The Federal Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development
Program: Funding Issues and Activities

Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy
February 2, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33586
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

Summary
In the early 1990s, Congress recognized that several federal agencies had ongoing high-
performance computing programs, but no central coordinating body existed to ensure long-term
coordination and planning. To provide such a framework, Congress passed the High-Performance
Computing and Communications Program Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194) to enhance the
effectiveness of the various programs. In conjunction with the passage of the act, the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) released Grand Challenges: High-
Performance Computing and Communications
. That document outlined a research and
development (R&D) strategy for high-performance computing and a framework for a
multiagency program, the High-Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program.
The HPCC Program has evolved over time and is now called the Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program, to better reflect its expanded mission.
Proponents assert that federal support of information technology (IT) R&D has produced positive
outcomes for the country and played a crucial role in supporting long-term research into
fundamental aspects of computing. Such fundamentals provide broad practical benefits, but
generally take years to realize. Additionally, the unanticipated results of research are often as
important as the anticipated results. Another aspect of government-funded IT research is that it
often leads to open standards, something that many perceive as beneficial, encouraging
deployment and further investment. Industry, on the other hand, is more inclined to invest in
proprietary products and will diverge from a common standard when there is a potential
competitive or financial advantage to do so. Finally, proponents of government support believe
that the outcomes achieved through the various funding programs create a synergistic
environment in which both fundamental and application-driven research are conducted,
benefitting government, industry, academia, and the public. Supporters also believe that such
outcomes justify government’s role in funding IT R&D, as well as the growing budget for the
NITRD Program. Critics assert that the government, through its funding mechanisms, may be
picking “winners and losers” in technological development, a role more properly residing with
the private sector. For example, the size of the NITRD Program may encourage industry to follow
the government’s lead on research directions rather than selecting those directions itself.
The President’s FY2010 budget request calls for $3.926 billion for the NITRD Program, an
increase of $3.925 billion, or approximately 1%, over the 2009 estimate. The FY2009 budget
estimate is $3.882 billion for the NITRD Program, an increase of $0.334 billion, or approximately
9%, over the President’s request.
On November 18, the House Committee on Science and Technology passed H.R. 4061, the
Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009, to improve the security of cyberspace by ensuring
federal investments in cybersecurity are better focused, more effective, and that research into
innovative, transformative technologies is supported. The bill addresses recommendations from
the Administration’s Cyberspace Policy Review and includes input from four hearings held on
cybersecurity during the first session. H.R. 4061 would reauthorize and expand the Cyber
Security Research and Development Act (P.L. 107-305). In addition to promoting cybersecurity
R&D by the member agencies of the NITRD, the legislation addresses cybersecurity workforce
concerns and advances the development of technical standards. H.R. 4061 is a combination of
two Committee discussion drafts: the Cybersecurity Research and Development Amendments Act
of 2009 and the Cybersecurity Coordination and Awareness Act of 2009. The full House is
expected to take action on this legislation in the near future.
Congressional Research Service

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

Contents
Overview of the Federal NITRD Program ................................................................................... 1
NITRD Structure................................................................................................................... 1
NITRD Funding.................................................................................................................... 3
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ......................................................... 3
American Competitiveness Initiative ............................................................................... 4
NCO, PITAC, and Related Reports and Activities ................................................................. 4
National Cyber Leap Year Summit .................................................................................. 4
High-Confidence Medical Devices: Cyber-Physical Systems for 21st Century
Health Care.................................................................................................................. 5
Harnessing the Power of Digital Data for Science and Society......................................... 7
Federal Plan for Advanced Networking Research and Development ................................ 7
Leadership Under Challenge: Information Technology R&D in a Competitive
World........................................................................................................................... 8
Federal Plan for Cyber Security and Information Assurance Research and
Development................................................................................................................ 9
NSA Superconducting Technology Assessment ............................................................... 9
Computational Science: Ensuring America’s Competitiveness ......................................... 9
Cyber Security: A Crisis of Prioritization....................................................................... 10
NITRD Enabling and Governing Legislation....................................................................... 11
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991.................................................................... 11
Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 ............................................................. 12
Context of Federal Technology Funding .................................................................................... 12
Issues for Congress ................................................................................................................... 14
Activity in the 111th Congress.................................................................................................... 15

Figures
Figure 1. Management Structure of the NITRD Program ............................................................. 2

