The Federal Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development
Program: Background, Funding, and Activities
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy
January 9, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL33586

---

The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

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.
Current concerns are the role of the federal government in supporting IT R&D and the level of
funding to allot to it. Proponents of federal support of information technology (IT) R&D assert
that it 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. 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 FY2015 budget request for the NITRD Program was $3.8 billion and the 2014
NITRD budget estimates total $3.9 billion.


Congressional Research Service

---

The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

Contents
The Federal NITRD Program .......................................................................................................... 1
Structure .................................................................................................................................... 1
Budget, Funding, and Spending ................................................................................................ 3
FY2015 Budget ................................................................................................................... 3
FY2014 Budget ................................................................................................................... 3
Federal Technology Funding: Background and Context ................................................................. 3
Legislation in the 113th Congress ..................................................................................................... 5
H.R. 756—Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2013 ......................................................... 5
H.R. 967—Advancing America’s Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development Act of 2013 .......................................................................... 6
H.R. 1468—Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research,
Education, Information, and Technology Act of 2013 (SECURE IT) Act of
2013 .................................................................................................................................. 7
H.R. 2495—American Super Computing Leadership Act of 2013 ..................................... 8
Hearings in the 113th Congress ........................................................................................................ 9
Applications for Information Technology Research and Development .................................... 9
Potential Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................... 9

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

Appendixes
Appendix. NITRD Enabling and Governing Legislation .............................................................. 11

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 13

Congressional Research Service

---

The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

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 and software that would be capable of
addressing the problems and issues the government needed to solve and study. One of the first
such problems was calculating the trajectories of artillery and bombs; more recently, such
problems include simulations of nuclear testing, cryptanalysis, and weather modeling. That
interest continues today. These complex issues have led to calls for coordination to ensure the
government’s evolving needs (e.g., homeland security) will continue to be met in the most
effective manner possible.
Structure
Established by the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194), the Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Program is the primary mechanism
by which the federal government coordinates its unclassified networking and information
technology (NIT) R&D investments. Eighteen federal agencies, including all of the large science
and technology agencies, are formal members of the NITRD Program,1 with many other federal
entities participating in NITRD activities. The program aims to ensure that the nation effectively
leverages its strengths, avoids duplication, and increases interoperability in such critical areas as
supercomputing, high-speed networking, cybersecurity, software engineering, and information
management. Figure 1 illustrates the organizational structure of the NITRD Program.
The National Coordinating Office (NCO) coordinates the activities of the NITRD Program. The
NCO was first established in September 1992 and was initially called the National Coordination
Office for High Performance Computing and Communications (NCO/HPCC). Its name has
changed several times over the years; as of July 2005, it is referred to as the National
Coordination Office for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
(NCO/NITRD). The NCO/NITRD supports the planning, coordination, budget, and assessment
activities of the Program. The NCO’s role in the NITRD enterprise is recognized in the National
Science and Technology Council (NSTC) charters, authorizing NITRD Program structures as
well as in legislation and congressional hearings. The Director of the White House Office of
Science Technology and Policy (OSTP) appoints a Director for the NCO. The Director of the
NCO reports to the Director of the White House Office on Science and Technology Policy
(OSTP). The NCO supports the National Science and Technology Council’s Subcommittee on
NITRD (also called the NITRD Subcommittee).2 The NITRD Subcommittee provides policy,

1 Department of Commerce (DOC): National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); Department of Defense (DOD): Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
(DARPA), National Security Agency (NSA), Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and Service Research
Organizations (Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR), Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL), Army
Research Laboratory (ARL), Office of Naval Research (ONR); Department of Energy (DOE): National Nuclear
Security Administration (DOE/NNSA), Office of Science (DOE/SC); Department of Homeland Security (DHS);
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), National
Institutes of Health (NIH), Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC);
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA); National Science Foundation (NSF).
2 The NITRD Subcommittee was previously called the Interagency Working Group for IT R&D (IWG/IT R&D).
Congressional Research Service
1

---

The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

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.
Figure 1. Management Structure of the NITRD Program

