Science and Technology Issues for the
April 6, 2023
118th Congress
Frank Gottron,
The federal government supports scientific and technological advancement directly by funding
Coordinator
and performing research and development and indirectly by creating and maintaining policies
Acting Section Research
that encourage private sector efforts. Additionally, the federal government regulates many
Manager
aspects of science and technology (S&T) activities. Federal S&T support has led to scientific

breakthroughs and new technologies ranging from jet aircraft and the internet to communications
Jason A. Gallo,
satellites and defenses against disease.
Coordinator
Section Research Manager
Many science and technology policy issues that may come before the 118th Congress represent

areas of continuing Member interest. Examples include cross-cutting issues that affect scientific
and technological progress, agricultural research, climate change, Defense Department research,

earth science, space, and water. Other issues represent new or rapidly transforming areas such as
biotechnology, energy, information technology and social media, financial technology, and

telecommunications. Some of these S&T issue areas are described briefly below.
Cross-Cutting Issues
Issues that cut across multiple S&T disciplines include federal R&D funding, interagency S&T coordination, the adequacy of
the domestic science and engineering workforce, the role of patents and other intellectual property policies, and tax
incentives.
Agriculture
The federal government funds billions of dollars of agricultural research annually. The 118th Congress may consider issues
related to funding this research, as well as specific issues related to climate change science at the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
Climate Change
S&T considerations permeate deliberations on climate change and may be grouped into five interrelated topics: climate
change-related science and the ocean-climate nexus; clean energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment;
climate change and infrastructure; S&T for adaptation and resilience to climate change; and carbon capture, utilization, and
sequestration.
Biotechnology and Biomedical Research
Recent advances in biotechnology and biomedical research hold the promise of longer and healthier lives and more
productive industry while raising policy challenges. Some issues that the 118th Congress may face include those relating to
the bioeconomy; the National Institutes of Health; oversight of engineering biology; regulation of laboratory-developed tests;
monitoring of environmental DNA and RNA; and the convergence of biotechnology, digital data, robotics, and artificial
intelligence.
Defense
The Department of Defense (DOD) relies on a robust research and development effort to develop new military systems and
improve existing systems. Issues that may come before the 118th Congress regarding DOD’s S&T activities include
budgetary concerns and the effectiveness of programs to transition R&D results into fielded products and how DOD
encourages innovation.
Energy
Energy-related S&T issues that may come before the 118th Congress include biofuels, offshore energy technologies, and
hydrogen pipelines.
Congressional Research Service

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Earth and Environmental Sciences
Earth-science-related issues that may come before the 118th Congress include those raised by the National Spatial Data
Infrastructure system, the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system and seabed mining of critical minerals.
Financial Technology
Financial technology, or fintech, refers to a broad set of technologies being deployed across a variety of financial industries
and activities, including those related to cryptocurrency, investor applications, and consumer finance applications.
Information Technology and Social Media
The rapid pace of advancements in information technologies presents several issues for congressional policymakers,
including those related to artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, social media platforms, big tech and online platforms,
immersive technologies, and law enforcement access to platforms and its use of facial recognition technology and social
media.
Space and Aviation
Congress has historically had a strong interest in space policy and aviation issues. Issues that may come before the 118th
Congress include the funding and oversight of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, issues related to the
commercialization of space, Earth-observing satellites, and advanced air mobility technologies.
Telecommunications
Telecommunication technologies present several issues for policymakers in the 118th Congress, including those related to 5G
technologies, broadband deployment and the digital divide, undersea cables, federal spectrum auctions and allocations, and
Federal Communications Commission and National Telecommunications and Information Administration spectrum
programs.
Water
Water research and technology topics include issues relating to water data and aquatic ecosystem information, water
infrastructure and water use, and water quality.
Congressional Research Service