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 16

Congressional Research Service

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

Overview of the Federal NITRD Program
The federal government has long played a key role in the country’s information technology (IT)
research and development (R&D) activities. The government’s support of IT R&D began because
it had an important interest in creating computers that would be capable of addressing the
problems and issues the government needed to solve and study. One of the first such problems
was planning the trajectories of artillery and bombs; more recently, such problems include
simulations of nuclear testing, cryptanalysis, and weather modeling. That interest continues today.
Such complexity requires there be adequate coordination to ensure the government’s evolving
needs (e.g., homeland security) will continue to be met in the most effective manner possible.
NITRD Structure
The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program is a
collaborative effort in which 13 agencies coordinate and cooperate to help increase the overall
effectiveness and productivity of federal IT R&D.1 Of those 13 members, the majority of funding,
in descending order, goes to the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health,
Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA), and DOE National Nuclear Security Administration. Dr. Christopher Greer was named
as the director of the NITRD Program in October 2007. Figure 1 illustrates the organizational
structure of the NITRD Program.
The National Coordinating Office (NCO) coordinates the activities of the NITRD Program. On
July 1, 2005, the NCO became the “National Coordination Office for Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development.” The Director of the NCO reports to the
Director of the White House Office on Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The NCO
supports the Subcommittee on NITRD (also called the NITRD Subcommittee)2 and the
President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC).3


1 The members of the NITRD Program, as listed in the FY2006 Supplement to the President’s Budget, are: Agency for
Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA); Office of the
Secretary of Defense, Defense Research & Engineering, and the DOD service research organizations; Department of
Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA); Department of Energy, Office of Science (DOE/SC);
Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA); National Institutes of Health (NIH); National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST);
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); National Security Agency (NSA); and National Science
Foundation (NSF). The history of agency participation can be found at http://www.nitrd.gov/about/history/agency-
participants.pdf.
2 The NITRD Subcommittee was previously called the Interagency Working Group for IT R&D (IWG/IT R&D).
3 The PITAC was established on February 11, 1997, to provide the President, OSTP, and the federal agencies involved
in IT R&D with guidance and advice on all areas of high performance computing, communications, and information
technologies. Representing the research, education, and library communities and including network providers and
representatives from critical industries, the committee advises the Administration’s effort to accelerate development
and adoption of information technologies. Additional information about the PITAC is available at
http://www.nitrd.gov/pitac. The most recent PITAC Executive Order expired on June 1, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
1


Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

Figure 1. Management Structure of the NITRD Program

Source: NITRD Program website, http://www.nitrd.gov.
• The NITRD Subcommittee provides policy, program, and budget planning for the
NITRD Program and is composed of representatives from each of the
participating agencies, OSTP, Office of Management and Budget, and the NCO.
Two Interagency Working Groups and five Coordination Groups reporting to the
NITRD Subcommittee focus their work in eight Program Component Areas
(PCAs).4

4 The eight PCAs are (1) High-End Computing Infrastructure and Applications (HEC I&A)—to extend the state of the
art in high-end computing systems, applications, and infrastructure; (2) High-End Computing R&D (HEC R&D)—to
optimize the performance of today’s high-end computing systems and develop future generations of high-end
computing systems; (3) Cyber Security and Information Assurance—to perform fundamental and applied R&D to
improve the security and assurance of information systems; (4) Human Computer Interaction and Information
Management (HCI&IM)
—to develop new user interaction technologies, cognitive systems, information systems, and
robotics that benefit humans; (5) Large Scale Networking (LSN)—to develop leading-edge network technologies,
services, and techniques to enhance performance, security, and scalability; (6) Software Design and Productivity
(SDP)
—to advance concepts, methods, techniques, and tools that improve software design, development, and
maintenance to produce more usable, dependable and cost-effective software-based systems; (7) High Confidence
Software and Systems (HCSS)
—to develop the scientific foundations and IT to achieve affordable and predictable high
levels of safety, security, reliability, and survivability, especially in U.S. national security and safety-critical systems;
and (8) n Social, Economic, and Workforce Implications of IT and IT Workforce Development (SEW)—to study the
impact of IT on people and social and economic systems; develop the IT workforce; and develop innovative IT
applications in education and training. Additional information about the program component areas is available at
http://www.nitrd.gov/subcommittee/index.html. HEC R&D and HEC I&A are both covered by the HEC Interagency
Working Group. A diagram illustrating the evolution of the PCAs, 1992-present, is available at http://www.nitrd.gov/
about/history/new-pca-names.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
2