Source: NITRD Program website, http://www.nitrd.gov.
NITRD Program activities are described under a set of eight Program Component Areas (PCAs),3
four Senior Steering Groups (SSGs),4 and a Community of Practice (CoP).5 The PCAs are
identified as an Interagency Working Group (IWG) or a Coordinating Group (CG) and report
their R&D budgets as a crosscut of the NITRD agencies. They are charged with facilitating
interagency program planning, developing and periodically updating interagency roadmaps,
developing recommendations for establishing federal policies and priorities, summarizing annual
activities for the NITRD program’s Supplement to the President’s Budget, and identifying
potential opportunities for collaboration which has been identified by OMB and OSTP as
priorities for federal coordination and collaboration. In addition to the PCAs, NITRD has

3 Cyber Security and Information Assurance (CSIA); High-Confidence Software and Systems (HCSS); High-End
Computing Infrastructure and Applications (HEC I&A); High-End Computing Research and Development (HEC
R&D); Human-Computer Interaction and Information Management (HCI&IM); Large-Scale Networking (LSN);
Social, Economic, and Workforce Implications of IT and IT Workforce Development (SEW); Software Design and
Productivity (SDP).
4 Big Data SSG; Cyber Security and Information Assurance R&D SSG; Health Information Technology R&D SSG;
Wireless Spectrum R&D SSG.
5 Faster Administration of Science and Technology Education and Research (FASTER) Community of Practice (CoP).
Congressional Research Service
2

---

The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

established several Senior Steering Groups (SSGs). The SSGs allow a more flexible model for
NITRD collaboration and are formed to focus on emerging issues as required by a mandate from
OSTP. SSGs do not report an R&D budget under NITRD. The CoP’s goal is to enhance
collaboration and accelerate agencies’ adoption of advanced IT capabilities developed by
government-sponsored IT research. The NITRD Subcommittee convenes three times a year and
the working groups meet approximately 12 times annually and provide input to the NITRD
Supplement to the President’s Budget.
Budget, Funding, and Spending
The NITRD budget is an aggregation of the IT R&D components of the individual budgets of
NITRD-participating agencies and is reported in the annual release of The Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development Program Supplement to the President’s
Budget. The NITRD budget is not a single, centralized source of funds that is allocated to
individual agencies. In fact, the agency IT R&D budgets are developed internally as part of each
agency’s overall budget development process. These budgets are subjected to review, revision,
and approval by the Office of Management and Budget and become part of the President’s annual
budget submission to Congress. The NITRD budget is then calculated by aggregating the IT R&D
components of the appropriations provided by Congress to each federal agency.
An interactive history of NITRD Program funding, dating to 1991, is available online at
http://www.nitrd.gov/open/index.aspx. Additional information is available at
http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/2009supplement/nitrd_history/NITRD-crosscut.pdf.
FY2015 Budget
The President’s FY2015 budget request for the NITRD Program was $3.8 billion and the 2014
NITRD budget estimates total $3.9 billion.
FY2014 Budget
The President’s FY2014 budget request for the NITRD Program was $3.968 billion,6 an increase
over the FY2013 request of $3.808 billion.
Federal Technology Funding:
Background and Context
In the early 1990s, Congress recognized that several federal agencies had ongoing high-
performance computing programs,7 but no central coordinating body existed to ensure long-term

6 NITRD Supplement to the President’s Budget, FY2014, http://www.nitrd.gov/Publications/PublicationDetail.aspx?
pubid=48.
7 “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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3

---

The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

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 of federal funding of IT R&D contend that it has produced positive results.
In 2003, the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board (CSTB) of the National Research
Council (NRC) released a “synthesis report” based on eight previously released reports that
examined “how innovation occurs in IT, what the most promising research directions are, and
what impacts such innovation might have on society.”8 The CSTB’s observation 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.”9 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

(...continued)
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.
8 National Research Council, Innovation in Information Technology, 2003, p. 1. This report discusses all federal
funding for R&D, not only the NITRD Program.
9 Ibid., p. 4.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

