Order Code RL32837
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Science and Technology Policy:
Issues for the 109th Congress
Updated August 22, 2005
Marcia S. Smith, Coordinator
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Science and Technology Policy: Issues for the 109th
Congress
Summary
Science and technology have a pervasive influence over a wide range of issues
confronting the nation. Decisions on how much federal funding to invest in research
and development (R&D), and determining what programs have the highest priority,
for example, may have implications for homeland security, new high technology
industries, government/private sector cooperation in R&D, and myriad other areas.
This report indicates the sweep of science and technology in many public policy
issues, although it cannot provide a comprehensive examination of every science or
technology issue which may be of interest to Congress. In some areas, such as global
climate change and stem cell research, the importance of science and technology is
explicit and in the forefront of the policy debate. In others, such as patent protection
and telecommunications reform, science and technology may not be as explicit, but
are important drivers affecting how policy makers may make decisions. This report
also addresses key issues that directly affect, or are affected by, science and
technology. Other mechanisms which may indirectly impact science and technology
— such as tax, antitrust, and trade policies — are outside the scope of this report.
The appropriate level of federal funding for research and development (R&D)
is among the issues facing Congress. One consequence of President Bush’s objective
of constraining the growth of discretionary spending is that funding for federal R&D
would increase only slightly in the FY2006 budget. If adjusted for inflation, it would
decline for the first time since FY1996. Federal R&D funding spurs technological
advancement, which contributes to economic growth, and plays a role in the
education of future scientists and engineers. Members of congressional committees
that oversee R&D have expressed concern about the possible repercussions of
restraining R&D funding.
Science and technology also are important components of homeland security
issues. Not only is Congress debating funding levels for R&D for counterterrorism,
but issues concerning public access to scientific information, and technological and
privacy aspects of “data mining” (a potential means to identity terrorist activities and
track individual terrorists themselves). Congress is addressing a wide range of other
science and technology policy issues, from tsunami forecasting and warning, to
“telecom reform” (revising the Telecommunications Act of 1996), to cloning and
stem cell research, to ocean policy and global climate change. Several energy issues
are being debated, including President Bush’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, and
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The “transformation” of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) as it implements President Bush’s “Vision for
Space Exploration,” is receiving close attention as the agency announces related job
cuts and program changes, including sharp cutbacks in aeronautics R&D.
This report identifies other CRS reports that treat most of those issues in more
depth. It is updated occasionally. Many of the CRS reports cited herein are updated
more often, and should be consulted for timely information.
Key Policy Staff
Bioagent Lab Registration and Security
Sarah Lister
7-7320
Broadband Internet Access
Len Kruger
7-7070
Chem/Bio/Rad/Nuke Terrorism Countermeasures R&D
Frank Gottron
7-5854
Counterterrorism R&D
Genevieve Knezo & Dan Morgan
7-6610, 7-5849
Data Mining
Jeffrey Seifert
7-0781
Digital Television
Len Kruger
7-7070
E-Government
Jeffrey Seifert
7-0781
E-Health
Steve Redhead
7-2261
Foreign Science and Engineering Presence in U.S.
Christine Matthews
7-7055
Fusion Research: ITER
Dan Morgan
7-5849
Global Climate Change
John Justus
7-7078
Govt. Perf. and Results Act & President’s Management Agenda
Genevieve Knezo
7-6610
Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Judy Johnson & Erin Williams
7-7077, 7-4897
Human Genetics
Judy Johnson & Erin Williams
7-7077, 7-4897
Hydrogen Fuel and Fuel Cell Vehicles
Brent Yacobucci
7-9662
Information Quality Act Implementation and Peer Review
Curtis Copeland & Michael Simpson
7-0632, 7-7010
Information Tech. Mgmt for Dept. of Homeland Security
Jeffrey Seifert
7-0781
National Institutes of Health (NIH)
Pamela Smith
7-7048
Networking Information Technology R&D
Patty Figliola
7-2508
Ocean Science and Oceanic Affairs
John Justus
7-7078
Open Source Software
Jeffrey Seifert
7-0781
Public Access to Scientific Information
Genevieve Knezo & Dana Shea
7-6610, 7-6844
R&D Budgets and Budget Trends
Mike Davey
7-7074
Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel
Tony Andrews
7-6843
Science & Technology Education
Christine Matthews
7-7055
Space and Aeronautics Issues
Marcia Smith & Dan Morgan
7-7076, 7-5849
Spectrum Management and Wireless Technologies
Linda Moore
7-5853
Technological Innovation and the Economy
Wendy Schacht
7-7066
Technology Development
Wendy Schacht
7-7066
Technology for Warning Systems and Alerts
Linda Moore
7-5853
Telecommunications Act fo 1996 Revision
Angele Gilroy
7-7778
Tsunami Forecasting and Warning
Wayne Morrissey
7-7072
Water Supply Technology and Energy-Water Efficiency
Nicole Carter
7-0854
Wireless Privacy, Internet Privacy, and Spyware
Marcia Smith
7-7076
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Research and Development Budget, Management,
and Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Federal Government Investment in R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2006 R&D Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the
President’s Management Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Information Quality Act Implementation and Peer Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Science and Technology Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Foreign Science and Engineering Presence in U.S.
Institutions and the Labor Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Homeland Security Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Counterterrorism R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Terrorism
Countermeasures R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Bioagent Lab Registration and Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Public Access to Scientific Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Information Technology Management for the
Department of Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Data Mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Technology Development Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Technological Innovation and the Economy:
Impact of Federal R&D Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
R&D Partnerships and Intellectual Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Advanced Technology Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Prescription Drugs: Costs, Availability, and Federal R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Telecommunications and Information Technology Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Telecommunications Act of 1996 Revision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Broadband Internet Regulation and Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Transition to Digital Television . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Spectrum Management and Wireless Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Networking Information Technology R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
E-Health: Health Information Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
E-Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Open Source Software . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Wireless Privacy, Internet Privacy, and Spyware . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Tsunamis and Other Emergencies: Forecasting and Warning Systems . . . . . . . . 30
Tsunami Forecasting and Warning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Technology for Warning Systems and Alerts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Geosciences Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Ocean Commissions: Ocean Science and Oceanic Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Global Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Energy and Water Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Hydrogen Fuel and Fuel Cell Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Fusion Research: ITER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Water Supply Technology and Energy-Water Efficiency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Biomedicine Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Organization
and Management Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Human Genetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Space and Aeronautics Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Impact of The “Vision for Space Exploration” on
NASA’s Aeronautics and Other Space Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
The Future of the Hubble Space Telescope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
National Security Space Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Appendix: List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Science and Technology Policy: Issues for
the 109th Congress
Introduction
Science and technology are an underpinning of, and have a pervasive influence
over, a wide range of issues confronting the nation. Decisions on how much federal
funding to invest in basic and applied research and in research and development
(R&D), and determining what programs have the highest priority, for example, could
have implications for homeland security, new high technology industries,
government/private sector cooperation in R&D, and myriad other areas.
Following are brief discussions of key science and technology issues being
debated in the 109th Congress. Where available, additional CRS reports and issue
briefs that discuss these topics in more detail are identified at the end of each section.
Many of those reports are regularly updated, and should be consulted for timely
information.
Research and Development Budget, Management,
and Workforce
Federal Government Investment in R&D
The constrained fiscal environment is putting pressure on the full range of federal
government spending, including funding for research and development (R&D).
Debate is ongoing in the 109th Congress over how much to spend on various R&D
activities (see next issue), but a more fundamental question is why the government
invests in R&D at all rather than relying on the private sector, universities, and other
non-profit groups.
Traditionally, the government’s role in R&D funding is to meet the mission
requirements of the federal departments and agencies. Included is support for basic
research — that work undertaken to gain knowledge and understanding of the
fundamental aspects of nature. The payoff for basic research is generally long in
coming, the results may be unmarketable, and the rewards often diffused among many
users, making private sector investment less likely. However, as stated in the
Analytical Perspectives accompanying President Bush’s FY2006 budget request,
“R&D is critically important for keeping our nation economically competitive, and it
will help solve the challenges we face in health, defense, energy, and the
environment” (p. 61).
CRS-2
In the United States, while the development of new products, processes and
services for the commercial marketplace is primarily a private sector activity, the
government may get involved for certain limited purposes. Federal support is often
provided for those efforts that typically have been determined to be necessary for the
“national good” but which cannot, or will not, be financed by industry. Government
also plays a role in structuring the environment in which business decisions are made
and thereby influences private sector behavior. Direct federal funding, tax policies,
and the existence of government markets for certain technologies, including defense,
public health, and information technology-related goods, have helped influence
resource allocations in the business community.
According to the National Science Foundation’s Science and Engineering
Indicators 2004 (p. 4-9), in 2002 (the latest year for which data are available)
industry funds accounted for 66% of U.S. R&D, while the government financed 28%
of the total spending, with the remaining 6% provided by universities, colleges, and
other non-profit institutions. Industrial support for R&D is concentrated on
development rather than on research activities. The government encourages private
investment in R&D through direct measures such as the research and experimentation
(R&E) tax credit (see CRS Report RL31181), and through indirect measures including
ownership of intellectual property and cooperative R&D activities (discussed below
under Technology Development Issues).
The myriad effects of federal R&D spending highlight the importance of
decisions regarding the amount and distribution of federal R&D funds. Choices made
by the 109th Congress related to the financing of research and development may have
immediate impacts on current programs as well as long term effects on the nation’s
technological progress.
For Further Information
CRS Issue Brief IB91132, Industrial Competitiveness and Technological
Advancement: Debate Over Government Policy
CRS Report RL32799, Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2006
CRS Issue Brief IB10088, Federal Research and Development: Budgeting and
Priority-Setting Issues, 109th Congress
CRS Report RL31181, Research Tax Credit: Current Status, Legislative Proposals,
and Policy Issues
FY2006 R&D Budget
The Bush Administration has requested $132.2 billion in federal research and
development (R&D) funding for FY2006. This sum represents a $505 million
increase over the FY2005 estimated funding level of $131.7 billion. In real dollars
(adjusted for inflation), however, total federal R&D would decline for the first time
since FY1996. The proposed FY2006 R&D budget reflects the Administration’s
objective of constraining the growth of federal discretionary spending.
For the first time since FY1995, funding for defense R&D (the sum of the
Department of Defense’s (DOD) and the Department of Energy’s (DOE) defense
R&D programs) would be flat with a requested $74.9 billion. This is due primarily to
CRS-3
a proposed 21% reduction in DOD’s science and technology programs. Funding for
federal civilian R&D is proposed to increase $188 million to $57 billion, a 0.3%
increase over the FY2005 estimated funding level. Most of this increase can be
attributed to increases in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
budget and the Department of Transportation. Based on current funding proposals,
most of the civilian R&D agencies’ budgets are proposed to decline, in real dollars,
in FY2006.
Funding for total federal research (the sum of basic and applied research) would
decline from $55.2 billion to $54.8, a 0.6% reduction. Total funding for basic research
is proposed to decline from $26.9 billion in FY2005 to $26.6 billion in FY2006. Most
of the decline in basic research support can be attributed to proposed reductions in
DOD’s basic research program, and NASA’s basic research program. (NASA’s basic
research program accounts for 19% of the agency’s total R&D budget.)
The Administration proposes to reduce funding for all three of its multi-agency
initiatives. Funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative would decline 2.5%
to $1.1 billion, following four years of funding increases. The Networking and
Information and Technology R&D initiative would decline 4.5% to $2.2 billion, while
the Climate Change Science Program is proposed to decline 1.4% to $1.9 billion,
primarily due to cuts in NASA’s contributions to space-based observations of the
environment.
The 109th Congress is facing difficult decisions for funding federal R&D. For
the first time in a decade, total federal R&D funding is proposed to decline in real
dollars. Since President Bush took office, defense R&D funding has increased 45%,
in real dollars, while concomitantly civilian R&D has increased 23% in real dollars.
However, if the doubling of National Institutes of Health budget, between FY1999
and FY2003, is subtracted from the total, civilian R&D declines in real dollars. Many
scientists and engineers contend that this rapid growth in the funding for biomedical
sciences has come at the expense of non-biomedical sciences including the physical
sciences, environmental sciences, engineering, mathematics, and the social sciences.
Given the important role that federal civilian R&D plays in the education of
future scientists and engineers, as well as the development of technological
innovation, a variety of special interest groups are likely to call on Congress to restore
funding for civilian R&D. If the President insists on holding the line on civilian
discretionary spending, any increase for civilian R&D funding would have to be
obtained at the expense of other federal programs.
The House has passed all 11 of its FY2006 appropriations bills, while the Senate
has passed 5 of its 12 appropriations bills. Based on current House actions, CRS
estimates that the House has approved an estimated $134.2 billion for R&D in
FY2006, $2 billion above the President’s request. All of that increase can be
attributed to the House approving an additional $2.5 billion for DOD’s science and
technology programs. Most of the remaining House R&D funding actions tend to
mirror the President’s request.
CRS-4
For Further Information
CRS Report RL32799, Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2006
CRS Issue Brief IB10088, Federal Research and Development: Budgeting and
Priority-Setting Issues, 109th Congress
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the
President’s Management Agenda
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), P.L. 103-62, is
intended to produce greater efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in federal
spending and to ensure that an agency’s programs and priorities meet its goals. It also
requires agencies to use performance measures for management and, ultimately, for
budgeting. Recent actions have required agencies to identify more precisely R&D
goals and measures of R&D outcomes. As underscored in The President’s
Management Agenda, beginning in FY2001 and in each year thereafter, the Bush
Administration has emphasized the importance of performance measurement,
including for R&D. In a memorandum dated June 5, 2003, signed jointly by the
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Director and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Director regarding planning for the FY2005 R&D
budget requests, the Administration announced that its effort to base budget decisions
on program performance would continue and be expanded (OMB M-03-15). OMB
referred to this memo again in the FY2006 and FY2007 R&D budget guidance, which
reiterated the importance of performance assessment for R&D programs (respectively,
OMB M-04-23 and OMB M-05-18.)