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

• The PITAC is composed of representatives of private industry and academia who
are appointed by the President. The group provides expert independent advice to
the President on the federal role in maintaining U.S. preeminence in advanced IT
and works with the NITRD Program agencies and the NITRD Subcommittee.
• The NITRD Program is funded out of each member agency’s individual budget,
rather than in a single appropriations bill (e.g., NITRD Program activities
conducted by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) are funded through the NIH
appropriations bill). The program’s NCO is not explicitly funded; rather, the
NITRD member agencies contribute toward NCO operations.
The NITRD Program has undergone a series of structural changes since its inception in 1991 and
both it and the NCO have had a number of different names over the years. When the Program was
created in December 1991, it was named the High Performance Computing and Communications
(HPCC) Program, and when the NCO was created in September 1992, it was named the NCO for
HPCC. The name was changed to the National Coordination Office for Computing, Information,
and Communications per the FY1997 Supplement to the President’s Budget (also known at that
time as the “Blue Book”). The name was changed to the National Coordination Office for
Information Technology Research and Development per the FY2001 Blue Book.5 Most recently,
on July 1, 2005, the name was changed to the National Coordination Office for Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development. These changes were made to reflect the
evolution of the program as it came to encompass a broader range of related topics.
NITRD Funding
The President’s FY2010 budget request calls for $3.926 billion for the NITRD Program, an
increase of $3.925 billion, or approximately 1%, over the 2009 estimate. The FY2009 budget
estimate is $3.882 billion for the NITRD Program, an increase of $0.334 billion, or approximately
9%, over the President’s request.6
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, five federal agencies
report preliminary allocations of $706 million to investments in NITRD research areas (these
figures may change). The NITRD agencies will use their ARRA funds to modernize, expand, and
upgrade networking and high-end computing infrastructures and facilities for advanced scientific
research; expand R&D in cyber security, human-computer interaction and information
management, high-confidence software and systems, and software design; and increase
investments in education and training for a diverse, highly skilled IT workforce.7

5 That change was effective October 2000.
6 Supplement to the President’s Budget, The Networking and Information Technology Research and devekopment
Program, online at http://www.nitrd.gov/Pubs/2010supplement/FY10Supp-FINALFormat-Web.pdf.
7 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
3

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

American Competitiveness Initiative
The American Competitiveness Initiative has increased the NITRD budgets of agencies that are
part of the Initiative. The Initiative calls for a doubling over 10 years of the investment in three
federal agencies that support basic research programs in the physical sciences and engineering:
the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s Office of Science
(DOE/SC), and the National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST)—are NITRD Program
member agencies. All three received FY2007 NITRD budget increases that exceed the percentage
increase in the overall Program budget, as follows: NSF, 12%; DOE/SC, 35%; and NIST, 10%.
The aggregated NITRD budget increase for these three agencies from 2006 estimates to 2007
request is $186 million (17% above 2006 estimates), which accounts for over 85% of the overall
NITRD Program budget increase for 2007.8
NCO, PITAC, and Related Reports and Activities
As explained earlier, the NCO provides technical and administrative support to the NITRD
Program, the NITRD Subcommittee, and the PITAC. This includes supporting meetings and
workshops and preparing reports. The NCO interacts with OSTP and OMB on NITRD Program
and PITAC matters.
National Cyber Leap Year Summit
Between August 17 and 19 of 2009, the NITRD Program, with guidance from OSTP and the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Defense Networks and Information Integration, held a
National Cyber Leap Year Summit in Arlington, VA. The Summit gathered commercial and
academic innovators for an unconventional exploration of five game-changing strategies in cyber
security:
• Basing trust decisions on verified assertions (Digital Provenance)
• Attacks only work once if at all (Moving-target Defense)
• Knowing when we have been had (Hardware-enabled Trust)
• Move from forensics to real-time diagnosis (Nature-inspired Cyber Health)
• Crime does not pay (Cyber Economics)
Participants discussed how to initiate and sustain fundamental cyber security changes within
those five strategies. The Summit’s outcomes are provided as input to the Administration’s cyber
security R&D agenda and as strategies for public-private actions to secure the Nation’s digital
future.9


8 The FY2007 NITRD Budget request is at http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/2007supplement/.
9 The reports from the summit are available at http://www.qinetiq-na.com/.
Congressional Research Service
4

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

High-Confidence Medical Devices: Cyber-Physical Systems for 21st Century
Health Care

This report, published in February 2009, presents the perspectives of the senior scientists of the
NITRD Program’s High Confidence Software and Systems (HCSS) Coordinating Group (CG),
with input from experts from other federal agencies, on the R&D challenges, needs, and strategies
for developing and deploying the next generations of high-confidence medical devices, software,
and systems.10 HCSS agencies whose missions are not medical device-specific have found it
beneficial to partner in this area because medical device research challenges are similar, if not
identical, to those within their purview. Digital technologies are increasingly being assigned high-
level control over the monitoring, sensing, actuation, and communications of medical devices—
often with human life in the balance. Through this report and associated HCSS-sponsored
national workshops, the HCSS agencies are seeking to illuminate fundamental scientific and
technical challenges that must be addressed before we can design and build high-confidence
devices, software, and systems that operate flawlessly from end to end. The report authors sought
to paint the landscape of the evolution of medical device technology and the federal investments
that have benefitted medical device R&D over time.
The authors noted a number of key findings:
• Today’s medical device architectures are typically proprietary, not interoperable,
and rely on professionals to provide inputs and assess outputs; “families” of such
devices also tend to be stove-piped and not interoperable with other “families” of
devices.
• In the frequent circumstance that a patient is connected to multiple devices at
once, such as in an operating room, clinicians now must monitor all devices
independently, synthesize data, and act on their observations, which can be
affected by stress, fatigue, or other human factors.
• Medical device architecture is beginning to include wired and wireless interfaces
to facilitate networked communication of patient data. But ad hoc efforts to
aggregate data across devices designed to operate separately can lead to
unintended or accidental results.
• The growing interest in such capabilities as home health care services, delivery
of expert medical practice remotely (telemedicine), and online clinical lab
analysis underscores the central role of advanced networking and distributed
communication of medical information in the health systems of the future.
Increased R&D focus on the specialized engineering of networked medical
device systems is needed.
• Neither past nor current development methods are adequate for the high-
confidence design and manufacture of highly complex, interoperable medical
device software and systems (“intelligent” prosthetics, minimally invasive
surgical devices, implants, “operating room of the future”), which in years to
come will likely include nano/bio devices, bionics, or even pure (programmable)
biological systems.