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.10
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 typically diverge from a
common standard if it sees a potential competitive or financial advantage; this happened, for
example, with standards for instant messaging.11
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 have asserted that the government, through its funding mechanisms, may set itself up to
pick “winners and losers” in technological development, a role more properly residing with the
private sector.12 For example, the size of the NITRD Program could encourage industry to follow
the government’s lead on research directions rather than selecting those directions itself.
Overall, CSTB stated 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.13
Legislation in the 113th Congress
Four bills were introduced that would affect the NITRD Program and one hearing was held that
addressed the activities of the NITRD Program member agencies.
H.R. 756—Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2013
H.R. 756 was introduced by Representative Michael McCaul on February 15, 2013. The bill was
reported (amended) on April 11, 2013 (H.Rept. 113-33). It was passed by the House and referred
to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on April 17, 2013.
This bill would have—
• Required NITRD member agencies to provide to Congress a cybersecurity
strategic research and development plan and triennial updates, and develop and
annually update an implementation roadmap for such plan.

10 Ibid., p. 4.
11 Ibid., p. 18.
12 Cato Institute, Encouraging Research: Taking Politics Out of R&D, September 13, 1999, http://www.cato.org/pubs/
wtpapers/990913catord.html.
13 National Research Council, Innovation in Information Technology, 2003, p. 22.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

• Expanded permitted National Science Foundation (NSF) grants for basic research
on innovative approaches to the structure of computer and network hardware and
software that are aimed at enhancing computer security to include research into
identity management, crimes against children, and organized crime.
• Required applications for the establishment of Computer and Network Security
Research Centers to include a description of how such Centers will partner with
government laboratories, for-profit entities, other institutions of higher education,
or nonprofit research institutions.
• Repealed the Cyber Security Faculty Development Traineeship Program.
• Required the NSF Director to continue carrying out a Scholarship for Service
program under the Cyber Security Research and Development Act.
• Directed the President to transmit a report to Congress addressing the
cybersecurity workforce needs of the federal government.
• Required the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Director to
convene a cybersecurity university-industry task force to explore mechanisms for
carrying out collaborative R&D activities.
• Revised provisions concerning the development and dissemination by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of security risk checklists
associated with computer systems that are, or are likely to become, widely used
within the federal government.
• Required conducting intramural security research activities under NIST’s
computing standards program.
• Required the NIST Director to (1) ensure coordination of U.S. government
representation in the international development of technical standards related to
cybersecurity; (2) maintain a cybersecurity awareness and education program
through the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership program; and (3)
continue a program to support development of technical standards, metrology,
testbeds, and conformance criteria with regard to identity management research
and development.
H.R. 967—Advancing America’s Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development Act of 201314
H.R. 967 was introduced by Representative Cynthia Lummis on March 5, 2013. The bill was
reported (H.Rept. 113-34)15 by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on April
11, 2013, and referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on
April 17, 2013. This bill would have:
• Amended the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 to rename the National
High-Performance Computing Program as the NITRD Program.

14 H.R. 1468, the SECURE IT Act of 2013, is a related bill to H.R. 3834. Section 407 of the bill contains conforming
and technical amendments to the High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. However, it does not change the functions
of the program or its management structure.
15 This document is available online at http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-113hrpt34/pdf/CRPT-113hrpt34.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