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Introduction
The federal science and technology (S&T) policymaking enterprise is composed of an extensive
and diverse set of stakeholders in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The enterprise
fosters, among other things, the advancement of scientific and technical knowledge; science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education; the application of S&T to achieve
economic, national security, and other societal benefits; and the use of S&T to improve federal
decisionmaking.
Federal responsibilities for S&T policymaking are highly decentralized. Many House and Senate
committees have jurisdiction over important elements of S&T policy. In addition, congressional
appropriations committees provide funding for federal agency S&T programs. Congress also
enacts laws to establish, refine, and eliminate programs, policies, regulations, regulatory agencies,
and regulatory processes that affect science, technology, and engineering research and
development (R&D) or rely on S&T data and analysis. Not only are congressional authorities
related to S&T policymaking are diffuse; there are dozens of informal congressional caucuses in
areas of S&T policy such as R&D, specific S&T disciplines, and STEM education.
The President formulates annual budgets, policies, and programs for consideration by Congress;
issues executive orders and directives; and directs the executive branch departments and agencies
responsible for implementing S&T policies and programs. The Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP), in the Executive Office of the President, advises the President and other
Administration officials on S&T issues.
Executive agency S&T responsibilities are also diffuse. Some agencies have broad S&T
responsibilities, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF). Others use S&T to meet a
specific federal mission (e.g., defense, energy, health, space). Regulatory agencies have S&T
responsibilities in areas such as nuclear energy, food and drug safety, and environmental
protection.
Federal court cases and decisions often affect U.S. S&T policy. Decisions can have an impact on
the development of S&T (e.g., decisions regarding the U.S. patent system); S&T-intensive
industries (e.g., the break-up of AT&T in the 1980s); and the admissibility of S&T-related
evidence (e.g., DNA samples).
The issues identified below represent those that CRS experts have identified as particularly
relevant to the 118th Congress. Each section serves as a brief introduction to the topic and
identifies other CRS products and the appropriate CRS experts to contact for further information
and analysis.
Cross-Cutting Issues
This section discusses issues that cut across multiple S&T disciplines. It addresses federal R&D
funding; interagency S&T coordination; the adequacy of the domestic science and engineering
workforce; and federal efforts to boost regional innovation, ensure agency scientific integrity, and
provide public access to the results of federally supported R&D. It also addresses issues relating
to the commercialization of results of federal R&D investments, the role of patents and other
intellectual property policies, tax incentives, China’s S&T and industrial policies, and the security
of U.S. research.
Congressional Research Service

1

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Federal Funding for Research and Development
The federal government has long supported the advancement of scientific knowledge and
technological development through investments in R&D, which have led to scientific
breakthroughs and new technologies, from jet aircraft and the internet to communications
satellites and defenses against disease. Federal R&D funding seeks to address a broad range of
national interests, including national defense, health, safety, the environment, and energy security;
advance knowledge generally; develop the scientific and engineering workforce; and strengthen
U.S. innovation and competitiveness.
Between FY2008 and FY2013, federal R&D funding fell from $140.1 billion to $130.9 billion in
current dollars, a reduction of $9.3 billion (6.6%). The decline was a reversal of sustained growth
in federal R&D funding for more than half a century and stirred debate about the potential long-
term effects on U.S. technological leadership, innovation, competitiveness, economic growth, and
job creation. From FY2013 to FY2017, federal funding grew, rising to an all-time current dollar
high of $155.0 billion in FY2017.
A change in R&D accounting by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to exclude
certain late-stage development activities—primarily at the Department of Defense (DOD) and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)—from total federal R&D calculations
obscures comparison of funding levels for FY2018 and later years with funding from before
FY2018. As calculated by OMB, current dollar federal R&D funding was $135.8 billion in
FY2018 and has risen annually to an estimated $159.6 billion in FY2022. Concerns by some
about the adequacy of federal R&D funding have been exacerbated by increases in the R&D
investments of other nations (China in particular), globalization of R&D and manufacturing
activities, and trade deficits in advanced technology products (reaching an all-time high in
2022)—an area in which the United States previously ran trade surpluses (most recently in 2001).
In addition, R&D funding decisions may be affected by differing perspectives on the appropriate
role of the federal government in advancing S&T.
As the 118th Congress undertakes the appropriations process it may consider two overarching
issues: (1) the level of federal R&D investment and (2) how available funding will be prioritized
and allocated. The CHIPS and Science Act (P.L. 116-117) authorized substantial increases in the
budgets of several leading federal R&D agencies, though the realization of these authorization
levels still requires appropriations. Conversely, low or negative growth in the federal
government’s overall R&D investment may require movement of resources across disciplines,
programs, or agencies to address priorities. Congress continues to play a central role in defining
the nation’s R&D priorities as it makes decisions with respect to the size and distribution of
aggregate, agency, and programmatic R&D funding.
For Further Information
John F. Sargent Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R47161, Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding: FY2023
CRS Report R46869, Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding: FY2022
Adequacy of the U.S. Science and Engineering Workforce
The adequacy of the U.S. science and engineering (S&E) workforce has been an ongoing concern
of Congress for more than 70 years. Scientists and engineers are widely believed to be essential to
U.S. technological leadership, innovation, manufacturing, and services and thus vital to U.S.
economic strength, national defense, and other societal needs. Congress has enacted many
Congressional Research Service

