are available at [http://www.itrd.gov/hecrtf-outreach/index.html].
19 This report is available online at [http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/ 2004_hecrtf/20040510_hecrtf.pdf].
20 The charter for this hearing, Supercomputing: Is the U.S. on the Right Path?, is available online
at [http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full03/jul16/charter.pdf]. The hearing transcript is
a v a i l a b l e o n l i n e a t [ h t t p : / / c o m m d o c s . h o u s e . g o v / c o m m i t t e e s / s c i e n c e /
(continued...)
CRS-8
IB10130
07-01-04
focused on H.R. 4218 and the status of U.S. competitiveness in high-end computing research
and development. Also at the second hearing, Dr. John H. Marburger, Director of the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), released the Federal Plan for High-
End Computing, the report of the High-End Computing Revitalization Task Force
(HECRTF). This report presents a plan for addressing issues related to U.S. competitiveness
in high-end computing. Specifically, the report provides “preliminary roadmaps, and
initiates a path forward to making high-end computing a vigorous interagency activity.”21
Issues for Congress
Federal IT R&D is a multi-dimensional issue, involving many government agencies
working together towards shared and complementary goals. Most observers believe that
success in this arena requires ongoing coordination among government, academia, and
industry.
In its July 2003 hearing, the House Committee on Science began investigating issues
related to U.S. competitiveness in high-performance computing and the direction the IT R&D
community has been taking. Those issues and others remain salient and may merit further
investigation if the United States is to implement a comprehensive IT R&D policy. Included
among the possible issues Congress may wish to pursue are: the United States’ status as the
global leader in high-performance computing research; the apparent bifurcation of the federal
IT R&D research agenda between grid computing and supercomputing capabilities; the
possible over-reliance on commercially available hardware to satisfy U.S. research needs;
and the potential impact of deficit cutting on IT R&D funding.
Many Members of Congress as well as those in the research community have expressed
concern over whether the United States is maintaining its position as the global leader in
high-performance computing R&D. That concern has been highlighted by the fact that Japan
now has the fastest and most efficient supercomputer in the world.22 While this may be
reason for some concern, it also may be an indicator of how the United States’ research
agenda has become bifurcated, with some in the R&D community with some in the R&D
community focusing on traditional supercomputing capabilities and others focusing more on
cluster computing or grid computing. Each type of computing has its advantages, based on
its application. Stand-alone supercomputers are often faster and are generally used to work
on a specific problem. For example, cryptanalysis and climate modeling applications require
significant computing power and are best accomplished using specialized, stand-alone
computers. Cluster computing, however, allows the use of commercially available hardware,
20 (...continued)
hsy88231.000/hsy88231_0f.htm].
21 Executive Office of the President, Office of Science and Technology Policy, Federal Plan for
High-End Computing, May 2004. This report is available online at [http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/
2004_hecrtf/20040510_hecrtf.pdf].
22 House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Supercomputing: Is the United States on the
Right Path? (Hearing Transcript), [http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/
hsy88231.000/hsy88231_0f.htm], 2003, p. 13.
CRS-9
IB10130
07-01-04
which helps contain costs. The cluster configuration is useful for applications in which a
problem can be broken into smaller independent components.23
Without a clear plan as to how to proceed, pursuing two disparate research agendas (with
goals that could be viewed as being at odds with each other) could split the research
community even further, damaging its ability to provide leadership in either area. The
NITRD Program already is working on a “roadmap” for future directions in supercomputing;
therefore, one possible course for Congress at this time would be to monitor closely the work
of the High-End Computing Revitalization Task Force and provide input or a more visible
forum for discussion (i.e., additional hearings involving task force participants). Congress
may wish to conduct its own inquiry into the debate over grid versus stand-alone computing.
For example, at the July 2003 hearing, one of the overarching questions the panelists were
asked to address was whether federal agencies were pursuing conflicting R&D goals and, if
so, what should and could be done to ensure they moved toward a more coordinated, unified
goal.
Another issue is whether the United States is relying too heavily on commercially
available hardware to satisfy its R&D needs. While use of computers designed for mass-
market commercial applications can certainly be a part of a successful high-end computing
R&D plan, Congress may wish to monitor how this reliance may be driving the new
emphasis on grid computing.
As noted earlier, critics of IT R&D funding often state that industry should conduct more
fundamental R&D on their own, without government backing, and that fiscal restraint
dictates that less funding should be made available. Conversely, supporters of government
funding would point out that IT R&D has a very long cycle from inception to application and
that any reductions in funding now could have a significant negative impact for many years
to come in terms of innovation and training of researchers. Therefore, Congress may monitor
and assess the potential impact of deficit-cutting plans on progress in IT R&D.