10 This report is available online at http://www.nitrd.gov/About/MedDevice-FINAL1-web.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

• Today’s verification and validation (V&V) efforts are driven by system-life-cycle
development activities that rely primarily on methods of post-hoc inspection and
testing; these approaches are inadequate in the face of the diversity and
complexity of components and interactions in emerging medical devices and
systems.
• Today, scientific principles and engineering foundations are lacking that could
enable both the design and assurance of high-confidence medical device cyber-
physical systems.
Based on their findings, the authors drew the following conclusions:
• Clearly, there is a need for rationally designed high-confidence medical device
cyber-physical architectures; a strategic focus on R&D in compositional
modeling and design is needed to address the open systems needs, respond to
technological innovation, and bridge the jointly cyber and physical aspects of this
complex systems problem.
• An open research community of academics and medical device manufacturers is
needed to create strategies for development of end-to-end, principled,
engineering-based design and development tools. Certifying component devices
is necessary, but not sufficient; a key area of research needed is the incremental
certified composition of certified components.
• Manufacturers will need access to open, formally composable V&V technology
that relies on computational models unifying cyber and physical systems to help
establish sufficient evidence. A key V&V research challenge is to understand
what is meant by the term “sufficient evidence,”7 its properties, and how this can
be accepted in the global economy.
• The HCSS group recommends that a strategic R&D focus on high-confidence
networking and IT for the design, implementation, and certification of open
medical technologies be undertaken, both to meet the goals of cost-effective,
improved patient care and to spur innovation that promotes U.S. leadership in
biomedical technology.
• To enable the necessary holistic cyber-physical systems understanding, barriers
must fall among the relevant disciplines: medicine, discrete and continuous
mathematics of dynamics and control; real-time computation and
communication; medical robotics; learning; computational models and the
supporting systems engineering design, analysis, and implementation
technologies; and formal and algorithmic methods for stating, checking, and
reasoning about system properties.
• Incentives are needed to enable effective cooperation between government,
industry, and academia to build the underpinning standards and networking and
information technology frameworks (e.g., testbeds) for developing open,
interoperable medical cyber-physical systems.
Congressional Research Service
6

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

Harnessing the Power of Digital Data for Science and Society
This report, published in January 2009, provides a strategy to promote preservation and access to
digital scientific data.11 The report lays out a strategic vision for “a digital scientific data universe
in which data creation, collection, documentation, analysis, preservation, and dissemination can
be appropriately, reliably, and readily managed, thereby enhancing the return on our nation’s
research and development investment by ensuring that digital data realize their full potential as
catalysts for progress in our global information society.” The report includes three key
recommendations to pursue this vision. The first is to create an Interagency Subcommittee under
NSTC that will focus on goals that are best addressed through continuing broad cooperation and
coordination across agencies. The second key element of the strategic framework is for
departments and agencies to lay the foundations for agency digital scientific data policy and make
the policy publicly available. In laying these foundations, agencies should consider all
components of a comprehensive policy to address the full data management life cycle. The third
key element is for all agencies to promote a data management planning process for projects that
generate scientific data for preservation.
Federal Plan for Advanced Networking Research and Development
This plan, released in September 2008, was developed by the Interagency Task Force on
Advanced Networking, established under the NITRD National Science and Technology Council
by the Director of the OSTP to provide a strategic vision for future networked environments.12
The overall conclusions of the Task Force can be summarized as follows:
• Improved networking security and reliability are strategic national priorities;
• New paths to advanced networking are required;
• Federal R&D efforts will support a spectrum of advanced networking
capabilities;
• Close cooperation is needed to integrate federal R&D efforts with the full
technology development cycle—this cycle includes basic and applied research,
and partnerships with researchers, application developers, users, and other
stakeholders; and
• Testbeds and prototype networks enable research on network challenges in
realistic environments.
The report notes that
The Internet’s phenomenal growth and elasticity have exceeded all expectations. At the same
time, we have become captive to the limitations and vulnerabilities of the current generation
of networking technologies. Because vital U.S. interests—for example, national defense
communications, financial markets, and the operation of critical infrastructures such as
power grids—now depend on secure, reliable, highspeed network connectivity, these
limitations and vulnerabilities can threaten our national security and economic
competitiveness. Research and development to create the next generation of networking
technologies is needed to address these threats.