2

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

programs to support the education and development of scientists and engineers. Congress has also
undertaken broad efforts to improve STEM skills to prepare a greater number of students to
pursue S&E degrees. In addition, some policymakers have sought to increase the number of
foreign scientists and engineers working in the United States through changes in visa and
immigration policies.
Most experts agree that there is no authoritative definition of which occupations comprise the
S&E workforce. Rather, the selection of occupations included in any particular analysis of the
S&E workforce may vary depending on the objective of the analysis. The policy debate about the
adequacy of the U.S. S&E workforce has focused largely on professional-level computer
occupations, mathematical occupations, engineers, and physical scientists. Accordingly, much of
the analytical focus has been on these occupations. However, some analyses may use a definition
that includes some or all of these occupations, as well as life scientists, S&E managers, S&E
technicians, social scientists, and related occupations.
Many policymakers, business leaders, academics, S&E professional society analysts, economists,
and others hold differing views with respect to the adequacy of the S&E workforce and related
policy issues. These issues include whether there is a shortage of scientists and engineers in the
United States, what the nature of any such shortage might be (e.g., too few people with S&E
degrees, mismatches between skills and needs, geographical mismatches), and whether the
federal government should undertake policy interventions or rely upon market forces to resolve
any shortages in this labor market. Among the key indicators used by labor economists to assess
the existence of occupational labor shortages are employment growth, wage growth, and
unemployment rates.
Concerns about U.S. overreliance on overseas sources of semiconductor microchips—used
ubiquitously throughout the economy and in national security systems—were highlighted during
debate over the establishment of an incentive program for domestic production of microchips.
With the passage of P.L. 117-163 (widely known as the CHIPS and Science Act), some analysts
and industry advocates have asserted the need for expanded immigration of skilled technical
workers to meet the needs of the semiconductor fabrication and related facilities established in the
United States with the support of the act’s provisions.
For Further Information
John F. Sargent Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Jill H. Wilson, Analyst in Immigration Policy
CRS Report R47159, Temporary Professional Foreign Workers: Background, Trends, and Policy
Issues
Federal Efforts to Boost Regional Innovation
The geographic concentration of interconnected companies and institutions in a specific industry
can provide opportunities to leverage talent, infrastructure, supply chains, and other spillover
effects that are advantageous to companies and economic growth. For decades, state, local, and
regional stakeholders have pursued cross-sector, multidisciplinary approaches to economic
development through the facilitation of such industry clusters. Industry clusters are generally
designed to address structural or institutional challenges related to entrepreneurship and
innovation, access to capital, infrastructure, and workforce needs and may be implemented in
concert with programs that provide direct assistance to individual firms. Research suggests that
firms in innovation-based industries particularly benefit from the advantages of a regional
Congressional Research Service

3

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

innovation ecosystem, including more quickly understanding consumer demand and access to
feedback from other entrepreneurs.
Recent executive and legislative branch actions indicate increased federal interest and support for
regional innovation efforts. In July 2021, the Economic Development Administration (EDA)
allocated $1 billion of supplemental funding for economic recovery activities to the Build Back
Better Regional Challenge, a grant initiative to support new or existing regional industry clusters.
Additionally, Congress required the establishment of several new regional innovation programs in
the CHIPS and Science Act (P.L. 117-167), including the Regional Technology and Innovation
Hubs Program at EDA, the Regional Innovation Engines Program at NSF, and the Regional Clean
Energy Innovation Program at the Department of Energy (DOE).
The 118th Congress may wish to examine the implementation of these new programs, including
the coordination of federal programs and place-based resources; the scale, scope, and duration of
federal involvement; the long-term sustainability of supported efforts; ensuring inclusive
innovation and economic growth; and institutional capacity-building and small business
engagement, among others. A related congressional issue may be the level of funding needed for
both new and existing regional innovation programs.
For Further Information
Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
Julie M. Lawhorn, Analyst in Economic Development Policy
Adam G. Levin, Analyst in Economic Development Policy
Emily G. Blevins, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Insight IN11925, Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs: An Overview and Issues for
Congress
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies
The results of R&D help inform the decisions that policymakers and the public make on a wide
range of issues, including human health and safety, the environment, agriculture, energy, and
transportation. For example, scientific information is essential to the review and approval of
drugs and medical devices and the setting of air quality standards. There is broad agreement
among policymakers and the scientific and engineering community about the need to ensure the
integrity of the conduct, communication, and management of R&D, and its use in policy
development and decisionmaking.
Some policymakers and others allege that presidential Administrations of both parties have
violated principles of scientific integrity. Assertions of such violations include weighting the
membership of federal advisory committees toward a particular viewpoint or constituency,
targeting individual scientists for harassment or adverse actions, appointing agency officials with
significant conflicts of interest or antagonistic views toward an agency’s mission, improperly
editing scientific documents, and using the budget process to impede the implementation or
formulation of science-based policies.
Following the guidance of a 2010 memorandum issued by OSTP, more than 20 federal
departments and agencies have developed and implemented scientific integrity policies. There is,
however, no uniform definition of scientific integrity across the federal government, and a review
of the effectiveness of scientific integrity policies by the National Science and Technology
Council found, among other things, that “violations involving high-level officials are the most
Congressional Research Service