Section 5 of OMB’s Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the U.S. Government,
FY2006, discusses requirements for agencies to use OMB criteria to measure research
outcomes, focusing on relevance, quality, and performance. R&D performed by
industry is to meet additional criteria relating to the appropriateness of public
investment, demonstrate a capability to measure benefits, and identify decision points
to transition the activity to the private sector. The Administration assessed some R&D
programs by use of the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) which uses the
OMB R&D criteria and other measures. PART results for 84 R&D programs were
used when making FY2006 budget decisions. OMB’s Analytical Perspectives volume
reports that 25 programs were judged effective, 31 were moderately effective, and at
least 19 were ranked ineffective or results not demonstrated. Commentators point out
that it is difficult to define priorities for most research and to measure the results
quantitatively, since research outcomes cannot be defined well in advance and often
take a long time to demonstrate. As a result some say they have little confidence that
R&D performance measures can be used to recommend budget levels. Congress may
increase attention to using R&D performance measures in authorizations and
appropriations as discretionary spending becomes constrained.
Interest continues in monitoring the PART process, as well as in the
Administration’s budget and performance integration initiative and in implementation
of GPRA. In the 109th Congress, the House Government Reform Committee has
approved H.R. 185, to provide a statutory mandate for PART-like reviews; it is similar
to H.R. 3826, which the committee reported favorably in the last Congress. Also in
CRS-5
the 109th Congress, the Administration has proposed to create a sunset commission,
which would require performance reviews and automatic program termination unless
programs were reauthorized. Bills reflecting the Administration’s proposal have been
introduced (S. 1399, H.R. 3276, H.R. 3277). There are also proposals in the 109th
Congress to create accountability commissions (H.R. 2470 and S. 1155). Some
congressional staff are not yet comfortable with using performance measurement data
to make budget decisions and prefer to use traditionally formatted budget information,
which focuses on inputs, rather than outputs, or political judgements to make budget
decisions. (See Amelia Gruber, “Lawmakers Remain Skeptical of Linking Budget,
Performance,” GovExec.com, Jan. 13, 2004, and GAO, Performance Budgeting:
Observations on the Use of OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool for the FY2004
Budget, GAO-04-174, Jan. 2004).
For Further Information
CRS Report RL32164, Performance Management and Budgeting in the Federal
Government: Brief History and Recent Developments
CRS Report RS22181: A Sunset Commission for the Federal Government: Recent
Developments
Information Quality Act Implementation and Peer Review
The Information Quality Act (IQA), sometimes referred to as the Data Quality
Act, was enacted in December 2000 as Section 515 of the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-554). The act
required OMB to issue guidance to federal agencies designed to ensure the “quality,
objectivity, utility, and integrity” of information disseminated to the public. It also
required agencies to issue their own information quality guidelines, and to establish
administrative mechanisms that allow affected persons to seek correction of
information maintained and disseminated by the agencies that they believe does not
comply with OMB guidance. OMB’s February 2002 final guidance notes that IQA
applies to virtually all federal agencies and defines “information” as “any
communication or representation of knowledge such as facts or data, in any medium
or form.” The guidelines define “dissemination” as any “agency initiated or sponsored
distribution of information to the public.” OMB indicated that “quality” encompasses
elements of utility, objectivity, and integrity, and said agencies can generally presume
that data are “objective” if they have been subject to an independent peer review
process.
In April 2004, OMB provided Congress with a report on the implementation of
IQA during FY2003. The report said the agencies received only about thirty-five
substantive correction requests during the year, and said the correction requests came
from all segments of society. However, OMB Watch (a public interest group) said
OMB’s report was “seriously flawed” in that it understated the number of correction
requests and did not disclose that nearly three-quarters of the requests were from
industry.
A major test of the IQA’s effectiveness is whether agencies’ denials of correction
requests are subject to judicial review. In June and November 2004, two U.S. District
Courts ruled that IQA does not permit judicial review regarding agencies’ compliance
CRS-6
with its provisions. One district court decision was appealed by the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce. In the Chamber’s view, if the district court’s decision is reversed on
appeal, parties will be able to seek judicial review of an agency’s final disposition of
IQA petitions.
In December 2004, OMB published a final bulletin on “Peer Review and
Information Quality” that sought to establish a peer review process for all “influential
scientific information,” which was defined as including any scientific information that
the agency “reasonably can determine will have or does have a clear and substantial
impact on important public policies or private sector decisions.” Other, more specific
requirements were placed on “highly influential scientific assessments” (i.e.,
influential scientific information that involved an evaluation of a body of knowledge
that could have a $500 million impact on decision-making or was precedent setting,
novel, complex, or involved significant interagency interest). The final bulletin
requires agencies to disclose the names of peer reviewers and requires agencies to
report annually on their peer review activities. Both OMB and the agencies have a
significant amount of discretion in the administration of the peer review bulletin (e.g.,
deciding when peer review is required, the selection of peer reviewers, whether to use
alternative procedures), so its impact on information quality, consistency of peer
review practices, and rulemaking will become clear only through its administration.
Congressional interest in both OMB’s peer review bulletin and IQA during the
109th Congress is expected to center on how the agencies and OMB are carrying out
their responsibilities, the effect of the bulletin and the act on the pace of rulemaking,
and whether Congress should amend the IQA and provide for judicial review.
For Further Information
CRS Report RL32532, The Information Quality Act: OMB’s Guidance and Initial
Implementation
CRS Report RL32680, Peer Review: OMB’s Proposed and Revised Bulletins
Science and Technology Education
An important aspect of U.S. efforts to maintain and improve economic
competitiveness is the existence of a capable scientific and technological workforce.
A January 2004 report of the National Science Foundation (NSF), Science and
Engineering Indicators 2004, states that between the years 2000 and 2010,
employment in science and engineering fields will increase at more than three times
the rate for all other occupations. In addition, approximately 86% of the increase in
science and engineering will be in computer-related positions. Simultaneous with
predictions of the future scientific workforce are data reporting a decline in the
number of students seeking degrees in certain fields. While 33% of the undergraduate
degrees awarded are in science and engineering, the portion of degrees earned in the
physical sciences, mathematics, computer science, and engineering has been static or
declining. Disciplines that have witnessed an increase in degrees earned have been
primarily psychology and the biological sciences. There is growing concern by many
in the scientific community, industry, research-driven federal agencies, and Congress
about the production of the nation’s science, mathematics, engineering, and technical
personnel.
CRS-7
The demographics of the science and engineering workforce have been the
subject of debate. The demographics of the nation have been changing, with more
than 25% of the U.S. population composed of certain minorities — blacks, Hispanics,
and Native Americans. As a group, these minorities have traditionally been
underrepresented in the science and engineering disciplines compared to their
proportion of the total population. Another underrepresented group in the sciences is
women, a group that comprises 50.8% of the population. Together, these groups
comprise what some may call a “new majority.” While minorities have increased their
share of degrees awarded in the past 10 years, poor preparation in science and
mathematics is said to be a major factor limiting the appeal of science and engineering
to many in these groups. In addition, a large number of blacks, Hispanics, and Native
Americans lack access to many of the more rigorous college preparatory course
offerings. John Brooks Slaughter, president and chief executive officer of the
National Action Council for Minorities in Engineering, states that “Improving
minority participation at all levels of higher education, especially in scientific and
e n g i n e e r i n g d i s c i p l i n e s , i s c r i t i c a l f o r A m e r i c a . ”
[http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/1004diversity.shtml].
Congress has held a number of hearings in recent years to examine the decline
in the nation’s scientific and technical workforce, to seek further solutions for
improving aspects of undergraduate science and mathematics education, and the aging
of the science and engineering workforce, especially at the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. The FY2005 DOD authorization act (P.L. 108-375)
established a program of financial assistance for undergraduate degrees in science and
technology. The disciplines that would receive support are those that are critical to
national security.
On April 14, 2005, winners of the 2004 Presidential Awards for Excellence in
Mathematics and Science Teaching testified before the House Committee on Science
on the need to improve science and mathematics education at the precollege level. All
five of the winners discussed the importance of expanding federal efforts directed at
the professional development of teachers, including both pre-service and in-service
training. They discussed also the need to encourage more students to enter the
scientific disciplines and to make the teaching profession more attractive as a career.
Introduced in April 2005, H.R. 1547/S. 765, the Math and Science Incentive Act of
2005, is designed to respond to those needs. The bill, among other things, provides
loan forgiveness for undergraduates pursuing careers in science, mathematics,
engineering, and technology or teaching those subjects at the precollege level. It is
anticipated that the 109th Congress will continue to examine issues important to
science and mathematics education, including those of the preparation and
performance of U.S. students at the precollege level, the diversity of the scientific and
technical workforce, and the impact of visa regulations on foreign students in graduate
science and engineering programs (see next issue).
For Further Information
CRS Report 98-871 STM, Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Status
and Issues
CRS-8
Foreign Science and Engineering Presence in U.S.
Institutions and the Labor Force
The increased presence of foreign students in U.S. graduate science and
engineering programs continues to be of concern. Enrollment of U.S. citizens in
graduate science and engineering programs has not kept pace with that of foreign
students in those programs. In many institutions, foreign graduate students on
temporary visas comprise 40% to 50% of some science and engineering programs.
In addition to the number of foreign students, a significant number of university
faculty in the scientific disciplines are foreign, and foreign-born doctorates are
employed in large numbers by industry.
Many in the scientific and engineering communities maintain that in order to
compete with countries that are rapidly expanding their scientific and technological
capabilities, the United States needs to bring in those whose skills will benefit society
and will enable us to compete in the new-technology-based global economy.
Individuals supporting this position believe instead of limiting the number of foreign
students, the conditions under which foreign talent enters U.S. colleges and
universities and the labor force should be more carefully scrutinized and controlled
to address any security concerns. Furthermore, there are those who contend that the
underlying concern of foreign students in graduate science and engineering programs
is not necessarily that there are too many foreign-born students, but that there are not
enough U.S. students entering the disciplines.
The debate on the presence of foreign students in graduate science and
engineering programs and the workforce has intensified as a result of the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. Concerns have been expressed about certain foreign
students receiving education and training in sensitive areas. In addition, there has
been increased discussion about the access of foreign scientists and engineers to R&D
related to chemical and biological weapons. In May 2004, several higher education
organizations released a combined statement on the impact of the new visa policies
on higher education and the scientific enterprise. They maintain that the new
procedures have made the visa system inefficient and that the tighter visa restrictions
are a major deterrent to foreign students and scholars considering working and
studying in this country. During the 108th Congress, several hearings were held to
examine the visa system for foreign students. Discussions focused on the increased
scrutiny of foreign students from countries that sponsor terrorism, and the restrictions
placed on the participation of foreign students and scientists in military-sponsored
projects and other types of R&D.
On February 15, 2005, the State Department announced that progress has been
made in reducing the clearance time for the Visas Mantis process. Currently, the
process averages 15 days. In addition to reducing the clearance process, the State
Department has revised the clearance procedures by reducing the restrictions placed
on students and scholars and extending the validity of the clearances (lengthening the
time for each clearance). The Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a
report detailing the efforts and the improvements that have been made in the visa
processing. The February 2005 report (GAO-05-198), Border Security: Streamlined
Visas Mantis Program Has Lowered Burden on Foreign Science Students and
CRS-9
Scholars, but Further Refinements Needed, details the efforts and the improvements
that have been made in the visa processing.
A May 10, 2005 report of the National Academies, Policy Implications of
International Graduate Students and Postdoctoral Scholars in the United States, notes
the importance of international students to U.S. society not only academically and
economically, but in terms of global and cultural knowledge and understanding.
However, NSF data reveal that the number of non-U.S. citizens enrolling in U.S.
colleges and universities has slowed since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks
because of the tightening of U.S. visa policies, increased global competition for
graduates in scientific and technical disciplines, and reports that foreign students may
encounter an “inhospitable environment.”
In the 109th Congress, legislation has been introduced to reform the visa
application process for foreign students — S. 455, the American Competitiveness
Through International Openness Act of 2005. It is anticipated that the 109th Congress
will continue to monitor the participation of foreign students in graduate science and
engineering programs and the processing of visas for foreign science students and
scholars. In addition, there may be further debate regarding the increased scrutiny of
foreign students from countries that sponsor terrorism, and the restrictions placed on
the participation of foreign students and scientists in certain types of R&D. There are
questions as to whether or not a continued reduction in the immigration of foreign
scientists may impact negatively on the competitiveness of U.S. industry.
For Further Information
CRS Report 97-746, Foreign Science and Engineering Presence in U.S. Institutions
and the Laborforce
Homeland Security Issues
Counterterrorism R&D
Since the terrorist attacks in 2001, additional federal funding has been devoted
to counterterrorism R&D, and new planning and coordination mechanisms have been
established both in individual agencies and in the White House. The Homeland
Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296) consolidated some R&D activities and
coordination responsibilities in the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
especially in its Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T). During the 108th
Congress, oversight focused on the establishment of the S&T Directorate. In the
109th Congress, policy issues include the coordination of programs and priorities,
both between agencies and within DHS; the use of performance goals and metrics to
monitor S&T program accomplishments; DHS’s use of the Homeland Security S&T
Advisory Committee; the adequacy of R&D resources for topics of particular
congressional interest, such as cybersecurity; and the integration of threat assessment
information into R&D priority setting and coordination.
CRS-10
Coordination of federal counterterrorism R&D is a particular challenge because
relevant programs exist in many different agencies and accurate information about
their activities can be difficult to obtain. The R&D programs of DHS account for only
about one-third of total expenditures for homeland security R&D, which are estimated
at about $4.0 billion, or about $4.6 billion if facilities are included. This excludes
funding for R&D on combating terrorism overseas. Other agencies with large
counterterrorism R&D responsibilities include the National Institutes of Health
(focused on bioterrorism) and the defense and intelligence agencies. Also involved are
the Departments of Justice, Commerce, Energy, and Agriculture, the National Science
Foundation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and others. Under the Homeland
Security Act, DHS has some authority to coordinate and help set priorities for other
federal homeland security R&D, including human health-related R&D. What that
authority means in practice remains to be seen. The heads of other agencies have no
formal role in DHS’s R&D priority-setting and coordination, and conversely, the role
of the DHS Secretary in setting priorities for those agencies is undetermined. DHS’s
effectiveness in planning and coordinating R&D may depend upon the Secretary’s
ability to influence other agencies through his interactions with existing
counterterrorism coordination mechanisms in OSTP, NSTC, and interagency
committees.