• Directed the federal agencies participating in the Program to
(1) periodically assess the contents and funding levels of program component areas and
restructure the Program when warranted; and
(2) ensure that the Program includes large-scale, long-term, interdisciplinary R&D
activities.
• Required the participating federal agencies to develop, and update every three
years, a five-year strategic plan to guide activities provided for under the
Program.
• Required the Director of the OSTP to encourage and monitor the efforts of
participating agencies to allocate the resources and management attention
necessary to ensure that the strategic plan is executed effectively and that
Program objectives are met.
• Required the Program, in addition to its current requirements, to provide for
(1) increased understanding of the scientific principles of cyber-physical systems and
improve the methods available for the design, development, and operation of such
systems; and
(2) research and development on human-computer interactions, visualization, and big
data.
• Required continuation of an NCO and require the Director of the Office to
(1) convene a task force to explore mechanisms for carrying out collaborative R&D
activities on cyber-physical systems; and
(2) examine issues around funding mechanisms and policies for the use of cloud
computing services for federally funded science and engineering research, through the
NTSC, an interagency working group.
H.R. 1468—Strengthening and Enhancing Cybersecurity by Using Research,
Education, Information, and Technology Act of 2013 (SECURE IT) Act of 2013
H.R. 1468 was introduced by Representative Marsha Blackburn on April 10, 2013. The bill was
referred to the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, and in addition to the Committees
on Oversight and Government Reform, the Judiciary, Armed Services, Intelligence (Permanent
Select), and Energy and Commerce, in each case for consideration of provisions that fell within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned, on April 10, 2013. On April 30, 2013, the bill was
referred to the Committee on the Judiciary’s Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland
Security, and Investigations. On June 24, 2014, the bill was referred to the Committee on Science,
Space, and Technology’s Subcommittee on Research and Technology. In addition to other
purposes, this bill contained NITRD-related provisions similar to those in H.R. 967.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

H.R. 2495—American Super Computing Leadership Act of 2013
H.R. 2495 was introduced by Representative Randy Hultgren on June 25, 2013. The bill was
reported by the House, received in the Senate, and referred to the Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation on September 9, 2014.
This bill would have:
• Amended the Department of Energy High-End Computing Revitalization Act of
2004 with respect to
(1) exascale computing (computing system performance at or near 10 to the 18th power
floating point operations per second); and
(2) a high-end computing sytem with performance substantially exceeding that of
systems commonly available for advanced scientific and engineering applications.
• Directed the Secretary of Energy (DOE) to
(1) coordinate the development of high-end computing systems across DOE;
(2) partner with universities, National Laboratories, and industry to ensure the broadest
possible application of the technology developed in the program to other challenges in
science, engineering, medicine, and industry; and
(3) include among the multiple architectures researched, at DOE discretion, any computer
technologies that show promise of substantial reductions in power requirements and
substantial gains in parallelism of multicore processors, concurrency, memory and
storage, bandwidth, and reliability.
• Repealed authority for establishment of at least one High-End Software
Development Center.
• Directed the Secretary to conduct a coordinated research program to develop
exascale computing systems to advance DOE missions, requiring establishment
through competitive merit review of two or more DOE National Laboratory-
industry-university partnerships to conduct integrated research, development, and
engineering of multiple exascale architectures.
• Required the Secretary to conduct mission-related co-design activities in
developing such exascale platforms. Defines “co-design” as the joint
development of application algorithms, models, and codes with computer
technology architectures and operating systems to maximize effective use of
high-end computing systems.
• Directed the Secretary to develop any advancements in hardware and software
technology required to realize fully the potential of an exascale production
system in addressing DOE target applications and solving scientific problems
involving predictive modeling and simulation and large-scale data analytics and
management. Requires DOE also to explore the use of exascale computing
technologies to advance a broad range of science and engineering.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

• Directed the Secretary to submit to Congress an integrated strategy and program
management plan.
• Required the Secretary, before initiating construction or installation of an
exascale-class computing facility, to transmit to Congress a separate plan
detailing
(1) the proposed facility’s cost projections and capabilities to significantly accelerate the
development of new energy technologies;
(2) technical risks and challenges that must be overcome to achieve successful
completion and operation of the facility; and
(3) an independent assessment of the scientific and technological advances expected from
such a facility relative to those expected from a comparable investment in expanded
research and applications at terascale-class and petascale-class computing facilities,
including an evaluation of where investments should be made in the system software and
algorithms to enable these advances.
Hearings in the 113th Congress
One hearing was held related to the NITRD Program.
Applications for Information Technology Research and
Development
“Applications for Information Technology Research and Development,” was held by the House
Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Research and Technology, on
February 14, 2013.16 Witnesses at the hearing were: Dr. Kelly Gaither, Director, Visualization
Lab, Texas Advanced Computing Center, University of Texas, Austin; Dr. Kathryn McKinley,
Principal Researcher, Microsoft; and Dr. Ed Lazowska, Bill and Melinda Gates Chair in
Computer Science and Engineering, University of Washington. The purpose of the hearing was to
examine how to protect essential systems and networks that support fundamental sectors of the
U.S. economy, such as emergency communications, power grids, air-traffic control networks, and
national defense systems.
Potential Issues for Congress
Federal IT R&D is a multi-dimensional issue, involving many government agencies working
together towards shared, complementary, and disparate goals. Many observers believe that
success in this arena requires ongoing coordination among government, academia, and industry.