4

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

problematic and difficult to address.” Some experts have expressed concern over the variation in
scope and specificity of federal agency scientific integrity policies and recommended that
Congress enact scientific integrity legislation that would create a clear set of standards and
mechanisms for enforcement. The 118th Congress may wish to consider such legislation in
addition to conducting oversight over the implementation of current policies.
Further Information
Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R46614, Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer
Public Access to Scientific Publications Resulting from Federally
Funded R&D
The federal government invests approximately $150 billion each year in R&D to address a broad
range of national interests, from advancing public health to strengthening U.S. competitiveness. A
key component in the transformation of R&D results into innovative products and services is the
dissemination of knowledge through scientific publications. According to OSTP, federally funded
R&D accounted for between 195,000 and 263,000 of the 2.9 million peer-reviewed scientific
articles published worldwide in 2020.
In 2013, OSTP directed each federal agency with annual R&D expenditures over $100 million to
develop and implement a plan to support increased public access to the results of federally funded
R&D. The OSTP memorandum required, among other things, the use of a 12-month, post-
publication embargo before making scientific publications publicly available. Critics of the
embargo period argue that it requires American taxpayers to pay twice—once to fund the research
and then again to view the results. On the other hand, some commercial publishers and nonprofit
scientific societies that publish research journals argue that the embargo period is critical to
ensuring subscription revenues that support editing and production costs and other activities such
as scientific conferences.
In August 2022, OSTP issued a memorandum directing all federal agencies to develop new or
update existing public access plans requiring scientific publications resulting from federally
funded R&D to be publicly accessible immediately upon publication. The memorandum also
requires that scientific data underlying such publications be made publicly accessible at the time
of publication. Federal agencies are required to develop and implement their new or updated
public access plans by December 31, 2025.
Some Members of Congress and others have questioned how the policy will be implemented and
its potential impacts. For example, concerns have been raised that publishing costs will shift from
journal subscribers to researchers and the agencies that fund them. Shifting publishing costs to
researchers may create equity concerns in which an early career scientist or researcher from a
less-well-resourced institution may not be able to afford the cost of publishing or be forced to
choose between publishing and a professional development opportunity. The 118th Congress may
wish to examine implementation of the new public access policy and its potential impacts on cost,
researchers, and the publishing industry.
For Further Information
Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Insight IN12049, Public Access to Scientific Publications Resulting from Federally Funded
R&D
Congressional Research Service