Internal coordination and priority-setting within DHS are also of congressional
interest. The FY2004 homeland security appropriations conference report (H.Rept.
108-280) expressed concern about the potential for duplication, waste, and inadequate
management oversight, and directed DHS to “consolidate all Departmental research
and development funding within the science and technology programs in the FY2005
budget request.” DHS did propose consolidating the Coast Guard RDT&E program
and some smaller programs into the Science and Technology Directorate in FY2005,
but Congress rejected the move of the Coast Guard program. For FY2006, DHS has
again proposed consolidating the Coast Guard program, along with the R&D activities
of the Transportation Security Administration (which is the largest DHS R&D activity
outside the Science and Technology Directorate) and some additional smaller
programs. This consolidation is an issue for congressional oversight in the 109th
Congress, as are questions about how DHS sets priorities among its various R&D
programs and how it utilizes the R&D capabilities of the national laboratories.
Federal funding for counterterrorism R&D has increased significantly since the
terrorist attacks in 2001, despite the constrained budget environment. In FY2004, the
government-wide total exceeded $3.5 billion, compared with less than $600 million
in FY2001. For FY2006, the Administration’s total request for homeland security
R&D, including facilities construction, is an estimated $4.6 billion. (Only $1.4 billion
of this is in DHS.) The Administration has made homeland security a budget priority
for interagency R&D planning, but continuing growth may pose challenges as the
109th Congress balances competing needs in a tight budget.
For Further Information
CRS Report RS21270, Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Research and
Development: Funding, Organization, and Oversight
CRS Report RL31914, Research and Development in the Department of Homeland
Security
CRS-11
CRS Report RL32481, Homeland Security Research and Development Funding and
Activities in Federal Agencies: A Preliminary Inventory
CRS Report RL32482, Federal Homeland Security Research and Development
Funding: Issues of Data Quality
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Terrorism
Countermeasures R&D
Federal chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) terrorism
countermeasures research and development is concentrated in three departments: the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), and the Department of Defense (DOD). HHS, largely through the
National Institutes of Health (NIH), has traditionally focused on basic research to
support the development of countermeasures. Increasingly, HHS supports the
development of new countermeasures by grants to fund advanced development and
clinical trials. DHS CBRN research and development programs focus on threat
awareness and characterization (including material threat determinations for Project
BioShield), agent surveillance and detection, forensics, and post-event response and
restoration. DOD has a significant countermeasures research and development
program which focuses on protecting warfighters from CBRN weapons and tends to
emphasize prophylaxis.
The three departments’ programs have the potential for either synergy or
redundancy. Strong executive branch management and congressional oversight may
be crucial for maximizing synergy and avoiding redundancy. In the 109th Congress,
committees in both chambers have held hearings related to interagency coordination
of CBRN defense efforts. Congress appears poised to continue this attention.
Enactment of the Project BioShield Act of 2002 (P.L. 108-276), a ten-year $5.6
billion biomedical countermeasures acquisition program, removed some of the
barriers that had discouraged pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies from
developing countermeasures. Both chambers have held hearings during the 109th
Congress on the implementation of this program. Congressional concerns include the
perceived slow rate that the program acquires countermeasures and the decision
process for choosing countermeasures. This scrutiny is likely to continue with
additional oversight hearings.
Congress is considering several bills which add to or modify the Project
BioShield Act of 2002. Additional legislation is likely to be introduced. Some of the
issues likely to receive congressional consideration are provisions removing some of
the remaining barriers discouraging private-sector countermeasures development, such
as limiting tort liability and streamlining the Food and Drug Administration drug
approval process. Additional financial incentives for companies developing
countermeasures, including tax credits and patent extensions, are also likely to receive
congressional consideration.
For Further Information
CRS Report RS21507, Project BioShield
CRS-12
CRS Report RS21270, Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Research and
Development: Funding, Organization, and Oversight
Bioagent Lab Registration and Security
A program to track organisms that could potentially be used for bioterrorism —
the Select Agent program — was first established in the Antiterrorism and Effective
Death Penalty Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-132). The law required the Secretary of HHS to
regulate the transfer (though not the possession) of so-called select agents, which are
viruses, bacteria, fungi, and toxins that may pose a severe threat to public health and
safety. The initial regulation administered by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), required the registration of any laboratory shipping or receiving
the agents, and documentation of these transfers. Information and application
materials for the CDC program are available at [http://www.cdc.gov/od/sap].
The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act of
2002 (P.L. 107-188) expanded the scope of the Select Agent program by requiring all
facilities possessing select agents, not just those shipping or receiving them, to register
with CDC. In addition, P.L. 107-188 instructed the HHS Secretary, in consultation
with the Attorney General, to establish safety and security requirements for registered
laboratories “commensurate with the level of risk to public health and safety,” and to
conduct background screening for all persons seeking access to select agents.
Congress authorized the program through 2007 with an indefinite appropriation.
P.L. 107-188 gave the Department of Agriculture (USDA) similar authority to
develop a list of biological agents and toxins that may pose a severe threat to crops
and livestock and to regulate facilities that possess, use, or transfer those agents and
toxins. The law instructed HHS and USDA to coordinate their activities regarding
so-called overlap agents, those agents that affect both human and animal health and
that therefore appear on both agencies’ lists. Both P.L. 107-188 and the USA
PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) prohibit certain groups of individuals — based on
criminal history, immigration status, and other factors — from having access to select
agents.
In December 2002, HHS and USDA issued interim final regulations to
implement the expanded program. Both departments issued final rules, with only
minor changes, in March 2005. The HHS regulation is codified at 42 CFR 73.0, and
the USDA regulation at 7 CFR 331 and 9 CFR 121. In addition to the provisions
discussed above, all labs possessing select agents were required to submit detailed
security, training, and record-keeping plans in order to be registered.
Institutions were to be in full compliance by November 12, 2003. The FBI was
unable to complete all the security background checks, and HHS and USDA were
unable to finish reviewing all the applications, in time to meet the deadline. Thus, on
November 3, 2003, in order to avoid a disruption of ongoing research, CDC and
USDA issued revised regulations allowing labs and researchers to obtain provisional
certification, provided they had submitted all the appropriate paperwork.
Subsequently it is reported that the agencies have processed backlogged applications
and granted certification to those facilities and individuals that met the requirements.
CRS-13
Congress expanded the Select Agent program in response to concerns that the
anthrax used in the 2001 mail attacks may have been obtained from a U.S. research
facility. Lawmakers sought to improve lab security without unduly impeding vital
biomedical and biodefense research. While some academic and industry scientists
have praised the government for striking an appropriate balance between science and
security, others have been critical, saying that the regulations are burdensome and
costly, and will not substantially improve security. Some scientists have discontinued
research on select agents because of the security requirements and out of fear that
breaking the new law, even inadvertently, could result in stiff criminal penalties. As
the anthrax attacks were unfolding in the fall of 2001, officials at the Iowa State
University destroyed their research collection of anthrax strains, collected over
decades, fearing they would not have the resources to properly safeguard the
collection in the new security climate.
In March 2005, a laboratory certification organization inadvertently sent a sample
of a highly pathogenic influenza strain to thousands of laboratories around the world.
While no one became ill as a result, policymakers asked why such an error had
occurred despite heightened controls. In fact, the Select Agent rule did not apply in
this situation: human influenza strains are not included on the list of HHS select
agents. Highly pathogenic strains of avian influenza (“bird flu”) are included on the
USDA list, however. Some have questioned whether human influenza strains should
be included, or whether some other measure might have prevented this incident.
Public Access to Scientific Information
Policies to provide access to scientific and technical information that protect the
nation against terrorist attacks require balancing issues of national security, scientific
communication, and constitutional and statutory protections that permit public access
to information used for accountability and oversight. Historically, the U.S.
government has used classification procedures to protect scientific and technical
information that might compromise national security. Fundamental scientific
information whose release does not compromise security is to remain unclassified
pursuant to Executive Order 12958 and National Security Decision Directive 189.
After the 2001 terrorist attacks, the government widened controls on access to
information and scientific components. Policies are being implemented to deny
access to federally owned information labeled “sensitive but unclassified” (SBU) or
“sensitive homeland security information” (SHSI). This includes information that
agencies previously posted on websites or made available upon request.
Consideration is being given to preventing publication of some non-federally owned
scientific and technical information.
Some critics say that criteria for identifying SBU information have not been
defined clearly, causing inconsistency among agencies and complicating the design
and implementation of policies to access and safeguard such information. White
House directives and federal agencies have used the term SBU in various ways to
label and control information. Some agencies refer to definitions for controlled
information, such as for “sensitive,” found in the Computer Security Act, or to
information exempt from disclosure through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
or the Privacy Act. Those laws gave agencies some discretion and permitted use of
risk analysis to identify information to be safeguarded. Pursuant to the Federal
CRS-14
Information Security Management Act of 2002 (FISMA), the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed guidance for agencies to identify and
use risk-based criteria to control access to unclassified, including sensitive,
information and information systems. These will become mandatory in December
2005.
P.L. 107-296, the Homeland Security Act, requires the President to prescribe and
implement procedures for agencies to identify and safeguard sensitive but unclassified
homeland security information (Secs. 891 and 892). OMB had planned to issue
related guidance in 2003; on July 29, 2003, in Executive Order 13311, the President
delegated his responsibility for this function to the DHS secretary, who has not yet
issued guidance. In 2004, DHS promulgated rules for safeguarding its own sensitive
unclassified information and that provided to it by other agencies and
nongovernmental entities. Issues of possible interest to Congress include whether
agencies, which have some discretion to identify SBU, are using uniform criteria to
identify such information, to control it, and to permit access to it while protecting
information that should be withheld; design of an appeals process since the
information is not classified; assessment of the pros and cons of wider SBU controls
in relation to accountability; and possible classification of federally-owned basic
research information, since heads of some agencies performing basic research were
given original classification authority.
The federal government has traditionally supported the open publication of
federally funded, extramural research results conducted by nongovernmental
scientists. In cases where release of fundamental research results might compromise
national security (e.g. atomic energy and cryptography research), federal policy
prescribes the use of classification to limit dissemination. A series of research
publications have increased concern whether publication of some federally funded
extramural research results could threaten national security. As a result, some have
suggested that such research results should be reviewed for security implications
before publication, while others say that such review would damage scientific progress
and productivity. Most scientists and publishers have begun to implement voluntary
self-regulatory measures regarding publication of potentially sensitive manuscripts,
but these efforts may not be considered stringent enough. The Department of Health
and Human Services, following select recommendations presented by the National
Academies report, Biotechnology Research in an Age of Terrorism, established the
National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity to provide guidance for the
identification of research that may require special security attention. The controls
designed by professional groups undoubtedly will be guided by federal policy as it
develops.
For Further Information
CRS Report RL31695, Balancing Scientific Publication and National Security
Concerns: Issues for Congress
CRS Report RL31845, ‘Sensitive But Unclassified’ and Other Federal Security
Controls on Scientific and Technical Information: History and Current
Controversy
CRS-15
Information Technology Management for the
Department of Homeland Security
One of the biggest challenges facing the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) is the ongoing effort to consolidate the computer and communications systems
of the 22 agencies that comprise the Department. In many respects, DHS functions
as a virtual department, connecting new and existing agencies into a network that
capitalizes on their knowledge assets to facilitate information sharing and enhanced
communication. Organizationally, this involves breaking down the “stovepipes” that
have previously separated the agencies and developing an encompassing
organizational culture that promotes cooperation and information sharing.
Technologically, this involves integrating existing systems and infrastructures while
simultaneously infusing new technologies as they are become available. Rigorous
oversight of these activities is continuing in the 109th Congress.
A critical variable that will contribute to the success or failure of these objectives
is the development and implementation of an enterprise architecture for the
Department. An enterprise architecture serves as a blueprint of the business
operations of an organization, and the technologies needed to carry out these
functions. It is designed to be comprehensive and scalable, to account for future
growth needs.
As the Department moves forward with its enterprise architecture plans, it will
encounter several issues. Its enterprise architecture is being used to identify common
functions and eliminate redundancies among its component agencies. This requires
making choices between competing systems and reallocating resources and staff
accordingly. In doing so, DHS may need to improve the interoperability of its systems
as well, by selecting common data formats, equipment, and processes. This, in turn,
would enable DHS to carry out its information sharing responsibilities, as described
in the Homeland Security Act and the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004.
Since some of these information sharing initiatives involve agencies and organizations
at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as agencies within the Department,
additional coordination with these external partners is necessary to ensure the smooth
flow of information and compliance with security procedures. Other oversight issues
Congress is considering include funding, information security, outsourcing, and
technology development. In addition, given the interrelationships between DHS and
other departments, the impact of the DHS enterprise architecture on related e-
government initiatives currently underway has also attracted interest.
Data Mining
Data mining has emerged as one of the key features of many homeland security
initiatives, and an issue that is attracting strong congressional oversight. Data mining
involves the use of data analysis tools to discover previously unknown, valid patterns
and relationships in large data sets. In the context of homeland security, data mining
is often viewed as a potential means to identify terrorist activities, such as money
transfers and communications, and to identify and track individual terrorists
themselves, such as through travel and immigration records.
CRS-16
Data mining is carried out in both the private and public sectors. Some common
uses include detecting fraud, assessing risk, and measuring and improving program
performance. While data mining represents a substantial advance in the type of
analytical tools currently available, some of the homeland security data mining
applications represent a significant expansion in the quantity and scope of data to be
analyzed. Two efforts that attracted a high level of congressional interest are the Total
Information Awareness (TIA) project, which now has been discontinued, and the
proposed Computer Assisted Passenger Prescreening System II (CAPPS II) project,
which is being replaced by the Secure Flight passenger screening program,
administered by the Transportation Security Administration.
While technological capabilities are important, there are other implementation
and oversight issues that can influence the success of a data mining project’s outcome.