16 The hearing main page can be found at http://science.house.gov/hearing/subcommittee-research-applications-
information-technology-research-devlopment.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

Issues related to U.S. competitiveness in high-performance computing and the direction the IT
R&D community has been taking have remained salient over the last 5 to 10 years and include
• the United States’ status as the global leader in high-performance computing
research;
• the apparent ongoing 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.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

Appendix. NITRD Enabling and Governing
Legislation
The NITRD Program is governed by two laws. The first, the High-Performance Computing Act
of 1991, P.L. 102-194,17 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. 105-305,18 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
The High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194) 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.19
Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998
The Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-305) amended the High-
Performance Computing Act of 1991. The act had two overarching purposes. The first was to

17 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.
18 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.
19 The first report mandated information on the “Supercomputer Agreement” between the United States and Japan be
included in this report. A separate one-time only report was required on network funding, including user fees, industry
support, and federal investment.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

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.
America COMPETES Act of 2007
Section 7024 of the America COMPETES Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-69) revised the program
requirements for the National High-Performance Computing Program. Among other
requirements, the bill amended the original enabling legislation to—
• require the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to: (1)
establish the goals and priorities for federal high-performance computing
research, development, networking, and other activities; (2) establish Program
Component Areas that implement such goals and identify the Grand Challenges
(i.e., fundamental problems in science or engineering, with broad economic and
scientific impact, whose solutions will require the application of high-
performance computing resources and, as amended by this section,
multidisciplinary teams of researchers) that the Program should address; and (3)
develop and maintain a research, development, and deployment road map
covering all states and regions for the provision of high-performance computing
and networking systems.
• revise requirements for annual reports by requiring that such reports: (1) describe
Program Component Areas, including any changes in the definition of or
activities under such Areas and the reasons for such changes, and describe Grand
Challenges supported under the Program; (2) describe the levels of federal
funding and the levels proposed for each Program Component Area; (3) describe
the levels of federal funding for each agency and department participating in the
Program for each such Area; and (4) include an analysis of the extent to which
the Program incorporates the recommendations of the advisory committee on
high-performance computing. Eliminates the requirement for inclusion of reports
on Department of Energy activities taken to carry out the National High-
Performance Computing Program.
• require the advisory committee on high-performance computing to conduct
periodic evaluations of the funding, management, coordination, implementation,
and activities of the Program, and to report at least once every two fiscal years to
specified congressional committees. Prohibits applying provisions for the
termination, renewal, and continuation of federal advisory committees under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act to such advisory committee.
• instruct the NSF to support basic research related to advanced information and
communications technologies that will contribute to enhancing or facilitating the
availability and affordability of advanced communications services for all people
of the United States. Requires the NSF Director to award multiyear grants to
institutions of higher education, nonprofit research institutions affiliated with
such institutions, or their consortia to establish multidisciplinary Centers for
Communications Research. Increases funding for the basic research activities
Congressional Research Service
12

---

The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities

described in this section, including support for such Centers. Requires the NSF
Director to transmit to Congress, as part of the President’s annual budget
submission, reports on the amounts allocated for support of research under this
section.

Author Contact Information

Patricia Moloney Figliola

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

Congressional Research Service
13

---