5

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Commercializing the Results of Federal R&D Investments
Inventions resulting from research conducted at federally owned laboratories or with federal
funding (e.g., research grants) often have application beyond the scope and goals of the original
research. Without further investment and sufficient private sector incentives, however, the
potential commercial value of federally funded inventions may not be fully realized.
Current mechanisms to encourage the commercialization of federal R&D results are governed by
two main pieces of legislation from the 1980s, as amended: the Stevenson-Wydler Technology
Innovation Act of 1980 (35 U.S.C. §3710 et seq.) and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (35 U.S.C.
§200 et seq.).
Significant changes in the global S&T landscape, economic conditions, and national security
posture have led some policymakers and analysts to ask whether aspects of these laws may need
reevaluation. For example, critics point to loopholes in the Bayh-Dole Act’s “Preference for U.S.
Industry” provision (35 U.S.C. §204) that have allowed federally owned intellectual property and
covered inventions to be manufactured abroad. These critics argue that the ability of competitor
nations to access U.S.-developed technology—especially emerging technologies—poses an
economic and national security threat.
Proponents of maintaining the current laws argue that exceptions that permit foreign
manufacturing when U.S. industry is unable to meet production demands are beneficial. They
also maintain that additional restrictions placed on the licensing and manufacturing of federally
funded inventions could reduce incentives for the private sector to commercialize federal R&D.
When considering how best to encourage the commercialization of federally funded research, the
118th Congress may wish to consider increased oversight to ensure agency enforcement of
existing U.S. manufacturing requirements and whether to enact statutory changes to existing
requirements. Congress might also consider whether digital products that result from work at
federal laboratories should be eligible for copyright and whether current requirements for
invention disclosure and utilization reporting are adequate for assessing the success of
commercialization efforts.
For Further Information
Emily G. Blevins, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Insight IN12019, U.S. Technology Made in China: The Role of Federal Technology
Licensing Policies
Patents and Innovation Policy
The U.S. patent system is designed to encourage scientific and technological innovation by
offering a limited-time monopoly on an invention in exchange for its public disclosure. The 118th
Congress, when considering approaches to encouraging innovation and economic growth, may
choose to address certain aspects of patent policy, including patent subject matter eligibility
standards, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and inventor diversity.
Patent subject matter eligibility standards determine the types of inventions that may be patented
and may significantly influence innovation incentives. In the wake of a series of Supreme Court
decisions that restricted patent eligibility, stakeholders in the biotechnology and computer
software industries (among others) have argued that uncertainty over patent eligibility in their
fields has reduced investment and inhibited innovation. In response, the U.S. Patent and
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 11 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Trademark Office (USPTO) issued new guidance to patent examiners clarifying how to apply
subject matter eligibility standards, and bills were introduced in the 117th Congress to change
statutory eligibility standards and abrogate Supreme Court decisions (e.g., S. 4734 and H.R.
5874).
In 2011, Congress created the PTAB, an administrative body within the PTO, as a way to improve
patent quality. PTAB proceedings often provide a faster and less expensive forum in which to
challenge the validity of issued patents than federal court litigation. Some stakeholders argue that
the PTAB offers a fair and efficient means to adjudicate patent validity issues, but others contend
that the process is biased against patent holders. Several hearings were held in the 117th Congress
on PTAB, and a number of bills were introduced that sought to reform or eliminate PTAB
processes (e.g., S. 2891, S. 4417, and H.R. 5874).
The USPTO does not currently track patent inventors’ demographic information. If collected
through patent applications, such data could potentially assist policymakers in assessing the
existence or scope of potential systematic inequities embedded in the patent system that might
inhibit innovation. Some critics of collecting this information raise concerns about privacy
violations. Bills introduced during the 117th Congress sought to require the PTO to request
voluntary inventor demographic information on patent applications (e.g., S. 632 and H.R. 1723).
For Further Information
Emily G. Blevins, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
Kevin J. Hickey, Legislative Attorney
CRS Video WVB00518, Patents and Innovation Policy
CRS Report R47267, Patents and Innovation Policy
CRS Report R45918, Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Reform: Background and Issues for
Congress
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10615, Supreme Court Preserves Patent Trial and Appeal Board, but
with Greater Executive Oversight
CRS Report R46525, Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress
Intellectual Property Law
Intellectual property (IP) rights, including patents and copyrights, play a critical role in
encouraging innovation, creativity, and the dissemination of knowledge. Based on activity in the
117th Congress, it appears that several areas of IP law may be of interest to the 118th Congress.
In addition to the innovation policy issues discussed above (see “Patents and Innovation Policy”),
patents play a particularly important role in the pharmaceutical industry. While some stakeholders
argue that robust patent rights are necessary to support costly R&D for new drugs, others argue
that patents can unduly delay or deter generic competition and contribute to higher drug prices.
Several bills in the 117th Congress sought to reduce drug prices by limiting certain alleged
pharmaceutical patenting practices (e.g., patent “evergreening,” “product hopping,” “thickets,”
and “pay-for-delay” settlements). Other bills sought to facilitate coordination between PTO and
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on pharmaceutical patents (S. 4430) or respond to the
Biden Administration’s support for a waiver of IP protections for COVID-19 vaccines under
international IP treaties (e.g., H.R. 7430).
Congressional Research Service

7

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Copyrights grant authors of original creative works (e.g., books, music, computer code) the
exclusive right to reproduce, perform, and sell their works. Two significant copyright reforms
were implemented during the 117th Congress. The Music Modernization Act, which changed the
copyright licensing process for online distribution of musical works, came into full effect in
January 2021. The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 established
the Copyright Claims Board as a small-value copyright claims administrative tribunal, which
began hearing claims in 2022. Other copyright issues include proposed reforms to the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (e.g., S. 3880, H.R. 6566) and continued debate over whether
broadcast radio should pay royalties to play sound recordings (e.g., S. 4932, S.Con.Res. 9).
As to trademarks—another area of federal IP—the 117th Congress saw increased efforts to
combat fraudulent trademarks through PTO regulations implementing the Trademark
Modernization Act of 2020. Introduced bills also addressed whether increased remedies are
needed to combat infringing goods sold by online e-commerce platforms (e.g., S. 1843).
For Further Information
Kevin Hickey, Legislative Attorney
CRS In Focus IF10986, Intellectual Property Law: A Brief Introduction
CRS Infographic IG10033, Intellectual Property: Forms of Federal IP Protection
CRS Report R46679, Drug Prices: The Role of Patents and Regulatory Exclusivities
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10422, COVID-19 Medical Countermeasures: Intellectual Property and
Affordability
CRS In Focus IF11478, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Safe Harbor Provisions for
Online Service Providers: A Legal Overview
Tax Incentives for R&D Investment
The 118th Congress may wish to consider new federal tax policies to promote technological
innovation, considered a key contributor to long-term economic growth.
In general, R&D lays the foundation for technological innovation. Businesses finance much of
the R&D performed in the United States. But owing to the inability of companies to capture all
the economic returns to their R&D investments, they tend to invest less in R&D than those
returns would warrant, particularly in basic research.
Economists regard such underinvestment as a market failure that should be remedied through a
mix of public policies. One option is to provide tax incentives for increased business R&D
investment. The federal government offers one such incentive: a research tax credit under Section
41 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). There are two choices for the credit: one equal to (1) 20%
of qualified research expenses (QREs) above a base amount linked to past ratios of research
spending to business receipts, or (2) 14% of QREs above a base amount linked to recent R&D
investments.
The 118th Congress may wish to consider several issues concerning U.S. R&D tax incentives.
One issue is whether to reinstate an expensing allowance for QREs (to immediately deduct them
from income) under IRC Section 174. (The option to expense expired at the end of 2021.) In
general, expensing lowers the marginal effective tax rate (METR) for the returns to 0%. Under
current law, domestic QREs have to be amortized over five years, which may boost the METR for
domestic R&D investments to 8.4% in 2022-2025, according to one analysis.
Congressional Research Service