Relevant Laws
P.L. 102-194, the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991, expanded federal
support for research, development, and application of high-performance computing; and
called for improving the interagency planning and coordination of federal research and
development on high-performance computing and maximizing the effectiveness of the
federal government’s high-performance computing efforts.
P.L. 105-305, the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998, amended the High-
Performance Computing Act of 1991 to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1999 and
2000 for the Next Generation Internet program; and required the President’s Information
Technology Advisory Committee to monitor and give advice concerning the development
and implementation of the Next Generation Internet program and report to the President and
the Congress on its activities.
23 Ibid, p. 6-7.
CRS-10
IB10130
07-01-04
LEGISLATION
H.R. 824 (Larson)
Research on High-Performance Networking for Science Education Act. Authorizes
the NSF to carry out research projects to develop and assess novel uses of high-performance
computer networks for use in science, mathematics, and technology education in elementary
and secondary schools. Introduced and referred to the House Committee on Science on
February 13, 2003; forwarded to the subcommittee on Research February 20, 2003.
H.R. 4218 (Biggert)
High-Performance Computing Revitalization Act. Amends the High-Performance
Computing Act of 1991 to further delineate the responsibilities of the NITRD Program,
including setting the goals and priorities for Federal high-performance computing research,
development, networking, and other activities and providing more specific definitions for the
responsibilities of the PCAs. Passed by the House Committee on Science on June 16, 2004.
The Committee has until July 2, 2004, to submit its report.
H.R. 4516 (Biggert)
Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act. Instructs the
Secretary of Energy to: (1) implement a research and development program to advance high-
end computing systems, and to develop and deploy them for advanced scientific and
engineering applications; and (2) establish and operate facilities to conduct advanced
scientific and engineering research and development using Leadership Systems, and to
develop potential advancements in high-end computing system hardware and software.
Passed by the House Committee on Science on June 16, 2004. The Committee has until July
2, 2004, to submit its report.
S. 2176 (Bingaman)
High-End Computing Revitalization Act. Establishes a high-end computing R&D
program within the Department of Energy and authorizes $150 million for FY2005 and $155
million for FY2006. Introduced and referred to the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources on March 8, 2004.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
CRS Reports
CRS Issue Brief IB10129, Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2005, by
Michael E. Davey.
CRS Issue Brief IB10088, Federal Research and Development: Budgeting and Priority-
Setting Issues, 108th Congress, by Genevieve J. Knezo.
CRS Report RL31175, High Performance Computers and Export Control Policy: Issues for
Congress, by Glenn J. McLoughlin and Ian F. Fergusson.
CRS-11
IB10130
07-01-04
Websites
The National Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and Development,
[http://www.nitrd.gov/].
T h e P r e s i d e n t ’ s I n f o r m a t i o n T e c h n o l o g y A d v i s o r y C o m m i t t e e ,
[http://www.nitrd.gov/pitac/index.html].
The Interagency Working Group for Information Technology Research and Development,
[http://www.nitrd.gov/iwg/index.html].
Other Reports and Documents
“The Technology Industry at an Innovation Crossroads,” Electronic Industries Association,
May 2004, [http://www.eia.org/docs/innovation_playbook.pdf].
“Workshop on the Roadmap for the Revitalization of High-End Computing,” Computing
R e s e a r c h A s s o c i a t e s , 2 0 0 4 , [ h t t p : / / w w w . n i t r d . g o v / h e c r t f - o u t r e a c h /
20040112_cra_hecrtf_report.pdf].
“Federal Plan for High-End Computing,” High-End Computing Revitalization Task Force,
2004, [http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/2004_hecrtf/20040510_hecrtf.pdf].
“Innovation in Information Technology,” National Research Council, Computer Science and
Telecommunications Board, 2003, [http://www7.nationalacademies.org/
cstb/pub_itinnovation.html].
“Future of Supercomputing: An Interim Report,” National Research Council, Computer
Science and Telecommunications Board, 2003, [http://www7.nationalacademies
.org/cstb/pub_supercomp_int.html].
“Human Computer Interaction and Information Management Research Needs,” HCI&IM
Coordinating Group of the Interagency Working Group on Information Research and
Development, 2003 [http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/hci-im_research_needs_final.pdf].
“Grand Challenges: Science, Engineering, and Societal Advances Requiring Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development,” NITRD Program National
Coordinating Office, 2003, [http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/200311_grand_challenges.pdf].
“Supercomputing: Is the United States on the Right Path?,” House of Representatives,
Committee on Science (Hearing Transcript), 2003 [http://commdocs.house.gov
/committees/science/ hsy88231.000/hsy88231_0f.htm].
“Funding a Revolution: Government Support for Computing Research,” National Research
Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, 1999,
[http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cstb/pub_revolution.html].
CRS-12