11 This report is available online at http://www.nitrd.gov/About/Harnessing_Power_Web.pdf.
12 This report is available at http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/ITFAN-FINAL.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

The plan is centered on a vision for advanced networking based on a design and architecture
for security and reliability that provides for heterogeneous, anytime-anywhere networking
with capabilities such as federation of networks across domains and widely differing
technologies; dynamic mobile networking with autonomous management; effective quality
of service (QoS) management; support for sensornets; near-realtime autonomous discovery,
configuration, and management of resources; and end-to-end security tailored to the
application and user.
The report outlines four goal for realizing this vision:
• Provide secure network services anytime, anywhere;
• Make secure global federated networks possible;
• Manage network complexity and heterogeneity; and
• Foster innovation among the federal, research, commercial, and other sectors
through development of advanced network systems and technologies.
Leadership Under Challenge: Information Technology R&D in a Competitive
World

This August 2007 report assesses global U.S. competitiveness in networking and information
technology and provides recommendations aimed at ensuring that the NITRD Program is
appropriately focused and implemented. The report makes specific recommendations for federal
R&D that would enhance U.S. competitiveness in this economically critical area. In developing
the report, the PCAST consulted extensively with experts from industry and academia. The
PCAST concluded that while the United States is still in a leadership position, other nations are
challenging that lead in a number of areas and that the NITRD Program must focus on visionary
research and work with universities to keep the United States at the cutting edge. Some of the
report recommendation areas follows:
• Both the U.S. federal government and the private sector need to address the
demand for skilled IT professionals, including such steps as updating curricula,
increasing fellowships, and simplifying visa processes.
• With respect to the federally funded research portfolio, the NITRD Program
should emphasize larger-scale and longer-term, multidisciplinary IT R&D and
innovative, higher-risk projects.
• The United States should give priority to R&D in economically important areas,
including IT systems connected with and embedded in the physical world,
software, use and management of digital data, and advanced Internet capabilities.
The PCAST noted that with an annual federal investment of over $3 billion in the
NITRD Program, changes in the Program’s interagency process to strengthen
assessment and planning are needed.13

13 This report responds to reporting requirements of the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 P.L. 102-194) and
the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-305). The laws call for a President’s Information
Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC) to assess periodically what is now known as the NITRD Program.
Executive Order 13385, signed on September 29, 2005, assigned the PITAC’s responsibilities to PCAST. This report is
available at http://www.nitrd.gov/pcast/reports/PCAST-NIT-FINAL.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

Federal Plan for Cyber Security and Information Assurance Research and
Development

In April 2006, the NITRD Subcommittee released its “Federal Plan for Cyber Security and
Information Assurance Research and Development.”14 This report sets out a framework for multi-
agency coordination of federal R&D investments in technologies that can better secure the
interconnected computing systems, networks, and information that together make up the U.S. IT
infrastructure. The plan outlines strategic objectives for coordinated federal R&D in cyber
security and information assurance (CSIA) and presents a broad range of CSIA R&D technical
topics, identifying those topics that are multi-agency technical and funding priorities. The plan’s
findings and recommendations address R&D priority setting, coordination, fundamental R&D,
emerging technologies, roadmapping, and metrics.
NSA Superconducting Technology Assessment
In August 2005, NSA released its “Superconducting Technology Assessment”15 as part of its
participation in the High-End Computing PCA of the NITRD Program. NSA had been concerned
about projected limitations of conventional technology and wanted to explore possible
alternatives to meet its future mission-critical computational needs. This report presented the
results of the technology assessment, which found the following:
• Government investment is necessary, because private industry currently has no
compelling financial reason to develop alternative technologies for mainstream
commercial applications.
• With aggressive federal investment (estimated between $372 and $437 million
over five years), by 2010 next generation technologies would be sufficiently
mature to allow the initiation of the design and construction of an operational
petaflops16-scale system.
• Although significant risks exist, the panel has developed a roadmap that
identifies the needed technology developments with milestones and
demonstration vehicles.
Computational Science: Ensuring America’s Competitiveness
In June 2005, the PITAC released “Computational Science: Ensuring America’s
Competitiveness.”17 The report identified obstacles to progress in this field, including “rigid
disciplinary silos in academia that are mirrored in federal research and development agency
organizational structures.” According to the report, these “silos stifle the development of multi-
disciplinary research and educational approaches essential to computational science.” The report
recommends the following:

14 This report is available at http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/csia/csia_federal_plan.pdf.
15 This report is available at http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/nsa/sta.pdf.
16 In computing, “flops” or “FLOPS” is an abbreviation of Floating Point Operations Per Second. This is used as a
measure of a computer’s performance, especially in fields of scientific calculations that make heavy use of floating
point calculations. A petaflops-scale machine operates at 1015 flops.
17 This report is available at http://www.nitrd.gov/pitac/reports/20050609_computational/computational.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