8

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Another issue is whether to increase the IRC Section 41 tax credit’s incentive effect. The effective
rates of the two credit options are substantially less than their statutory rates under current law.
Some argue that their effective rates should be larger than the statutory rates to deliver the needed
stimulus to raise domestic business R&D investment to levels consistent with its economic
returns. In addition, there is evidence that the current credit does little to benefit entrepreneurial
start-up firms. Some argue that the credit should be fully refundable for small entrepreneurial
firms in their early years, when they typically sustain operating losses that keep them from
immediately benefiting from the credit.
For Further Information
Gary Guenther, Analyst in Public Finance
CRS Report RL31181, Federal Research Tax Credit: Current Law and Policy Issues
CRS Insight IN11887, Tax Treatment of Research Expenses: Current Law and Policy Issues
China’s Science, Technology, and Industrial Policies
China’s state-led industrial and related S&T policies aim to create competitive advantages for
China in strategic and emerging industries, in part by accessing basic and applied research,
technology, talent, and training from the United States and U.S. allies. The Chinese government
says it is pursuing a policy of technology independence, but its approach involves sustaining and
expanding its access to U.S. and foreign technology, capabilities, research, and talent.
China’s Medium- and Long-Term Plan in Science in Technology (2006-2020) set technological
innovation as the core driver of China’s development, a focus that was reinforced at the
Communist Party of China’s 20th Party Congress. China’s process of indigenous innovation
involves the acquisition, assessment, distribution, absorption, and adaptation of foreign
technology that China rebrands as indigenous Chinese capabilities.
China’s Made in China 2025 industrial policies aim to establish China’s leadership in emerging
technologies that are critical to future commercial, government, and military capabilities. Priority
areas include advanced manufacturing, aerospace, artificial intelligence, information technology,
new materials, robotics, and semiconductors. China’s military-civil fusion program seeks to
leverage these Made in China 2025 technological advancements for military development.
China’s 14th Five-Year Plan (FYP) for 2021-2025 and Economic Goals out to 2035 prioritizes
leveraging global basic research to support China’s development of indigenous capabilities in
strategic technologies. China is focusing on currently unrestricted pathways, such as U.S. basic
and applied research and open source technology platforms. China has incentivized some of its
citizens to participate in U.S. research to acquire capabilities in targeted areas that support
China’s goals. China is also encouraging domestic firms to establish R&D centers overseas to
access foreign technical knowledge and capabilities and is offering incentives for leading foreign
S&T experts to work in China.
China’s industrial and S&T policies have been a U.S. policy focus because of the asymmetrical
tactics that China has used to implement them. U.S. law enforcement and counterintelligence
agencies have highlighted China’s use of forced or incentivized technology transfer, industrial
subsidies, licensing and joint venture requirements, state-directed cyber intrusions and IP theft,
and government-funded acquisitions of foreign firms in strategic sectors. These issues are likely
to remain a key area of focus in the 118th Congress as China seeks to sustain and expand its
access to U.S. innovation and S&T capabilities.
Congressional Research Service