One issue is data quality, which refers to the accuracy and completeness of the data
being analyzed. A second issue is the interoperability of the data mining software and
databases being used by different agencies. Interoperability is a critical part of the
larger efforts to improve interagency collaboration and information sharing through
e-government and homeland security initiatives. A third issue is privacy. Questions
being considered include the degree to which government agencies should use and
mix commercial data with government data, whether data sources are being used for
purposes other than those for which they were originally designed, and possible
application of the 1974 Privacy Act to these initiatives.
For Further Information
CRS Report RL31798, Data Mining: An Overview
Technology Development Issues
Technological Innovation and the Economy:
Impact of Federal R&D Funding
Technological advancement is an important factor in the nation’s economic
growth. Experts widely accept that technical progress is responsible for up to one-half
the growth of the U.S. economy and is one principal driving force for increases in our
standard of living. Historically, industrial expansion was based on the use of
technology to exploit natural resources. Today, such growth tends to be founded on
scientific discoveries and engineering knowledge and is even more dependent than
before on the development and use of technology. Technology can drive the economy
because it contributes to the creation of new goods and services, new industries, new
jobs, and new capital. It can expand the range of services offered and extend the
geographic distribution of those services. The application of technologies also can
contribute to the resolution of those national problems that are amenable to
technological solutions.
Technological progress is achieved through innovation, the process by which
industry provides new and improved products, manufacturing processes, and services.
Research and development are important to this technological advancement in many
CRS-17
ways. R&D contributes to economic growth by its impact on productivity. Generally,
productivity growth in an industry or a firm is related to the amount spent previously
on R&D in that industry or company. Analysts estimate that one-half of productivity
increases (output per person) are the result of investments in research and
development (see CRS Report RL32324). Others argue that innovations arising from
R&D are the most important ones. Profound changes in our society have been
brought about by advances in research, resulting in new products and processes in the
areas of medicine, semiconductors, computers, and materials, just to name a few.
Traditionally, the government funds R&D to meet the mission requirements of
the federal departments and agencies. The government also supports work in areas
where there is an identified need for research, primarily basic research, not being
performed in the private sector. Basic research, that work undertaken to gain
knowledge and understanding of the fundamental aspects of nature, is the foundation
of many important new innovations. However, the payoff for basic research is
generally long in coming, the results may be unmarketable, and the rewards often
diffused among many users. Yet, while basic research is usually performed with little
certainty that it will produce goods and services in the future, it appears that there is
a significant relationship between the conduct of basic research and increases in
productivity.
Federal funding reflects a consensus that while basic research is important for
innovation, the rate of return to society as a whole generated by investments in this
activity is significantly larger than the benefits that can be captured by any one firm
performing it. It is estimated that the social rate of return on R&D spending is over
twice that of the rate of return to the inventor. Ideas often can be easily imitated, the
knowledge associated with an innovation dispersed and adapted to other products and
processes. This, it is argued, often leads to underinvestment in research by the private
sector and thus the need for federal funding.
Expert analysis has shown the importance of federally funded R&D to
advancements in innovation (see CRS Report RL32076). Studies undertaken by
economists in the field demonstrate that collaboration with publicly funded research
organizations increased private sector productivity in many industries, findings that
parallel additional work showing the importance of public science to innovation and
technological advancement across industrial sectors. This federal R&D stimulates the
additional and often substantial private investment necessary to bring new and
improved technologies to the marketplace.
In the United States, the development of new products, processes and services
for the commercial marketplace is primarily a private sector activity. The government
generally becomes involved only for certain limited purposes, including activities that
typically have been determined to be necessary for the “national good” but which
cannot, or will not, be supported by industry. However, government plays a role in
structuring the environment in which business decisions are made and thereby
influences private sector behavior. Direct federal funding and the existence of
government markets for certain technologies, including defense and information
technology-related goods, have helped influence resource allocations in the business
community.
CRS-18
The myriad effects of federal research and development spending on innovation
and the economic growth generated by technological advancement highlight the
importance of decisions regarding the amount and distribution of federal R&D funds.
Choices made by the 109th Congress related to financing the research endeavor may
have immediate impacts on current programs as well as long term effects on the
nation’s technological progress.
For Further Information
CRS Issue Brief IB91132, Industrial Competitiveness and Technological
Advancement: Debate Over Government Policy
CRS Report RL32324, Federal R&D, Drug Discovery, and Pricing: Insights from the
NIH-University-Industry Relationship
CRS Report RL32076, The Bayh-Dole Act: Selected Issues in Patent Policy and the
Commercialization of Technology
R&D Partnerships and Intellectual Property
A major emphasis of R&D-related legislative activity has been to augment
research in the private sector through efforts to encourage firms to undertake
cooperative R&D arrangements. Various laws, including the Stevenson-Wydler
National Technology Innovation Act (P.L. 96-418) and the “Bayh-Dole” Act (P.L. 96-
517), as amended, have created an environment conducive to joint ventures between
government and industry, or between industry and universities, as well as among
companies. To date, Congress has determined that providing title to inventions made
under federal funding to contractors and/or collaborating parties should be used to
support innovation. In return for patent ownership, Congress has accepted as
satisfactory the anticipated payback to the country through goods and services to
improve our health, welfare, and standard of living. These benefits have been
considered more important than the initial cost of the technology to the government
or any potential unfair advantage of one company over another in a cooperative
venture.
As such cooperative efforts become more widespread, new and additional issues
have emerged. Concerns have been expressed regarding the cost of drugs developed
in part with federal funding or in conjunction with federal agencies. Conflicts have
surfaced over federal laboratories patenting inventions that collaborating parties
believe to be their own. In some agencies, delays continue in negotiating cooperative
research and development agreements (CRADAs) because of disagreements over the
dispensation of intellectual property. Questions have been raised as to the effects of
patenting early stage discoveries (e.g. research tools) on additional innovation. The
National Institutes of Health has encountered difficulties obtaining for government-
sponsored research new experimental compounds developed and patented by drug
companies because of concerns over diminished effectiveness of the intellectual
property if additional applications are discovered. Given these issues, additional
decisions may need to be made during the 109th Congress regarding the way to
maintain a balance between the importance of bringing new products and processes
to the marketplace and protecting the public investment in R&D.
CRS-19
For Further Information
CRS Issue Brief IB89056, Cooperative R&D: Federal Efforts to Promote Industrial
Competitiveness
CRS Issue Brief IB85031, Technology Transfer: Use of Federally Funded Research
and Development
CRS Report RL32076, The Bayh-Dole Act: Selected Issues in Patent Policy and the
Commercialization of Technology
CRS Report RL30320, Patent Ownership and Federal Research and Development
(R&D): A Discussion of the Bayh-Dole Act and the Stevenson-Wydler Act
CRS Report RL32324, Federal R&D, Drug Discovery, and Pricing: Insights From
the NIH-University-Industry Relationship
CRS Report 98-862, R&D Partnerships and Intellectual Property: Implications for
U.S. Policy
Advanced Technology Program
The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) was created by P.L. 100-418, the
Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, to encourage public-private
cooperation in the development of pre-competitive technologies with broad
application across industries. Administered by the National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST), a laboratory of the Department of Commerce, this activity has
been targeted for elimination as a means to cut federal spending. Critics argue that
R&D aimed at the commercial marketplace should be funded by the private sector, not
by the federal government. Others stress that ATP is market driven and that
investments in research are shared by industry and the public sector.
Beginning several years ago, the House of Representatives attempted to terminate
ATP but strong support provided by the Senate led to continued funding. The Bush
Administration also proposed eliminating the program in its FY2002, FY2004,
FY2005, and FY2006 budget requests. These actions have renewed the debate over
the role of the federal government in promoting commercial technology development.
In arguing for less direct federal involvement, opponents of the Advanced Technology
Program believe that the market is superior to government in deciding which
technologies are worthy of investment. They prefer mechanisms that enhance the
market’s opportunities and abilities to make such choices. It is also suggested that
agency discretion in selecting one technology over another can lead to political
intrusion and industry dependency. On the other hand, supporters of direct methods
maintain that reliance on indirect measures can be wasteful, inefficient, and ineffective
and can compromise other goals of public policy in the hope of stimulating innovative
performance. Proponents of ATP argue that it is important to put the nation’s scarce
resources to work on those technologies which will have the greatest promise as
determined by industry and supported by the private sector’s willingness to match
federal funding. They assert that the government serves as a catalyst for companies
to cooperate and undertake important new work, which would not be possible without
federal participation. As Congress proceeds with the appropriations process in the
109th Congress, these issues are expected to be debated once again.
CRS-20
For Further Information
CRS Issue Brief IB91132, Industrial Competitiveness and Technological
Advancement: Debate Over Government Policy
CRS Report 95-36, The Advanced Technology Program
CRS Report 95-50, The Federal Role in Technology Development
Prescription Drugs: Costs, Availability, and Federal R&D
Congressional interest in methods to provide prescription drugs at lower cost,
particularly for the elderly, has focused attention on achieving a balance between the
public’s interest in new and improved technologies and concern over providing
companies valuable benefits without adequate accountability or compensation. The
federal government has various programs and policies facilitating the development of
pharmaceuticals and their availability in the marketplace. Several laws, including the
Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act and the Bayh-Dole Act, encourage
commercialization of federally-funded R&D through technology transfer, cooperative
R&D, and intellectual property rights (particularly patent ownership). These laws are
intended to stimulate the private sector investment often necessary to develop
marketable products utilizing the results of the government’s research enterprise.
Congress also has acted to encourage the development of lower cost generic
drugs through the Hatch-Waxman Act. This 1984 law made several significant
changes to the patent laws as they apply to pharmaceutical products in an attempt to
stimulate the search for innovative new drugs while providing less expensive generic
products. As a result of this legislation, generics generally are rapidly available after
patent expiration and at lower prices than their brand name predecessors.
Concurrently, given the increasing investment in pharmaceutical R&D and the gains
in research intensity of the pharmaceutical industry, it appears that, on balance, the act
has not deterred the search for, or the development of new drugs. However, Title XI
of the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-173)
modified the Hatch-Waxman Act as it pertained to the listing of pharmaceutical
patents in the Orange Book maintained by the Food and Drug Administration, patent
challenges by generic firms, and the award of market exclusivity, among other things.
It remains to be seen how these provisions affect the availability and cost of
prescription drugs.
Concerns have been expressed by Members of Congress over whether the current
legislative approach to encouraging innovation, particularly with respect to drug
discovery, is appropriate. In the debate, some argue that the government’s financial,
scientific, and/or clinical support of biomedical R&D entitles the public to
commensurate considerations in the prices charged for any resulting drugs. Others
view government intervention in price decisions based upon initial federal R&D
funding as contrary to a long-term trend of government promotion of innovation,
technological advancement, and the commercialization of technology by the business
community. Supporters of existing incentives for technology development argue that
they have given rise to robust pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. Critics
maintain that the need for such incentives in the pharmaceutical and/or biotechnology
sectors is mitigated by industry access to government-supported work at no cost,
monopoly power through patent protection, and additional regulatory and tax
CRS-21
advantages such as those conveyed through the Hatch-Waxman Act. At issue, is
which legislative initiatives, if any, can actually reduce the cost of safe and effective
prescription drugs to individuals in the United States and what may be the long-term
effects of these efforts on innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.
For Further Information
CRS Report RL32377, The Hatch-Waxman Act: Legislative Changes Affecting
Pharmaceutical Patents
CRS Report RL30756, Patent Law and Its Application to the Pharmaceutical
Industry: An Examination of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984
CRS Report RL31379, The Hatch-Waxman Act: Selected Patent-Related Issues
CRS Report RL32076, The Bayh-Dole Act: Selected Issues in Patent Policy and the
Commercialization of Technology
CRS Report RL32324, Federal R&D, Drug Discovery, and Pricing: Insights From
the NIH-University-Industry Relationship
CRS Report RL30320, Patent Ownership and Federal Research and Development
(R&D): A Discussion of the Bayh-Dole Act and the Stevenson-Wydler Act
CRS Report RL32400, Patents and Drug Importation
Telecommunications and Information Technology
Issues
Telecommunications Act of 1996 Revision
The “Telecommunications Act of 1996,” signed into law on February 8, 1996
(P.L. 104-104), represented the first major rewrite of our nation’s telecommunications
policy. The 1996 Act redefined and recast the 1934 Communications Act to address
the emergence of competition in what were previously considered to be monopolistic
markets. Despite its relatively recent enactment, however, a consensus has been
growing that the 1996 Act is inadequate to address the convergence and technological
changes now facing the telecommunications and broadcasting sectors. Whether a
further rewrite is required, what form such a rewrite might take, and the timing of a
rewrite, remains unclear; however, both the House and Senate are expected to
continue to take an active role in examining and debating the issues related to a
possible revision of existing telecommunications law. Included among the policy
issues likely to be examined are: the digital television transition, the universal
availability of broadband, the regulatory treatment of incumbent cable and
telecommunications providers and the impact of recently proposed mergers, the
funding of and eligibility criteria for the universal service fund (USF), the impact and
regulatory treatment of newly emerging technologies such as voice of internet protocol
(VoIP) and broadband over power lines (BPL), municipal deployment of broadband,
and the relationship between the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and
state regulatory bodies.
CRS-22
For Further Information
CRS Report RL32949, Communications Act Revisions: Selected Issues for
Consideration
CRS Report RL33034, Telecommunications Act: Competition, Innovation, and
Reform
CRS Issue Brief IB10045, Broadband Internet Access: Background and Issues
CRS Report RL32421, Broadband Over Powerlines: Regulatory and Policy Issues
Broadband Internet Regulation and Access
Broadband Internet access gives users the ability to send and receive data at
speeds far greater than conventional “dial up” Internet access over existing telephone
lines. Broadband technologies — cable modem, digital subscriber line (DSL),
satellite, and fixed wireless Internet — are currently being deployed nationwide
primarily by the private sector. While President Bush has set a goal of universal
broadband availability by 2007, some areas of the nation — particularly rural and
low-income communities — continue to lack full access to high-speed broadband
Internet service. In order to address this problem, the 109th Congress is considering
the scope and effect of federal broadband financial assistance programs (including
universal service), and the impact of telecommunications regulation and new
technologies on broadband deployment.