• Both academia and government fundamentally change their organizational
structures so that they promote and reward collaborative research.
• The National Science and Technology Council commission the National
Academies to convene one or more task forces to develop and maintain a multi-
decade roadmap for computational science, with a goal of assuring continuing
U.S. leadership in science, engineering, and the humanities.
• The federal government establish national software sustainability centers to
harden, document, support, and maintain long-term vital computational science
software.
• The federal government provide long-term support for computational science
community data repositories. These should include defined frameworks,
metadata structures, algorithms, data sets, applications, and review and validation
infrastructure. It should also require funded researchers to deposit their data and
research software in these repositories or with other approved access providers.
• The federal government provide long-term funding for national high-end
computing centers at levels sufficient to ensure the regularly scheduled
deployment and operation of the fastest and most capable high-end computing
systems that address the most demanding computational problems.
• The federal government implement coordinated, long-term computational science
programs that include funding for interconnecting the software sustainability
centers, national data and software repositories, and national high-end leadership
centers with the researchers who use those resources.
• The federal government should rebalance its R&D investments to: (a) create a
new generation of well-engineered, scalable, easy-to-use software suitable for
computational science that can reduce the complexity and time to solution for
today’s challenging scientific applications and can create accurate simulations
that answer new questions; (b) design, prototype, and evaluate new hardware
architectures that can deliver larger fractions of peak hardware performance on
scientific applications; and (c) focus on sensor-and data-intensive computational
science applications in light of the explosive growth of data.
Cyber Security: A Crisis of Prioritization
In February 2005, the PITAC released “Cyber Security: A Crisis of Prioritization.”18 That report
outlined four key findings and recommendations on how the federal government could “foster
new architectures and technologies to secure the Nation’s IT infrastructure.” Specifically, the
PITAC urged the government to
• significantly increase support for fundamental research in civilian cyber security
in 10 priority areas;
• intensify federal efforts to promote the recruitment and retention of cyber
security researchers and students at research universities;

18 This report is available at http://www.nitrd.gov/pitac/reports/20050301_cybersecurity/cybersecurity.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
10

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

• increase support for the rapid transfer of federally developed cybersecurity
technologies to the private sector; and
• strengthen the coordination of federal cybersecurity R&D activities.
Also in February 2005, the NCO released the FY2006 Supplement to the President’s Budget.19
The supplement provides a brief technical outline of the FY2006 budget request for the NITRD
Program. The FY2007 Supplement has not yet been released.
NITRD Enabling and Governing Legislation
The NITRD Program is governed by two laws. The first, the High-Performance Computing Act
of 1991, P.L. 102-194,20 expanded federal support for high-performance computing R&D and
called for increased interagency planning and coordination. The second, the Next Generation
Internet Research Act of 1998, P.L. 105-305,21 amended the original law to expand the mission of
the NITRD Program to cover Internet-related research, among other goals.
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991
This law was the original enabling legislation for what is now the NITRD Program. Among other
requirements, it called for the following:
• Setting goals and priorities for federal high-performance computing research,
development, and networking.
• Providing for the technical support and research and development of high-
performance computing software and hardware needed to address fundamental
problems in science and engineering.
• Educating undergraduate and graduate students.
• Fostering and maintaining competition and private sector investment in high-
speed data networking within the telecommunications industry.
• Promoting the development of commercial data communications and
telecommunications standards.
• Providing security, including protecting intellectual property rights.
• Developing accounting mechanisms allowing users to be charged for the use of
copyrighted materials.
This law also requires an annual report to Congress on grants and cooperative R&D agreements
and procurements involving foreign entities.22

19 This report is available at http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/2006supplement.
20 High Performance Computing Act of 1991, P.L. 102-194, 15 U.S.C. 5501, 105 Stat. 1595, December 9, 1991. The
full text of this law is available at http://www.nitrd.gov/congressional/laws/pl_102-194.html.
21 Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998, P.L. 105-305, 15 U.S.C. 5501, 112 Stat. 2919, October 28, 1998.
The full text of this law is available at http://www.nitrd.gov/congressional/laws/pl_h_105-305.html.
22 The first report mandated information on the “Supercomputer Agreement” between the United States and Japan be
included in this report. A separate one-time only report was required on network funding, including user fees, industry
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
11