9

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

For Further Information
Karen M. Sutter, Specialist in Asian Trade and Finance
Michael D. Sutherland, Analyst in International Trade and Finance
CRS In Focus IF11684, China’s 14th Five-Year Plan: A First Look
CRS Report R46767, China’s New Semiconductor Policies: Issues for Congress
CRS In Focus IF11627, U.S. Export Controls and China
R&D Security
The federal government invests extensively in S&E R&D to achieve national objectives,
including economic competitiveness and national security. Many in Congress are concerned about
security vulnerabilities in the U.S. R&D enterprise and are interested in protecting it against
compromise by foreign competitors and potential military adversaries.
In general, U.S. policy for federally funded basic and applied research is to encourage openness
and broad dissemination of results (see National Security Decision Directive NSDD-189, 1985).
When openness would present a national security concern, however, the federal government can
use restrictions such as classification and export controls to prevent certain nations (e.g., Russia,
China, Iran, and North Korea) and their proxies from accessing certain results and technologies.
Some emerging fields may not yet be subject to these controls, so Congress enacted a provision in
the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. §4817) requiring the Bureau of Industry and
Security of the Department of Commerce to “establish appropriate controls, including interim
controls, on the export, reexport, or transfer (in country) of emerging and foundational
technologies.” Some Members may be interested in strengthening these protections.
Recently, Congress has also focused on the security of U.S. R&D that is significant for economic
competitiveness in light of organized efforts, both licit and illicit, by China and other nations to
access economically important U.S. R&D outputs to aid their defense and commercial sectors.
Classification and export controls were not designed to address commercial aspects of the R&D
security threat.
Some Members have been concerned with co-option of U.S. citizen researchers through foreign
talent recruitment programs (e.g., China’s Thousand Talents program) and the use of foreign
nationals at U.S. universities and other institutions—such as students, faculty, visiting scholars,
and postdoctoral researchers—to acquire and report on research activities, progress, and results.
Congress has considered increasing threat awareness among U.S. academic researchers,
strengthening disclosure requirements for U.S. researchers with foreign ties, and changing
policies for foreign students at U.S. universities.
The 118th Congress may continue to monitor threats to the security of U.S. R&D, conduct
oversight to examine the progress of ongoing efforts to address those threats, and consider
additional measures that may enhance the ability of the United States to protect the results of
federally funded R&D.
For Further Information
Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
John F. Sargent Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Congressional Research Service

10

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Karen Sutter, Specialist in Asian Trade and Finance
Jill H. Wilson, Analyst in Immigration Policy
CRS Insight IN11524, China Issues New Export Control Law and Related Policies
CRS In Focus IF11684, China’s 14th Five-Year Plan: A First Look
Agriculture
The federal government funds billions of dollars of agricultural research annually. The 118th
Congress may wish to consider issues related to funding this research, as well as specific issues
related to climate change science at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the
regulation of agricultural biotechnology.
Agricultural Research Funding
The USDA Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area consists of four agencies:
the Agricultural Research Service, the Economic Research Service, the National Agricultural
Statistics Service, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Additionally, REE’s Office
of the Chief Scientist coordinates research programs and activities across the department.
REE has the primary federal responsibility for advancing scientific knowledge about agriculture.
Its agencies conduct and fund research that spans the biological, physical, and social sciences
broadly related to agriculture, food, and natural resources. Congress provided the REE mission
area programs and activities approximately $3.6 billion in FY2022 discretionary appropriations
through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022 (P.L. 117-103), and authorized approximately
$122 million of mandatory funding per year through the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018
(2018 farm bill, P.L. 115-334). USDA directs nearly half of this federal funding to states and local
partners, primarily through grants.
The most recent farm bill (P.L. 115-334), enacted in December 2018, reauthorizes many existing
USDA research and education programs, and authorizes new programs, through FY2023.
Congress has appropriated limited funding for some of the new programs. For example, the 2018
farm bill authorized the Agriculture Advanced Research and Development Authority (AGARDA)
pilot program. AGARDA is intended to operate under the Office of the Chief Scientist to address
long-term and high-risk research challenges in the agriculture and food sectors. It is modeled on
federal advanced research entities such as the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and
the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy. Congress authorized appropriations of $50
million annually for AGARDA from FY2019 to FY2023. Congress appropriated $1 million for
AGARDA for FY2022 for planning purposes and to hire staff. Congress allocated no funding to
carry out research.
The 118th Congress may wish to consider reviewing AGARDA and other new programs
established in the 2018 farm bill that have received limited or no appropriations. The 2018 farm
bill is expected to expire in 2023, and with this in mind, Congress may begin to consider new
programs or revisions to existing programs for the next farm bill.
For Further Information
Lisa Benson, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
CRS Report R45897, The U.S. Land-Grant University System: Overview and Role in Agricultural
Research
Congressional Research Service

