The Federal Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development
Program: Background, Funding, and Activities
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy
April 10, 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 multi-
agency 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 information technology
(IT) R&D and the level of funding to allot to it. Proponents of federal support of 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 FY2016 budget request for the NITRD Program is $4.1 billion, and the FY2015
estimate totaled $4.0 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
FY2016 Budget ................................................................................................................... 3
Federal Technology Funding: Background and Context ................................................................. 3
Legislative Activity in the 114th Congress ....................................................................................... 5
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 ..................................... 7
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 .............................................................. 10
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 12
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 that 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 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; since July 2005, it has been called 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, program, and
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
budget planning for the NITRD Program and is composed of representatives from each of the
participating agencies, OSTP, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the NCO.
Figure 1. Management Structure of the NITRD Program
Source: NITRD Program website, http://www.nitrd.gov.
Congressional Research Service
2
The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities
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 or a Coordinating Group and report their R&D
budgets as a crosscut of the NITRD agencies. In addition to the PCAs, NITRD has established
several 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 OMB 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 back to 1991, is available online at
http://www.nitrd.gov/open/index.aspx.
FY2016 Budget
The President’s FY2016 budget request for the NITRD Program is $4.1 billion, and the FY2015
estimate totaled $4.0 billion.
Federal Technology Funding:
Background and Context
In the early 1990s, Congress recognized that several federal agencies had ongoing high-
performance computing programs,6 but no central coordinating body existed to ensure long-term
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).
6 “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
(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 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.”7 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 byproducts 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.”8 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)
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). U.S. Congress, House Committee on Science,
Supercomputing: Is the United States on the Right Path, hearing, 108th Cong.,1st sess., July 16, 2003,
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/hsy88231.000/hsy88231_0f.htm, 2003, pp. 5-6.
7 National Research Council, Innovation in Information Technology, 2003, p. 1. This report discusses all federal
funding for R&D, not only the NITRD Program.
8 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.9
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.10
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.11 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, the 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.12
Legislative Activity in the 114th Congress
There has been no legislation nor hearings related to the NITRD Program in the 114th Congress.
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.
9 Ibid., p. 4.
10 Ibid., p. 18.
11 Steve Slivinski and Solveig Singleton, “Encouraging Research: Taking Politics Out of R&D,” Cato Institute,
September 13, 1999, http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/990913catord.html.
12 National Research Council, Innovation in Information Technology, p. 22.
Congressional Research Service
5
The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities
This bill would have
• Required NITRD member agencies to provide to Congress a cybersecurity
strategic R&D plan and triennial updates and develop and annually update an
implementation roadmap for such plan;
• 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 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 201313
H.R. 967 was introduced by Representative Cynthia Lummis on March 5, 2013. The bill was
reported (H.Rept. 113-34)14 by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on April
13 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.
14 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
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;
• 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 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.
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.
Congressional Research Service
7
The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities
This bill would have
• Amended the Department of Energy (DOE) 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 system with performance substantially exceeding
that of systems commonly available for advanced scientific and engineering
applications.
• Directed the Secretary of Energy 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 to also explore the use of exascale computing
technologies to advance a broad range of science and engineering.
• 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
Congressional Research Service
8
The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities
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, 2013.15 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.
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 five 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 overreliance on commercially available hardware to satisfy U.S.
research needs; and
• The potential impact of deficit cutting on IT R&D funding.
15 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
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),16 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),17 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.18
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
16 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.
17 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.
18 The first report mandated that 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
10
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 OSTP to (1) establish the goals and priorities for
federal high-performance computing research, development, networking, and
other activities; (2) establish PCAs 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 roadmap
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
PCAs, 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 PCA; (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 DOE 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
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
Congressional Research Service
11
The Federal NITRD Program: Background, Funding, and Activities
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
12