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998
This law amended the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. The act had two overarching
purposes. The first was to authorize research programs related to high-end computing and
computation, human-centered systems, high confidence systems, and education, training, and
human resources. The second was to provide for the development and coordination of a
comprehensive and integrated U.S. research program to focus on (1) computer network
infrastructure that would promote interoperability among advanced federal computer networks,
(2) economic high-speed data access that does not impose a “geographic penalty.” and (3) flexible
and extensible networking technology.
Context of Federal Technology Funding
In the early 1990s, Congress recognized that several federal agencies had ongoing high-
performance computing programs,23 but no central coordinating body existed to ensure long-term
coordination and planning. To provide such a framework, Congress passed the High-Performance
Computing Program Act of 1991 to improve the interagency coordination, cooperation, and
planning of agencies with high performance computing programs.
In conjunction with the passage of the act, OSTP released, “Grand Challenges: High-Performance
Computing and Communications.” That document outlined an R&D strategy for high-
performance computing and communications and a framework for a multi-agency program, the
HPCC Program.
The NITRD Program is part of the larger federal effort to promote fundamental and applied IT
R&D. The government sponsors such research through a number of channels, including
• federally funded research and development laboratories, such as Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory;
• single-agency programs;
• multi-agency programs, including the NITRD Program, but also programs
focusing on nanotechnology R&D and combating terrorism;
• funding grants to academic institutions; and
• funding grants to industry.
In general, supporters contend that federal funding of IT R&D has produced positive results. In
2003, the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) of the National Research

(...continued)
support, and federal investment.
23 “High-performance” computing is a term that encompasses both “supercomputing” and “grid computing.” In general,
high-performance computers are defined as stand-alone or networked computers that can perform “very complex
computations very quickly.” Supercomputing involves a single, stand-alone computer located in a single location. Grid
computing involves a group of computers, in either the same location or spread over a number of locations, that are
networked together (e.g., via the Internet or a local network). House of Representatives, Committee on Science,
Supercomputing: Is the United States on the Right Path (Hearing Transcript), http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/
science/hsy88231.000/hsy88231_0f.htm, 2003, pp. 5-6.
Congressional Research Service
12

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

Council (NRC) released a “synthesis report” based on eight previously released reports that
examined “how innovation occurs in IT, what the most promising research directions are, and
what impacts such innovation might have on society.”24 One of the most significant of the
CSTB’s observations was that the unanticipated results of research are often as important as the
anticipated results. For example, electronic mail and instant messaging were by-products of
[government-funded] research in the 1960s that was aimed at making it possible to share
expensive computing resources among multiple simultaneous interactive users.
Additionally, the report noted that federally funded programs have played a crucial role in
supporting long-term research into fundamental aspects of computing. Such “fundamentals”
provide broad practical benefits, but generally take years to realize. Furthermore, supporters state
that the nature and underlying importance of fundamental research makes it less likely that
industry would invest in and conduct more fundamental research on its own. As noted by the
CSTB, “companies have little incentive to invest significantly in activities whose benefits will
spread quickly to their rivals.”25 Further, in the Board’s opinion:
government sponsorship of research, especially in universities, helps develop the IT talent
used by industry, universities, and other parts of the economy. When companies create
products using the ideas and workforce that result from federally-sponsored research, they
repay the nation in jobs, tax revenues, productivity increases, and world leadership.26
Another aspect of government-funded IT R&D is that it often leads to open standards, something
that many perceive as beneficial, encouraging deployment and further investment. Industry, on
the other hand, is more likely to invest in proprietary products and will diverge from a common
standard if it sees a potential competitive or financial advantage; this has happened, for example
with standards for instant messaging.27
Finally, proponents of government R&D support believe that the outcomes achieved through the
various funding programs create a synergistic environment in which both fundamental and
application-driven research are conducted, benefitting government, industry, academia, and the
public. Supporters also believe that such outcomes justify government’s role in funding IT R&D,
as well as the growing budget for the NITRD Program.
Critics assert that the government, through its funding mechanisms, may be setting itself up to
pick “winners and losers” in technological development, a role more properly residing with the
private sector.28 For example, the size of the NITRD Program may encourage industry to follow
the government’s lead on research directions rather than selecting those directions itself.

24 National Research Council, Innovation in Information Technology, 2003, p. 1. This report discusses all federal
funding for R&D, not only the NITRD Program.
25 Ibid, p. 4.
26 Ibid, p. 4.
27 Ibid, p. 18.
28 Cato Institute, Encouraging Research: Taking Politics Out of R&D, September 13, 1999, http://www.cato.org/pubs/
wtpapers/990913catord.html.
Congressional Research Service
13