Some policymakers, believing that disparities in broadband access across
American society could have adverse economic and social consequences on those left
behind, assert that the federal government should play a more active role to avoid a
“digital divide” in broadband access. One approach is for the federal government to
provide financial assistance to support broadband deployment in underserved areas.
Others, however, question the reality of the “digital divide,” and argue that federal
intervention in the broadband marketplace would be premature and, in some cases,
counterproductive. Another issue under examination is whether present laws and
subsequent regulatory policies are needed to ensure the development of competition
and its subsequent consumer benefits, or conversely, whether such laws and
regulations are overly burdensome and discourage needed investment in and
deployment of broadband services.
Finally, emerging broadband technologies — such as wireless (including “3G”,
“wi-fi” and “Wimax”) and broadband over power lines (BPL) — continue to be
developed and/or deployed, and have the potential to affect the regulatory and market
landscape of broadband deployment. Congress and the FCC will likely consider
policies to address the emergence of these and other new broadband technologies.
For Further Information
CRS Issue Brief IB10045, Broadband Internet Access: Background and Issues
CRS Report RL30719, Broadband Internet Access and the Digital Divide: Federal
Assistance Programs
CRS Report RL32421, Broadband over Powerlines: Regulatory and Policy Issues
CRS Report RS20993, Wireless Technology and Spectrum Demand: Third
Generation (3G) and Beyond
CRS-23
Transition to Digital Television
Digital television (DTV) is a new service representing the most significant
development in television technology since the advent of color television in the 1950s.
Congress and the FCC have set a target date of December 31, 2006 for broadcasters
to transition to DTV, cease broadcasting their analog signals, and return their existing
analog television spectrum licenses to be auctioned for commercial services (such as
broadband) or used for other purposes, such as public safety telecommunications. If
and when analog TV signals are turned off, consumers will not be able to receive
over-the-air television broadcast signals unless they have a digital television or
connect their existing analog televisions to converter boxes. The Balanced Budget
Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33) requires the FCC to grant extensions for reclaiming the
analog television licenses in the year 2006 from stations in television markets where
at least 15% of television households do not receive digital signals.
Given the slower-than-expected pace at which digital televisions have been
introduced into American homes, few observers believe that the goal of digital
televisions in 85% of American homes by 2006 will be reached, with the result that
— under current law — television stations will continue to broadcast both analog and
digital signals past the 2006 deadline. The key issue for Congress and the FCC is:
what steps, if any, should be taken by the government to further facilitate a timely,
efficient, and equitable transition to digital television? The 109th Congress is debating
whether and how a “hard date” for the digital television transition should be
implemented, thereby freeing reclaimed analog spectrum. Key policy questions
include should the existing statutory digital transition deadline of December 31, 2006
be implemented by modifying or removing the 85% digital penetration threshold
requirement, or would a later and redefined transition deadline be more appropriate?
Should the reclaiming of analog spectrum for public safety uses be singularly
designated, or should it be included as part of a comprehensive approach to returning
all of the analog spectrum? Paramount in this debate is the issue of addressing the
millions of American over-the-air households whose existing analog televisions will
require converter boxes in order to receive digital signals, if and when the analog
signal is turned off. The 109th Congress is exploring the question of whether some
form of financial assistance (subsidies or tax credits, for example) should be provided
by the federal government to enable low-income over-the-air households to purchase
converter boxes.
For Further Information
CRS Report RL31260, Digital Television: An Overview
CRS Report RL31375, Meeting Public Safety Spectrum Needs
CRS Report RS21570, Spectrum Management: Public Safety and the Transition to
Digital Television
CRS Report RS22218, Spectrum Use and the Transition to Digital TV
CRS Report RS22217, The Digital TV Transition: A Brief Overview
CRS-24
Spectrum Management and Wireless Technologies
Spectrum policy issues are characterized by economic, technological and
regulatory complexity. Spectrum, a valuable resource governed by available
technology, is regulated by the federal government with the primary objectives of
maximizing its usefulness and efficiency, and preventing interference among spectrum
users. To minimize interference, users are assigned radio frequencies within spectrum
bands allocated for defined uses. Spectrum policy covers both satellite and terrestrial
(primarily antenna-broadcast) transmissions. Members of Congress, through hearings
and public statements, have expressed a willingness to address spectrum management
issues. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458)
requires the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, in consultation
with the Secretary of Homeland Security and others, to prepare a study for Congress
by year end 2005 on public safety uses of spectrum. The act also requires the
Secretary of Homeland Security to submit a report on strategies for achieving
interoperability among first responders, a critical issue. These and other provisions of
the act requiring studies or pilots of communications technology will add to
Congress’s base of knowledge regarding wireless technologies and spectrum
management.
Spectrum is integral to wireless technology and so its management is connected
to many issues that may be of interest to Congress. These include new technologies
such as “third-generation” (3G) cell phone services, wireless Internet, mesh networks,
software-defined radio (SDR), Ultra-Wideband (UWB) and location-finding
technology. The latter includes applications for wireless enhanced 911.
CRS Report RL32594, Public Safety Communications: Policy, Proposals, Legislation
and Progress
CRS Report RL31764, Spectrum Management: Auctions
CRS Report RS21508, Spectrum Management and Special Funds
CRS Report RS22218, Spectrum and the Transition to Digital TV
CRS Report RL32408, Spectrum Policy: Public Safety and Wireless Communications
Interference
CRS Report RS20993, Wireless Technology and Spectrum Demand: Advanced
Wireless Services
Networking Information Technology R&D
At the federal level, almost all of the funding for information science and
technology and Internet development is part of a single government-wide initiative,
the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development program
(NITRD). This program was previously (1997-2000) called the Computing,
Information, and Communications program (CIC) and, prior to that (1992-1997), the
High Performance Computing and Communications program (HPCC). The NITRD
is an interagency effort to coordinate key advances in information technology (IT)
research and leverage funding into broader advances in computing and networking
technologies. Under the NITRD, participating agencies receive support for high-
performance computing science and technology, information technology software and
CRS-25
hardware, networks and Internet-driven applications, and education and training for
personnel.
The FY2006 budget calls for $2.155 billion for the NITRD Program, a 4.5%
decrease from the FY2005 budget of $2.256 billion. During the 109th Congress, one
NITRD-related bill has been introduced, H.R. 28. (See CRS Issue Brief IB10130 for
updated information). A significant part of this decrease can be attributed to the
reduction in funding for NITRD activities at the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA). Also, within the NITRD Program, funding for high-end
computing research and development (R&D) is down 6%, due in part to a decrease
in funding for these activities at the Office of Science within the Department of
Energy (DOE). The majority of NITRD Program funding goes to the National
Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, NASA, Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency, and the DOE’s Office of Science.
NITRD research emphases are focused on six program component areas (also
called PCAs): high-end computing research; human computer interaction and
information management; large-scale networking; software design and productivity;
high-confidence software and systems; and social, economic, and workforce
implications of IT and IT workforce development. Key issues facing congressional
policymakers include is NITRD accomplishing its goals and objectives to enhance
U.S. information technology research and development; is the funding level
appropriate or should it be changed to reflect changing U.S. priorities; and what
should be the private sector’s role in this federal initiative?
For Further Information
CRS Issue Brief IB10130, Federal Networking and Information Technology Research
and Development Program: Funding Issues and Activities
E-Health: Health Information Technology
The Institute of Medicine, the National Committee on Vital and Health Statistics,
and other expert panels have identified information technology (IT) as one of the most
powerful tools for reducing medical errors, lowering health costs, and improving the
quality of care. However, the U.S. health care industry lags far behind other sectors
of the economy in its investment in IT, despite growing evidence that electronic
information systems can play a critical role in addressing the many challenges the
industry faces. Adoption of health IT systems faces significant financial, legal, and
technical obstacles. The issue for Congress, in which there is broad bipartisan support
for increasing health IT resources, is how best to create incentives to promote IT
throughout the health care sector.
Congress and the Administration have already taken a number of important steps
to promote health IT. The 2003 Medicare Modernization Act instructed the HHS
Secretary to adopt electronic prescription standards and establish a Commission for
Systemic Interoperability. The Commission is charged with developing a
comprehensive strategy for implementing data and messaging standards to support the
electronic exchange of clinical data. On April 27, 2004, President Bush called for the
widespread adoption of interoperable electronic health records (EHRs) within 10 years
CRS-26
and established the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information
Technology (ONCHIT). ONCHIT has developed a strategic 10-year plan outlining
steps to transform the delivery of health care by adopting EHRs and developing a
National Health Information Infrastructure (NHII) to link such records nationwide.
The strategic plan identifies several potential policy options for providing incentives
for EHR adoption. They include providing grants to stimulate EHRs and regional
information exchange systems; offering low-rate loans and loan guarantees for EHR
adoption; amending federal rules (e.g., Medicare physician self-referral law) that may
unintentionally impede the development of electronic connectivity among health care
providers; and using Medicare reimbursement to reward EHR use.
Congress laid the groundwork for establishing an NHII when it enacted the 1996
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). HIPAA instructed the
HHS Secretary to develop privacy standards to give patient more control over the use
of their medical information, and security standards to safeguard electronic patient
information against unauthorized access, use, or disclosure. Several bills have been
introduced in the 109th Congress to boost federal investment and leadership in health
IT and provide incentives both for EHR adoption and for the creation of regional
health information networks, which are seen as an important step towards the goal of
interconnecting the health care system nationwide. On July 27, the Senate Committee
on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions reported a bipartisan health IT bill.
In what would signal a major shift in the way Medicare pays for many products
and services, the 109th Congress is considering basing a portion of providers’
payments on the quality of their care. The Senate Finance Committee has included
such pay for performance language in its budget resolution legislation. Under the
current payment systems, providers are paid the same regardless of the quality of their
services. Introducing pay for performance into Medicare will likely boost IT use;
existing pay for performance programs reward providers for adopting electronic
medical records and other IT products and services. Adopting health IT systems in
clinical settings is also crucial for monitoring and reporting patient outcomes.
For Further Information
CRS Report RL32858, Health Information Technology: Promoting Electronic
Connectivity in Healthcare
CRS Report RL31983, Health Care Quality: Improving Patient Safety by Promoting
Medical Errors Reporting
CRS Report RS20500, Medical Records Privacy: Questions and Answers on the
HIPAA Rule
E-Government
Electronic government (e-government) is an evolving concept, meaning different
things to different people. E-government initiatives vary significantly in their breadth
and depth from state to state and agency to agency. As policymakers continue to
grapple with a common understanding of e-government, a central issue is oversight
of the coordination and implementation of the disparate e-government initiatives
across the federal government.
CRS-27
Pursuant to the July 18, 2001, OMB Memorandum M-01-28, an E-Government
Task Force created a strategy for achieving the Bush Administration’s e-government
goals [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/egovstrategy.pdf]. In doing so, the
Task Force identified 23 interagency initiatives designed to better integrate agency
operations and information technology investments. These initiatives, sometimes
referred to as the Quicksilver projects, are grouped into five categories; government-
to-citizen (G2C), government-to-government (G2G), government-to-business (G2B),
internal effectiveness and efficiency, and addressing barriers to e-government success.
Examples of these initiatives include an e-authentication project led by the General
Services Administration (GSA) to increase the use of digital signatures, the eligibility
assistance online project (also referred to as GovBenefits.gov) led by the Department
of Labor to create a common access point for information regarding government
benefits available to citizens, and the Small Business Administration’s One-Stop
Business Compliance project, being designed to help businesses navigate legal and
regulatory requirements. A 24th initiative, a government wide payroll process project,
was subsequently added.
On December 17, 2002, President Bush signed the E-Government Act of 2002
(P.L. 107-347) into law. The law contains a variety of provisions related to federal
government information technology management, information security, and the
provision of services and information electronically. One of the most recognized
provisions involves the creation of an Office of Electronic Government within OMB.
The Office is headed by an Administrator, who is responsible for carrying out a
variety of information resources management (IRM) functions, as well as
administering the interagency E-Government Fund provided for by the law.
For the 109th Congress, some of the oversight issues attracting the most interest
include the completion of the Quicksilver projects, efforts to develop a Federal
Enterprise Architecture (FEA), and the implementation of the E-Government Act, as
well as efforts to mediate the differences and capitalize on the similarities between e-
government and homeland security priorities. In addition, the movement to expand the
presence of government online raises as many issues as it provides new opportunities.
Some of these issues concern: security, privacy, management of governmental
technology resources, accessibility of government services (including “digital divide”
concerns as a result of a lack of skills or access to computers, or disabilities), and
preservation of public information (maintaining comparable freedom of information
procedures for digital documents as exist for paper documents). Although these issues
are neither new nor unique to e-government, they do present the challenge of
performing governance functions online without sacrificing the accountability of or
public access to government that citizens have grown to expect. (See CRS Report
RL31057.) For a discussion of evolving policies related to scientific and technical
information access, see the “Public Access to Scientific Information” section earlier
in this report.
For Further Information
CRS Report RS22194, Federal Enterprise Architecture and Information Technology
Management: A Brief Overview
CRS Report RL31057, A Primer on E-Government: Sectors, Stages, Opportunities,
and Challenges of Online Governance
CRS-28
CRS Report RL31289, The Internet and the USA PATRIOT Act: Potential
Implications for Electronic Privacy, Security, Commerce, and Government
Open Source Software
Open source software refers to a computer program whose source code, or
programming instructions, is made available to the general public to be improved or
modified as the user wishes. In contrast, closed source, or proprietary, programs,
which comprise the majority of the software products most commonly used, are those
whose source code is not made available and can only be altered by the software
manufacturer. Some examples of open source software include the Linux operating
system and Apache Web server software.
The use of open source software by the federal government has been gaining
attention as organizations continue to search for opportunities to enhance their
information technology (IT) operations while containing costs. For the federal
government and Congress, discussion over the use of open source software intersects
several other issues, including, but not limited to, the development of homeland
security and e-government initiatives, improving government information technology
management practices, strengthening computer security, and protecting intellectual
property rights. In the 109th Congress, the discussion over open source software
revolves primarily around information security and intellectual property rights.
However, issues related to cost and quality are also of interest.