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

Overall, CSTB states that, government funding appears to have allowed research on a larger scale
and with greater diversity, vision, and flexibility than would have been possible without
government involvement.29
Issues for Congress
Federal IT R&D is a multi-dimensional issue, involving many government agencies working
together towards shared and complementary goals. Most observers believe that success in this
arena requires ongoing coordination among government, academia, and industry.
Through hearings, the House Committee on Science has been investigating issues related to U.S.
competitiveness in high-performance computing and the direction the IT R&D community has
been taking. Those issues and others remain salient and may merit further investigation if the
United States is to maintain a comprehensive IT R&D policy. Included among the possible issues
Congress may wish to pursue are: the United States’ status as the global leader in high-
performance computing research; the apparent bifurcation of the federal IT R&D research agenda
between grid computing and supercomputing capabilities; the possible over-reliance on
commercially available hardware to satisfy U.S. research needs; and the potential impact of
deficit cutting on IT R&D funding.
Many Members of Congress as well as those in the research community have expressed concern
over whether the United States is maintaining its position as the global leader in high-
performance computing R&D. That concern was highlighted in 2003 when Japan briefly
surpassed the United States in possessing the fastest and most efficient supercomputer in the
world.30 While this was a reason for some concern, it was also viewed by some as an indicator of
how the United States’ research agenda had become bifurcated, with some in the R&D
community focusing on traditional supercomputing capabilities, and others focusing more on
cluster computing or grid computing. Each type of computing has its advantages, based on its
application. Stand-alone supercomputers are often faster and are generally used to work on a
specific problem. For example, cryptanalysis and climate modeling applications require
significant computing power and are best accomplished using specialized, stand-alone computers.
Cluster computing, however, allows the use of commercially available hardware, which helps
contain costs. The cluster configuration is useful for applications in which a problem can be
broken into smaller independent components.31 Therefore, one possible course for Congress could
be to monitor closely the work that was begun by the High-End Computing Revitalization Task
Force and is now being performed by the NITRD Program’s High-End Computing Interagency
Working Group and provide ongoing feedback and guidance.
Without a clear plan as to how to proceed, pursuing two disparate research agendas (with goals
that could be viewed as being at odds with each other) could split the research community further,
damaging its ability to provide leadership in either area. The NITRD Program already is working
on a “roadmap” for future directions in supercomputing; therefore, one possible course for
Congress at this time would be to monitor closely the work of the High-End Computing

29 National Research Council, Innovation in Information Technology, 2003, p. 22.
30 House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Supercomputing: Is the United States on the Right Path? (Hearing
Transcript), http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy88231.000/hsy88231_0f.htm, 2003, p. 13.
31 Ibid, p. 6-7.
Congressional Research Service
14

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

Revitalization Task Force and provide input or a more visible forum for discussion (i.e.,
additional hearings involving task force participants). Congress may wish to conduct its own
inquiry into the debate over grid versus stand-alone computing.
Another issue is whether the United States is relying too heavily on commercially available
hardware to satisfy its R&D needs. While use of computers designed for mass-market
commercial applications can certainly be a part of a successful high-end computing R&D plan,
Congress may wish to monitor how this reliance may be driving the new emphasis on grid
computing.
As noted earlier, critics of IT R&D funding often state that industry should conduct more
fundamental R&D on their own, without government backing, and that fiscal restraint dictates
that less funding should be made available. Conversely, supporters of government funding would
point out that IT R&D has a very long cycle from inception to application and that any reductions
in funding now could have a significant negative impact for many years to come in terms of
innovation and training of researchers. Therefore, Congress may monitor and assess the potential
impact of deficit-cutting plans on progress in IT R&D.
Activity in the 111th Congress
The most recent legislative activity regarding the NITRD Program was the November 18th, 2009,
passage of H.R. 4061, the Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2009, by the House Committee on
Science and Technology (H.Rept. 111-405). H.R. 4061 is aimed at improving the security of
cyberspace by ensuring federal investments in cybersecurity are better focused, more effective,
and that research into innovative, transformative technologies is supported. The bill addresses
recommendations from the Administration’s Cyberspace Policy Review and includes input from
four hearings held on cybersecurity during the first session. H.R. 4061 would also reauthorize and
expand the Cyber Security Research and Development Act (P.L. 107-305). In addition to
promoting cybersecurity R&D by the member agencies of the NITRD, the legislation addresses
cybersecurity workforce concerns and advances the development of technical standards. H.R.
4061 is a combination of two Committee discussion drafts: the Cybersecurity Research and
Development Amendments Act of 2009 and the Cybersecurity Coordination and Awareness Act
of 2009. The full House is expected to take action on this legislation in the near future.
Four other bills have also been introduced that relate to the NITRD Program.
H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), was signed into law
on February 17, 2009. Prior to being signed by the President, H.R. 1 was amended to include two
other related bills, H.R. 598 and H.R. 629.
The fourth bill, H.R. 2020, the Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Act of 2009, was introduced by Representative Bart Gordon on April 22, 2009; it
was passed by the House of Representatives and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation on May 13, 2009 (see H.Rept. 111-102). The purpose of this bill is to
strengthen the planning and coordination mechanisms of the NITRD Program and to update the
research content of the program. The legislation implements a number of recommendations made
in a recent PCAST assessment of the program.
Congressional Research Service
15

Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program

Author Contact Information

Patricia Moloney Figliola

Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications
Policy
pfigliola@crs.loc.gov, 7-2508


Congressional Research Service
16