For proponents, open source software is often viewed as a means to reduce an
organization’s dependence on the software products of a few companies while
possibly improving the security and stability of one’s computing infrastructure. For
critics, open source software is often viewed as a threat to intellectual property rights
with unproven cost and quality benefits. So far there appear to be no systematic
analyses available that have conclusively assessed security issues for closed source
versus open source software. In practice, computer security is highly dependent on
how an application is configured, maintained, and monitored. Similarly, the costs of
implementing an open source solution are dependent upon factors such as the cost of
acquiring the hardware/software, investments in training for IT personnel and end
users, maintenance and support costs, and the resources required to convert data and
applications to work in the new computing environment. Consequently, some
computer experts suggest that it is not possible to conclude that either open source or
closed source software is inherently more secure or more cost efficient.
The growing emphasis on improved information security and critical
infrastructure protection overall will likely be an influential factor in future decisions
on whether to implement open source solutions. The rapidly changing computer
environment may also foster the use of a combination of open source and closed
source applications, rather than creating a need to choose one option at the exclusion
of another.
For Further Information
CRS Report RL31627, Computer Software and Open Source Issues: A Primer
CRS-29
Wireless Privacy, Internet Privacy, and Spyware
Wireless telecommunications devices are ubiquitous. Some consumers, already
deluged with unwanted commercial messages ( “spam”) via computers that access the
Internet by traditional wireline connections, are concerned that such unsolicited
advertising is expanding to wireless communications, further eroding their privacy.
Another concern is that their cell phone numbers may soon become public because
some of the wireless service providers are creating a “wireless 411” phone directory.
Whether the service providers should be legally required to obtain customers’ consent
before including their phone numbers in the directory, or if the service providers
should be allowed to charge customers a fee if they want an unlisted number, is
currently being debated.
Internet privacy issues encompass a range of concerns. One is the monitoring of
electronic mail (e-mail) and Web usage by law enforcement officials or employers.
In the wake of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, debate over the issue of
monitoring of e-mail and Web usage by law enforcement and government officials has
intensified, with some advocating increased tools for law enforcement to track down
terrorists, and others cautioning that fundamental tenets of democracy, such as
privacy, not be endangered in that pursuit. The USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56)
makes it easier for government and law enforcement officials to monitor Internet
activities, and for Internet Service Providers to voluntarily disclose the content of e-
mails under certain conditions. Congress and public interest groups are monitoring
how the USA PATRIOT Act is implemented.
Another Internet privacy issue, spyware, is also a focus of congressional concern.
There is no firm definition of spyware, but one example is software products that
include a method by which information is collected about the use of the computer on
which the software is installed, and the user. When the computer is connected to the
Internet, the software periodically relays the information back to the software
manufacturer or a marketing company. Some spyware traces a user’s Web activity
and causes advertisements to suddenly appear on the user’s monitor — called “pop-
up” ads — in response. Typically, users have no knowledge that the software they
obtained included spyware and that it is now resident on their computers. Congress
is debating what restrictions, if any, should be placed on spyware.
For Further Information
CRS Report RL31636, Wireless Privacy and Spam: Issues for Congress
CRS Report RL31408, Internet Privacy: Overview and Pending Legislation
CRS Report RL31289, The Internet and the USA PATRIOT Act: Potential
Implications for Electronic Privacy, Security, Commerce, and Government
CRS Report RL32706, Spyware: Background and Policy Issues for Congress
CRS Report RS22082, Identity Theft: the Internet Connection
CRS-30
Tsunamis and Other Emergencies: Forecasting and
Warning Systems
Tsunami Forecasting and Warning
Some U.S. lawmakers became concerned about the possible vulnerability of U.S.
coastal areas to tsunamis, and about the adequacy of early warning for coastal areas
of the far Pacific possessions and western Atlantic Ocean. These concerns stem from
the December 26, 2004, tsunami that devastated many coastal areas around the
northern Indian Ocean, where few tsunami early warning systems currently operate.
Others have questioned whether the risks for the United States justify such
expenditures, however. On February 14, 2005, the Bush Administration committed
$30 million over two years to the National Weather Service to upgrade U.S. tsunami
warning capabilities, including expanded coverage for the Pacific Ocean and the U.S.
Atlantic seaboard. Passage of FY2005 emergency supplemental appropriations (P.L.
109-13) provided $24.3 million toward that goal. Legislation is currently pending in
Congress about how to deploy such systems, including next generation tsunami
detection buoys, additional coastal tidal-gages, and telecommunications enhancements
for the U.S. Geological Survey’s Global Seismic Network, which detects underwater
earthquakes that can generate tsunamis. Many developed nations currently have the
technological capacity to build warning networks, and some have long established
advanced emergency management capabilities. Others, however, will have to rely on
an international consolidation of resources and expertise to develop local tsunami
warning capacity; to educate indigenous people and visitors about such disasters; and
to learn to employ strategies for adapting to such risks. Participation in the Global
Environmental Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) is one way the United States
plans to meet global tsunami warning challenges. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, part of the Department of Commerce) is the
lead U.S. agency in the 61-nation GEOSS program.
For Further Information
CRS Report RL32739, Tsunamis: Monitoring, Detection, and Early Warning Systems
CRS Report RS22109, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) Budget for FY2006: President’s Request, Congressional
Appropriations, and Related Issues
Technology for Warning Systems and Alerts
The absence of advance warning to communities inundated by the December 26,
2004 tsunami provided a harsh reminder of the role of emergency alert systems in
saving lives. Today, the two major alert systems in the United Stares are the
Emergency Alert System (EAS) and the NOAA Weather Radio (NWR) All-Hazards
Network (NOAA is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency
of the Department of Commerce). The EAS is jointly administered by the Federal
Communications Commission and the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA). It depends on radio and television broadcasters, as well as most cable
operators, to provide information in times of emergency. Widely used for local
warnings about weather and other emergencies, EAS has never been activated for a
CRS-31
national emergency. The other mainstay for emergency alerts is provided through the
National Weather Service (NWS) of NOAA. NWS sends alerts through the NWR All-
Hazards Network. NOAA continues to expand its weather alert system to include
warnings for all hazards and is working to expand the network to include all types of
media.
Several initiatives are underway within the federal government to improve,
expand, and integrate existing warning systems. The most important of these — in
terms of using, testing and developing leading-edge technology — is the Integrated
Public Alert and Warning System (IPAWS), a public-private partnership in which the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has a leadership role. The Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (P.L. 108-458) contains two provisions for
collecting information on emergency alert systems. One requires a study about the use
of telecommunications networks as part of an all-hazards warning system, specifying
that technologies to consider would be “telephone, wireless communications, and
other existing communications networks....” The act also requires a pilot study using
technology now being used for an Amber Alert network, to improve public warning
systems regarding threats to homeland security. Increasingly, new technology is being
put to use for Amber Alert programs administered in some states and communities to
aid primarily in the recovery of abducted children.
The convergence of communications technology, typified by the near-ubiquity
of the Internet and the wide availability of advanced wireless telephony, presages a
world of end-to-end communications for public safety communications, including
warning systems. The 9/11 Commission commented on the often inadequate response
of the 911 call centers serving New York City, and suggested that 911 call centers be
integrated into the emergency response team, in order to involve them in providing up-
to-date information and assistance to the public. In a bill enacted in December 2004,
Congress created an E-911 Implementation Coordination Office to foster
improvements in 911 call centers (P.L. 108-494, Title I).
The two reports on technologies that might be used to improve emergency
notification and warning networks, required by P.L. 108-458, are due by the end of
2005. After receiving these reports, Congress may take further action regarding
emergency alert systems in the United States. The availability of new technologies
has raised the bar of public expectations for the provision of many types of public
safety services.
CRS Report RL32527, Emergency Communications: The Emergency Alert System
and All-Hazard Warnings
CRS Report RS21453, Amber Alert Program Technology
CRS Report RL32939 An Emergency Communications Safety Net: Integrating 911
and Other Services
CRS-32
Geosciences Issues
Ocean Commissions: Ocean Science and Oceanic Affairs
In June 2003, the Pew Oceans Commission presented to Congress and the nation
26 recommendations in its final report, America’s Living Oceans: Charting a Course
for Sea Change. The report outlined a national agenda for protecting and restoring our
oceans. The final report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, An Ocean
Blueprint for the 21st Century, containing extensive recommendations on a
coordinated and comprehensive national ocean policy, was delivered to Congress and
the President on September 20, 2004.
Those reports cover an array of issues, such as law of the sea; national and
regional governance; federal organization, regulation, and enforcement; offshore
management regimes; funding for sound science, research and exploration and for
implementing commission recommendations; oceanic education; coastal and
watershed management; and ecosystem based management. Congress is in the
process of considering legislative responses to the findings and recommendations of
both commissions. Ancillary issues relate to questions about the timing and level of
the response and the fiscal implications and out-year budgetary impacts on current and
future ocean programs. While some argue that congressional action is more pressing
for major coastal and marine laws that are expiring or expired, others counsel delay
in reauthorization until Congress can draw form the reports. The same law that
created the U.S. Commission (P.L. 106-256) also required the President to submit to
Congress a statement responding to the commission’s recommendations for a national
policy on ocean and coastal resources. That statement, U.S. Ocean Action Plan, was
delivered to Capitol Hill on December 17, 2004. It was largely limited to documenting
current efforts. Many in the ocean community view the Administration’s response as
limited and are likely to seek more extensive action through Congress, especially to
address topics that are driving this interest. In this current session, committees of
relevant jurisdiction have adhered to their own ocean action agendas, guided, in large
part, by the Pew and U.S. Commission reports, and have shown little interest in
holding hearings to assess the Administration’s statement.
Consideration has focused on organic legislation for the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a prominent recommendation in both
commission reports. Members have dealt with such organizational issues as,
establishing NOAA as an independent agency, transferring NOAA to another
department, or maintaining the status quo in the Department of Commerce, with
enhanced budget authority. The 109th Congress is also considering other ocean
matters, including ocean exploration; ocean and coastal observing systems; marine
debris research, prevention, and reduction; and ocean and coastal mapping integration.
Related issues have arisen, such as whether to: (1) provide additional funds for ocean
and coastal resource management, oceanic education, marine science, and ocean
research; (2) replace a fragmented administrative structure with a more overall,
coherent federal organization; or (3) adopt bold new approaches for managing marine
resources, such as setting aside large reserves from selected or all uses. Omnibus
legislation has been introduced in the House and Senate whose contents encompass
this broad array of crosscutting concerns. Hearings on that legislation are anticipated.
CRS-33
For Further Information
CRS Issue Brief IB10132, Ocean Commissions: Ocean Policy Review and Outlook
Global Climate Change
Congress has maintained an active and continuing interest in the implications of,
and the issues associated with, possible global climate change for the United States.
Having received the required number of ratifications, the Kyoto Protocol to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change entered into force on February
16, 2005, establishing binding commitments for reductions in greenhouse gases. The
United States “signed” the protocol, but President Clinton during his term did not
submit it to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. In March 2001, the Bush
Administration indicated its opposition to the Kyoto Protocol and essentially rejected
it, citing possible harm to the U.S. economy and lack of developing country
participation.
On February 14, 2002, President Bush announced a U.S. policy framework for
global climate change, outlining a Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) and a
National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI), along with a new Cabinet-
level Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration to oversee
their implementation. The CCRI focuses on short-term, policy-relevant objectives of
climate change science. A previously established U.S. Global Change Research
Program (USGCRP) supports long-term, fundamental, scientific research objectives.
Both the new CCRI and the existing USGCRP were combined for the first time into
the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) in the FY2004 budget. The FY2006
budget requested a total spending level of $1.886 billion for research managed by the
CCSP, which was $27 million (1.4%) below the FY2005 funding estimate of $1.913
billion. Included in the $1.886 billion CCSP funds were $183 million for the CCRI.
While funding for the embedded CCRI experienced growth over two fiscal years from
FY2003 to FY2005, the FY2006 request for CCRI at $183 million was $38 million
less than the FY2005 funding estimate of $221 million. That left the FY2006 request
for the embedded USGCRP standing at $1.703 billion, approximately level with the
FY2005 funding estimate. There was some $2.87 billion in the FY2006 funding
request for technology research and development in the NCCTI/Climate Change
Technology Program, an amount $120 million, or 4%, below the FY2005 funding
estimate of $2.99 billion. Three reports released in 2003 currently serve as guidance
documents for those activities: Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan,
Technology Options for the Near and Long Term, and Research and Current
Activities. The FY2006 budget request indicated that a strategic plan for climate
change technology research and development would be released sometime in 2005.
Two issues of concern for Congress are the extent to which spending for the CCRI and
NCCTI represent new money versus how much is attributable to the reclassification
of ongoing research and technology programs, and whether the overall reduced level
of requested funds may be deemed necessary or sufficient to accomplish the work of
the CCSP.
Discourse in Congress over the prospect of global warming and what the United
States could or should do about it has yielded, over the last several years, a range of
legislative proposals. Arguments have been presented that policy actions to reduce
CRS-34
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases should be taken now, in line
with the intent of the Kyoto Protocol. Alternative arguments have called for delay,
citing challenging issues that were regionally complex, politically delicate, and
scientifically uncertain; the need to expand technological options for mitigating or
adapting to the effects of any climate change; and the associated high cost of certain
mitigation schemes that would prematurely replace existing capital stock before the
end of its economic life. Issues before the 109th Congress include greenhouse gas
reduction and carbon dioxide emissions trading systems (see CRS Report RS22076
and CRS Report RL32721); energy issues relevant to climate change, especially those
associated with energy efficiency and alternative energy sources; carbon sequestration
technologies and methodologies; federal and national response strategies vis-a-vis the
prospect of abrupt climate change, climate change impacts, and climate system
surprises; performance and results of federal spending on climate change science and
technology programs, and, more broadly, on global change research programs; long-
term research and development programs to foster new technologies to help stabilize
greenhouse gas emissions; and efforts to promote climate change technology
deployment both here and abroad.
For Further Information
CRS Issue Brief IB89005, Global Climate Change
CRS Issue Brief IB10041, Renewable Energy: Tax Credit, Budget and Electricity
Production Issues
CRS Issue Brief IB10020, Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and
Electricity Conservation Issues
CRS Report RL32997: Climate Change: Federal Expenditures for Science and
Technology
Energy and Water Issues
Hydrogen Fuel and Fuel Cell Vehicles
Hydrogen fuel and fuel cell vehicles have been the focus of increased attention,
especially with the announcement of the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative during the January
2003 State of the Union Address. Over five years, the Administration is seeking a
total funding increase of $720 million. This initiative would fund research on
hydrogen fuel and fuel cells for transportation and stationary applications, and would
complement the existing FreedomCAR initiative, which focuses research on the
development of advanced technologies for passenger vehicles. In the FY2004 Energy
and Water Development appropriations act (P.L. 108-137), and the FY2004 Interior
and Related Agencies appropriations act (P.L. 108-108), Congress approved an
increase of approximately $55 million for the initiatives. For FY2005, Congress
approved an additional $25 million above the FY2004 level in the FY2005
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447). For FY2006, the Administration has
requested an additional $19 million above FY2005 — $98 million above FY2003.
In addition to appropriations legislation, on August 8, 2005, the President signed
the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6). Among other provisions, this bill includes
CRS-35
authorizations for hydrogen and fuel cell R&D. The energy bill authorizes a total of
$3.3 billion between FY2006 and FY2010. The bill also establishes a tax credit for
the purchase of hydrogen-fueled and fuel cell vehicles.
Issues facing Congress on hydrogen fuel and fuel cell vehicles include the proper
role of the government in the research and development of consumer products; the
ultimate viability of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies; the potential role for the
government in expanding hydrogen fueling infrastructure; safety standards, codes, and
liability concerns surrounding new technology and a new system for delivering
energy; and issues related to future market penetration of fuel cell vehicles.
For Further Information
CRS Report RS21442, Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Vehicle R&D: FreedomCAR and the
President’s Hydrogen Fuel Initiative
CRS Issue Brief IB10128, Alternative Fuels and Advanced Technology Vehicles:
Issues in Congress
Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel
Spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors still contains most of its original
uranium, as well as plutonium created from some of the fuel’s uranium during reactor
operation. A fundamental issue in nuclear policy is whether spent fuel should be
“reprocessed” to extract its plutonium and uranium for use in new reactor fuel, or
whether spent fuel should be directly disposed of without reprocessing. Nuclear
power supporters point out that huge amounts of energy could be produced from the
uranium and plutonium in spent fuel. However, plutonium can also be used for
nuclear weapons, so groups concerned about nuclear weapons proliferation contend
that federal support for spent fuel reprocessing could undermine U.S. nuclear
nonproliferation policies.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the federal government expected that all commercial
spent fuel would be reprocessed, even though existing “light water reactors” — the
type still in use today — produced relatively little plutonium and could not fission all
the isotopes of the plutonium that they did produce. The federal government’s nuclear
strategy called for the eventual replacement of light water reactors with “breeder
reactors” that would convert enough uranium into plutonium to fuel a growing fleet
of commercial breeder reactors indefinitely.
In the 1970s, however, concern increased about the weapons-proliferation
implications of nuclear reprocessing, while the growth of nuclear power was far
slower than initially projected. President Carter halted commercial reprocessing
efforts in 1977, along with a demonstration breeder reactor. President Reagan
restarted the breeder demonstration project, but Congress halted further funding in
1983. Nevertheless, Congress continued to fund a breeder-related research and
development program, called the Advanced Liquid Metal Reactor (or the Integral Fast
Reactor). To address weapons proliferation concerns, spent fuel from this reactor was
to be reprocessed with an electrometallurgical system designed to only partially
separate plutonium and uranium. Congress halted funding for the Advanced Liquid
CRS-36
Metal Reactor in 1993, but appropriations continued at a lower level for research on
the associated electrometallurgical reprocessing technology.
The Bush Administration’s energy policy, issued in early 2001, called for
renewed federal support for nuclear reprocessing and related technologies. The
Department of Energy is implementing that policy through the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative (AFCI), which was first funded in FY2003 and then increased by Congress
for FY2004, and again in FY2005.
The Administration’s FY2006 budget request continues to view the AFCI
program as complementing nuclear nonproliferation efforts by developing
proliferation-resistant fuels and supporting the Administration’s “National Energy
Policy” (NEP) goals by expanding the potential contribution of nuclear power to the
nation’s energy portfolio. The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2005 (P.L.
108-447) funded the program at $68.0 million. The Administration’s FY2006 request
would boost funding to $70.0 million, approximately 3%.
The Administration contends that in addition to extending nuclear fuel supplies,
the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative could significantly reduce the volume and long-
term toxicity of nuclear waste. Separating plutonium and other long-lived radioactive
isotopes from spent fuel and splitting them or “transmuting” them into shorter-lived
isotopes would reduce the hazardous life of nuclear waste from 300,000 years to less
than 1,000 years, asserts the Administration. Critics of the program counter that spent
fuel reprocessing in the past has generated large quantities of radioactive waste that
can create significant management and disposal problems. They also contend that
reprocessing is not economically viable (especially given the price and availability of
uranium ore), and continues to pose the same weapons proliferation risks that
prompted President Carter to end it in the 1970s.
The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Sec. 953, Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative) calls
for an advanced fuel recycling technology program to evaluate proliferation-resistant
fuel recycling and transmutation technologies as an alternative to aqueous
reprocessing technologies. This program would support the evaluation of alternative
national strategies for spent nuclear fuel and the Generation IV advanced reactor
concepts.
For Further Information
CRS Issue Brief IB88090, Nuclear Energy Policy
Fusion Research: ITER
The ITER project is an international scientific collaboration to construct a facility
for fusion energy research. The partners include the European Union, Japan, Russia,
the United States, China, and South Korea. Canada withdrew its participation in
December 2003. India announced in July 2005 that it wishes to join. A long-running
disagreement over where to build the facility was resolved in June 2005 with the
selection of a site in Cadarache, France, in preference to a site in Japan. (The United
States initially supported the Japanese site.) In 1998, the United States withdrew from
the design phase of ITER at congressional direction, largely because of concerns about
CRS-37
cost and scope. The project has since been restructured, and in January 2003, the
Administration announced its intention to reenter the project. The U.S. share of the
cost of building ITER (about 10 percent) is expected to be about $1.1 billion over
eight years. Only a small portion of that would be required in FY2006 since
construction has not yet begun. Once construction is complete, the U.S. share of the
cost of operating ITER is expected to be about an additional $58 million per year.
Key issues in the 109th Congress are the cost of U.S. participation, and the budget
impact of ITER on the rest of the U.S. fusion program.
Water Supply Technology and Energy-Water Efficiency
Water resources research represents 0.5% of the approximately $130 billion
annual federal R&D investment. This research is spread across almost twenty
agencies. A 2004 report by the National Research Council (NRC), Confronting the
Nation’s Water Problems: The Role of Research, calls for a new commitment to water
resources research to address the nation’s water problems, and suggests a more central
role for federal research in informing water resources issues. In particular, it calls for
significant new investment research on water use and institutions, and a more
coordinated federal water resources research agenda.
Real levels of spending on water resources research have remained relatively
constant, at $700 million (in 2000 dollars) annually since the mid-1970s. Although
the overall level is constant, funding appears to have declined for research in the
following categories: water supply augmentation and conservation, water quality
management and protection, water resources planning and institutions, and water
resource data. In contrast, aquatic ecosystem research has increased substantially.
Because of the growing pressures on developed water supplies, interest in
research on water supply technologies has been receiving particular attention.
According to the 2004 NRC report, “water supply augmentation and conservation”
research by federal agencies totaled $14.5 million in FY2000. In the past the federal
government invested more in this area; in the late 1960s, federal research in
desalination and other saline water conversion activities exceeded $100 million (in
2000 dollars) annually. Desalination is the process of removing dissolved solids
(primarily dissolved salts and other minerals) from water. Interest in desalination of
seawater, brackish water, and contaminated freshwater water has increased as the cost
of the dominant technology in the nation — reverse osmosis — has fallen and the
pressure to develop new water supplies has grown.
Desalination is seen as a possible option for meeting water demands particularly
for coastal communities that can desalinate seawater or estuarine water, interior
communities above brackish groundwater aquifers, and communities with
contaminated water supplies. Desalination’s attraction is that it can create a new
source of freshwater from otherwise unusable waters, and a more predictable source
than freshwater supplies that rely more directly on annual or multi-year precipitation,
runoff, and recharge rates. At issue is the level of federal investment that Congress
establishes for desalination research and development by federal agencies. The Bush
Administration has expressed support for current desalination research efforts aimed
at reducing costs, while criticizing bills seeking financial support for specific
desalination facilities. A water supply technology program for research, technology
CRS-38
transfer, and commercialization was the subject of some congressional discussion in
the 108th Congress, and debate may continue in the 109th Congress.
Biomedicine Issues
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Organization
and Management Issues
The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the primary medical research agency of
the federal government, is facing challenges in a number of areas that may interest the
Congress. In the budgetary arena, the past two years have been a time of transition
from a period of marked growth in the NIH appropriation to the current climate of
restrained domestic discretionary spending. Over a five-year period, Congress
doubled the NIH budget, from $13.6 billion in FY1998 to $27.1 billion in FY2003.
Since then, growth has slowed to below the rate of inflation, and the President’s
request for FY2006 is for $28.6 billion, an increase of 0.5% over FY2005.
In looking ahead to the post-doubling years, the research advocacy community
had urged that there be a less-precipitous drop in funding in order to maintain support
of research grants, keep young investigators in the pipeline, and capitalize on the
momentum of discoveries in both basic and applied research. The NIH institutes and
centers likewise have been making adjustments in their research portfolios to protect
funding for grants, and the FY2006 budget request emphasizes funding for research
project grants over some other activities, such as facilities construction. Nonetheless,
the extramural research community, which has urged a 6% increase for FY2006, is
expecting cutbacks in grant budgets, tight competition for new awards, and
postponement of some large projects previously anticipated, including clinical trials.
Advocates warn that research advances on the major chronic conditions that burden
our society, such as heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes, may be slowed. Other
commentators advise that coping with the reality of budget constraints will require
NIH and the research community to rethink some of their traditional approaches to
planning and organizing research. The resources of the doubling years have spurred
development of unifying concepts of fundamental biology and understanding of
disease processes that formerly were thought to be unrelated. Scientific leaders in and
out of NIH urge critical examination of the best ways to transform knowledge into
medical applications and allocate resources into the most critical priorities for return
on the public’s investment.
A key factor in such rethinking is consideration of NIH’s organizational
structure, which has expanded markedly over time along with the growth in the
budget. The agency is comprised of 27 semi-autonomous institutes and centers,
loosely coordinated by the central Office of the Director. As new entities have been
created by Congress, each with its own mission, budget, staff, review office, and other
bureaucratic apparatus, the costs and complexities of administering the enterprise have
multiplied. Further, NIH wishes to emphasize a culture of multi-disciplinary
teamwork, but many observers fear that the present structure of multiple
independently operated institutes may undermine important initiatives in cross-
disciplinary research, especially in fields such as neurosciences. To address these
issues, NIH has been increasingly emphasizing an effort termed the “NIH Roadmap
CRS-39
for Medical Research” [http://nihroadmap.nih.gov]. Launched in September 2003, the
Roadmap has identified critical scientific gaps that may be constraining rapid progress
in biomedical research, and which no one institute can tackle alone. NIH-wide
priorities and initiatives have been developed in three broad areas, focusing on new
paths to biological discoveries, more interdisciplinary research, and improving clinical
research. Congress has already held a number of hearings on these issues, but has not
reauthorized NIH since 1993. Oversight hearings and discussions on draft
reauthorization legislation have considered questions such as NIH’s stewardship of
its resources; the relative roles of the NIH Director and the institutes; and the optimum
alignment of budgetary accounts, organizational structure, and statutory authority.
Possible proposals for change include giving the NIH Director’s Office more planning
involvement and budgetary control over cross-institute research initiatives, grouping
the institutes and centers differently for authorizations and/or appropriations, and, for
the first time, setting overall authorization levels for NIH.
Various personnel management issues concerning NIH employees have also been
monitored by Congress. Following several oversight hearings, new ethics regulations
were issued by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in February
2005 to address the potential for conflicts of interest when NIH scientists engage in
outside consulting work with pharmaceutical or biotech companies, receive awards
or other forms of compensation from entities that might compete for NIH funds, or
have financial holdings in companies connected to medical research. The concern is
greatest in the case of scientists who have decision-making authority on grants, but
many do not. The new regulations, which impose strict limits on all NIH staff, have
been questioned for their fairness and for their possible effect on retention and hiring
of scientists and other employees. Implementation of new rules on financial holdings
and disclosure by NIH staff have been delayed several times by HHS. As a related
issue, there are a number of hiring authorities under which scientists may work for
NIH, some with special pay bonuses, and questions have been raised about the use of
some of these authorities.
For Further Information
CRS Report RL32799, Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2006
Human Cloning and Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Embryonic stem cells have the ability to develop into virtually any cell in the
body, and may have the potential to treat medical conditions such as diabetes and
Parkinson’s disease. Human embryonic stem cells are derived from very early
embryos (5-days-old) that were created by in vitro fertilization (IVF) either for
infertility treatment or for research purposes. Work on human embryonic stem cells
is controversial, in the opinion of some individuals, because the cells are located
within the embryo and the process of removing them destroys the embryo.
Another potential source of embryonic stem cells involves cloning: the nucleus
of an egg is removed and replaced by the nucleus from a mature body cell, such as a
skin cell. The cell created via cloning is allowed to develop for five days and then the
stem cells are removed. In May 2005, scientists in South Korea announced they had
CRS-40
achieved major advances in the efficiency of creating human embryos using cloning
methods and in isolating human stem cells from cloned embryos. This development
and the unsubstantiated announcement by Clonaid in December 2002 of the birth of
a cloned child have contributed to the controversy over research on human embryos.
President Bush announced in August 2001 that, for the first time, federal funds
would be used to support research on human embryonic stem cells, but funding would
be limited to “existing stem cell lines.” The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has
established the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry which lists stem cell lines
eligible for use in federally funded research. Although 78 embryonic stem cell lines
are listed, only 22 are currently available. Subsequently the debate has centered on
whether the number of cell lines allowed under the Bush policy are sufficient to
permit U.S. research to remain internationally competitive in this very important new
technology.
Scientists are concerned about the quality, longevity, and availability of the 22
stem cell lines. For a variety of reasons, many believe research advancement requires
new embryonic stem cell lines, and for certain applications, stem cells derived from
cloned embryos may offer the best hope for progress in understanding and treating
disease. A significant cohort of pro-life advocates support stem cell research; those
opposed are concerned that the isolation of stem cells requires the destruction of
embryos.
Another impediment to such research is the Dickey Amendment which has been
added to each Labor, HHS and Education appropriations act from FY1997 through
FY2005. It prohibits HHS from using appropriated funds for the creation of human
embryos for research purposes or for research in which human embryos are destroyed.
As a result, federal funds cannot be used for most forms of human embryo research
including the isolation of new stem cell lines or the cloning of human embryos for any
purpose. The Bush Administration established the President’s Council on Bioethics
in November 2001 to consider all of the medical and ethical ramifications of
biomedical innovation. In July 2002, the Council released its report on human
cloning, which unanimously recommended a ban on reproductive cloning and, by a
vote of 10 to 7, a four-year moratorium on cloning for medical research purposes. The
Council released a second report on the issue, Monitoring Stem Cell Research, in
January 2004.
In May 2005. the House passed legislation that would allow federal support of
research using embryonic stem cells regardless of the date on which the stem cells
were derived from a human embryo, thus negating the current policy that limits
funding to stem cell lines in existence as of August 2001. Only excess IVF embryos
that the individuals seeking fertility treatments have determined will not be implanted
and will be discarded are eligible for stem cell derivation; written consent is required.
The House also passed a bill which would provide for the collection and maintenance
of human cord blood stem cells for the treatment of patients and for research. Action
on the Weldon bill, which passed the House in the 108th Congress and stalled in the
Senate, is also likely. The bill bans the process of cloning as well as the importation
of any product derived from an embryo created via cloning. It bans not only
reproductive applications, but also research on therapeutic uses, which has
implications for stem cell research. Advocates of the legislative ban say that allowing
CRS-41
any form of human cloning research to proceed raises serious ethical issues and will
inevitably lead to the birth of a baby that is a human clone. Critics argue that the
measure would curtail medical research and prevent Americans from receiving life-
saving treatments created overseas. Given the changed composition of the Senate, it
is more likely that this bill would move forward for a vote in that body during the
109th Congress. Legislation that bans only human reproductive cloning has also been
introduced, as well as bills focused on alternative sources of stem cells. For
information on the status of 109th Congress legislation, see CRS Report RL31358.
For Further Information
CRS Report RL31358, Human Cloning
CRS Report RL31015, Stem Cell Research
CRS Report RL31422, Substantive Due Process and a Right to Clone
CRS Report RS21044, Background and Legal Issues Related to Stem Cell Research
CRS Report RL31142, Stem Cell Research and Patents: An Introduction to the Issues
CRS Report RS21517, State Laws on Human Cloning
CRS Report RL31211, Cloning: A Select Chronology
Human Genetics
Collectively, genetic diseases and common diseases with a genetic component
pose a significant public health burden. With completion of the human genome
sequence, scientists will now focus on understanding the clinical implications of the
sequence information. Clinical genetic tests are becoming available at a rapid rate.
Testing is regulated by the federal government and tests are beginning to be included
in health insurance benefits packages.
The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) supports genetic and
genomic research, investigation into the ethical, legal and social implications
surrounding genetics research, and educational outreach activities in genetics and
genomics for HHS. In FY2005, NHGRI’s budget was $488.6 million.
Issues surrounding genetic discrimination and privacy in health insurance and
employment are currently being debated in the 109th Congress. Among the issues are
whether health insurance plans should be able to deny enrollment or charge higher
premiums to individuals based on the individual’s or family member’s genetic
information; privacy of genetic information; enforcement; and discrimination in
employment. Some members of the health insurance industry and the U.S. Chamber
of Commerce believe that current federal protections are sufficient to protect
individuals from discrimination based on their genetic information. Others are
concerned that the fruits of federal investment in the human genome project cannot
be translated into advances in genetic information without explicit protections. The
Senate passed S. 306 on February 17, 2005; it is supported by President Bush,
industry, and health care professionals and consumer groups. An identical bill, H.R.
1227, was introduced in the house on March 10, 2005. For information on the status
of 109th Congress legislation, see CRS Report RL32478.
For Further Information
CRS-42
CRS Report RL32478, Genetic Testing: Scientific Background and
Nondiscrimination Legislation
CRS Report RL30006, Genetic Information: Legal Issues Relating to Discrimination
and Privacy
Space and Aeronautics Issues
Impact of The “Vision for Space Exploration” on
NASA’s Aeronautics and Other Space Activities
On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush announced a new Vision for
Space Exploration, directing NASA to focus its efforts on returning humans to the
Moon by 2020, and someday sending them to Mars and “worlds beyond.” (See CRS
Report RS21720.) The President’s plan calls for most of the funding for the Vision
to come from redirecting spending from other NASA activities. In a projected budget
chart for FY2004-2020 that NASA released the same day as the President’s speech,
NASA’s programs were grouped into those associated with the Vision and those that
are not. Those that are not were categorized as Aeronautics and Other Science
Programs, with funding remaining flat through the FY2004-2020 time frame. The
“other science” is Earth science, and two Space Science disciplines, Sun-Earth
Connections, and Structure and Evolution of the Universe. Advocates of aeronautics
and the “other science” disciplines worry that funding for their research will suffer.
Tracking funding for the “other science” activities is difficult because, in the FY2006
budget, they are merged with other programs. Aeronautics funding, however, is
clearly identified, and is projected to decline 32 % from $1 billion in FY2004 to $718
million in FY2010.
The amount of funding for various activities will affect workforce levels at the
nine NASA field centers around the country, and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a
Federally Funded Research and Development Center (FFRDC) operated for NASA
by the California Institute of Technology. For example, according to NASA briefing
charts, the reduction in aeronautics funding will mean the elimination of 1,100 civil
service jobs at NASA centers. Also, a 2003 assessment of NASA’s aeronautics
program by the National Research Council found that its center infrastructure exceeds
its current needs. NASA officials insist that there are no plans to close any NASA
centers. How to “right size” NASA, its facilities, and its workforce, and ensure
NASA has the necessary skill mix for the Vision, are among the issues facing
Congress.
The Vision also calls for the space shuttle fleet to be retired in 2010. Placing a
fixed termination date on the shuttle system, however, may create schedule pressure
similar to what the CAIB found to have contributed to the February 2003 Columbia
tragedy (see CRS Report RS21408). Also, retiring the shuttle without another vehicle
to replace it means that the United States would be completely dependent on Russia
to take American crews to and from ISS until a new “Crew Exploration Vehicle”
(CEV) is available. The President directed NASA to have the CEV ready for Earth-
orbital flights by 2014, although NASA Administrator Griffin is taking action to
accelerate the CEV’s development. Some argue that the shuttle should be retained
CRS-43
until the CEV is available, while others want to retire the shuttle as soon as possible
either so the funding can be redirected toward other aspects of the Vision, or because
of shuttle safety concerns. Russia has been providing crew transport and “lifeboat”
services to NASA for free since the Columbia tragedy under a 1996 agreement. That
agreement will be fulfilled in April 2006, and Russian space officials have indicated
that they will not provide such services for free thereafter. However, NASA is not
permitted to make payments to Russia in connection with the ISS program under
terms of the Iran Nonproliferation Act (INA, P.L. 106-178) unless Russia stops
proliferating certain technologies to Iran (see CRS Report RS22072). The Bush
Administration has proposed amending the INA to permit NASA to pay Russia for
ISS-related services; Congress is considering the proposal. If INA is not amended,
NASA is facing two deadlines: April 2006, when U.S. crews could only be aboard the
ISS when the U.S. shuttle is docked there; and 2010, when U.S. crews would not be
able to be aboard the ISS at all. Meanwhile, the shuttle’s schedule remains uncertain
because of problems during the launch of the first Return to Flight mission (STS-114)
in July 2005. NASA has indefinitely postponed the next shuttle mission because of
a foam-shedding event that occurred during STS-114’s launch that is similar to what
led to the loss of Columbia.
NASA officials have indicated that NASA may complete its use of the ISS by
FY2017. Under the Vision, the only U.S. research that will be conducted on ISS is
that needed to fulfill the Vision, i.e., to support human health and safety in exploring
the Moon and Mars. NASA spends about $2 billion a year on ISS, in addition to the
costs of the shuttle program (about $4-5 billion annually). Some question whether ISS
is worth that level of investment considering the modest research objectives that
remain. NASA is building ISS in partnership with Canada, Japan, Russia, and 10
European countries. Fulfilling U.S. commitments to those partners may be another
rationale for continued U.S. involvement.
For Further Information
CRS Report RS21720, Space Exploration: Overview of President Bush’s “Vision for
Space Exploration,” and Key Issues for Congress
CRS Report RS22063, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Overview, FY2006 Budget in Brief, and Key Issues for Congress
CRS Report RS22072, The Iran Nonproliferation Act and the International Space
Station: Issues and Options
CRS Issue Brief IB93026, Space Launch Vehicles: Government Activities,
Commercial Competition, and Satellite Exports
CRS Issue Brief IB93017, Space Stations
The Future of the Hubble Space Telescope
Two days after the President’s Vision speech (see above), NASA announced that
it would not use the space shuttle to conduct further servicing missions to the Hubble
Space Telescope (see CRS Report RS21767). Then-NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe
cited shuttle safety concerns as the primary reason for his decision. Widespread criticism
of that decision led NASA to explore the possibility of a robotic servicing mission. A
December 2004 report from the National Research Council (NRC), however, concluded
that a robotic servicing mission was not likely to succeed in the time available. The NRC
CRS-44
recommended proceeding with a shuttle servicing mission instead, but Mr. O’Keefe did
not change his mind. Dr. Michael Griffin, who became NASA Administrator in April
2005, has stated that he will reassess whether to use the shuttle to service Hubble after
the shuttle returns to flight status and flies two successful missions. Problems during the
launch of the first “Return to Flight” mission in July 2005 led NASA to reground the
shuttle fleet; a second mission is now not expected at least until March 2006. It is not
known what impact this delay will have on the prospects for servicing Hubble.
Meanwhile, cost estimates of $1 billion or more have raised questions about the
affordability of a servicing mission. In the initial FY2006 budget, NASA requested
money only for a deorbit mission (to ensure that Hubble reenters from orbit without
posing danger to populated areas). A budget amendment in July 2005, however, included
$30 million “to preserve the option of servicing the Hubble with a Space Shuttle mission
until a decision can be made.” Whether or not to service Hubble is a major issue facing
Congress.
For Further Information
CRS Report RS21767, Hubble Space Telescope: Should NASA Proceed with a Servicing
Mission?
National Security Space Programs
The Department of Defense (DOD) and the intelligence community conduct a space
program larger in terms of funding than NASA. It involves building and launching
satellites for communications, navigation, early warning of missile launches, weather,
intelligence collection, and other purposes. Tracking the overall funding amount for the
national security space program is difficult because it is not consolidated into a single
account. According to the DOD Comptroller’s office, DOD is requesting $22.5 billion
for space programs in FY2006.
A number of DOD space programs are encountering cost growth and schedule
delays, including the Air Force’s Space Based Infrared System-High (SBIRS-High) for
early warning of missile launches, the Air Force’s Advanced Extremely High Frequency
(AEHF) communications satellite system, and the National Reconnaissance Office’s
(NRO’s) Future Imagery Architecture reconnaissance satellite system. DOD requests to
initiate new programs, including the Transformational Satellite (T-SAT) communications
satellite program, and a Space Based Radar (SBR) program, are controversial because
of the potentially large costs involved (and therefore their affordability), and concern as
to how to avoid the cost growth and schedule delays experienced in other DOD space
programs.
For Further Information
CRS Report RS21148, Issues Concerning DOD’s SBIRS and STSS Programs
CRS Issue Brief IB92011, U.S. Space Programs: Civil, Military, and Commercial
CRS Issue Brief IB93062, Space Launch Vehicles: Government Activities, Commercial
Competition, and Satellite Exports
CRS-45
Appendix: List of Acronyms
ATP
Advanced Technology Program
CBRN
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (terrorism)
CCRI
Climate Change Research Initiative
CCSP
Climate Change Science Program
CDC
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
DARPA
(Department of) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
DHHS
Department of Health and Human Services (alternatively, HHS)
DHS
Department of Homeland Security
DOD
Department of Defense
DOE
Department of Energy
DTV
Digital Television
EHR
Electronic Health Records
FCC
Federal Communications Commission
FDA
Food and Drug Administration
FOIA
Freedom of Information Act
GAO
Government Accountability Office
GPRA
Government Performance and Results Act
GSA
General Services Administration
HHS
(Department of) Health and Human Services (alternatively, DHHS)
IT
Information Technology
MEP
Manufacturing Extension Partnership
NAS
National Academy of Sciences (which together with the National
Academy of Engineering and the Institute of Medicine form the
“National Academies”)
NASA
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NCCTI
National Climate Change Technology Initiative
NHGRI
National Human Genome Research Institute
NHII
National Health Information Infrastructure
NIAID
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of NIH)
CRS-46
NIH
National Institutes of Health (part of the Department of Health and
Human Services)
NIST
National Institute of Science and Technology (part of the Department
of Commerce)
NITRD
Networking Information Technology R&D
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (part of the
Department of Commerce)
NSF
National Science Foundation
NSTC
National Science and Technology Council (part of OSTP)
OHS
Office of Homeland Security (in the White House)
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
ONCHIT
Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information
OSTP
Office of Science and Technology Policy
R&D
Research and Development
R&E
Research and Experimentation
RDT&E
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation
SBU
Sensitive But Unclassified
SHSI
Sensitive Homeland Security Information
USDA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGCRP
U.S. Global Change Research Program