11

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

CRS In Focus IF12023, Farm Bill Primer: Agricultural Research and Extension
CRS Report R40819, Agricultural Research: Background and Issues
Climate Change Science at USDA
The 118th Congress may be interested in research related to climate change and agriculture and
how USDA is carrying out plans to address the needs of agricultural producers in the context of
changing climatic conditions. Some farmers and agricultural groups have called on USDA to
increase its engagement in helping farmers adapt to changing climatic conditions, which may
include increased instances of drought and extreme rainfall, historically unseasonable
temperatures, and changes in the dates of first and last frost. Agricultural research could, for
example, identify best management practices under different environmental conditions.
USDA published its Action Plan for Climate Adaptation and Resilience in 2021. This plan
identifies the areas of S&T where USDA believes it needs to increase its support to meet national
objectives. Financial investments in climate-related agriculture practices by both Congress and
USDA since 2021 have generally offered producers incentives to adopt agricultural and forestry
practices that will further climate-related goals. The 118th Congress may wish to consider
reviewing how investments in USDA research programs and policies align with its Action Plan.
For Further Information
Megan Stubbs, Specialist in Agricultural Conservation and Natural Resources
CRS In Focus IF11404, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks in U.S. Agriculture
Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology
The 118th Congress may continue to oversee USDA’s implementation of regulations related to the
labeling of bioengineered foods and the regulation of agricultural biotechnology. As plants and
animals that are developed with new biotechnology tools become more common, Congress could
consider whether to revisit the 1986 Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology
that governs U.S. biotechnology regulation.
In 2016, Congress enacted P.L. 114-216, requiring the establishment of a national standard for the
mandatory labeling of foods containing bioengineered or genetically engineered (GE)
ingredients. USDA finalized its National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard regulations in
2018, and mandatory compliance began in January 2022. However, in September 2022, a U.S.
district court remanded two provisions in USDA’s regulation that allow GE foods to be labeled
only with an electronic or digital disclosure (QR code) and allow text message disclosure on
packaging without requiring additional on-package labeling (7 C.F.R. §§66.106 and 66.108).
Following the court’s ruling, USDA is expected to revise these provisions in its labeling
regulations. The case, Natural Grocers et al. v. Perdue et al. (3:20-cv-05151), was brought by the
Center for Food Safety on behalf a coalition of nonprofits and food retailers.
The emergence of new biotechnology tools (e.g., genome editing) are addressed in two other
regulations. In May 2020, USDA finalized its SECURE Rule, which regulates GE organisms
under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §7701 et seq.) and exempts certain categories of
modified plants, including those consistent with many existing genome-edited plants. While some
producer groups view USDA’s regulation as supportive of innovation, some consumer and
exporter groups claim it lacks sufficient oversight and transparency. In December 2020, USDA
announced plans to transfer responsibility for regulating agricultural animals produced or
modified with genetic engineering to USDA from the FDA. Further action is pending.
Congressional Research Service

12

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

For Further Information
Renée Johnson, Specialist in Agricultural Policy
CRS Report R46737, Agricultural Biotechnology: Overview, Regulation, and Selected Policy
Issues
CRS Report R46183, The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard: Overview and
Selected Considerations
CRS In Focus IF11573, USDA’s SECURE Rule to Regulate Agricultural Biotechnology
Biotechnology and Biomedical Research
Recent advances in biotechnology and biomedical research hold the promise of longer and
healthier lives and more productive industry while raising policy challenges. Some issues that the
118th Congress may face include those relating to the bioeconomy; the National Institutes of
Health; oversight of engineering biology; regulation of laboratory-developed tests; monitoring of
environmental deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA); and the convergence of
biotechnology, digital data, robotics, and artificial intelligence.
Bioeconomy
The bioeconomy is the portion of the economy based on products, services, and processes derived
from biological resources (e.g., plants and microorganisms). According to the McKinsey Global
Institute, “as much as 60 percent of the physical inputs to the global economy could, in principle,
be produced biologically.” Many experts view growing the bioeconomy as a means to address
societal challenges such as climate change, food security, energy independence, and
environmental sustainability. However, the cross-cutting nature of the bioeconomy poses
potential challenges to effective policymaking, including the harmonization of policies and
coherent governance.
On September 12, 2022, President Biden issued Executive Order 14081, “Advancing
Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American
Bioeconomy,” which prescribes a “whole-of-government approach to advance biotechnology and
biomanufacturing towards innovative solutions.” According to the White House, “global industry
is on the cusp of an industrial revolution powered by biotechnology. Other countries are
positioning themselves to become the world’s resource for biotechnology solutions and
products.”
The 118th Congress may wish to consider a number of issues regarding advancement of the U.S.
bioeconomy, including the development and implementation of a national bioeconomy strategy,
federal investments in bioeconomy-related research and development, expanding the bioeconomy
workforce, promoting and furthering the development of regional bioeconomies, increasing the
market for bio-based products and services, and increasing public awareness and acceptance of
bio-based products and services. Conversely, Congress may decide there is no need to restructure
federal activities and policies, including some long-standing efforts (e.g., bio-based fuels or
agricultural biotechnology), under a bioeconomy framework.
For Further Information
Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
Todd Kuiken, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
Congressional Research Service

13

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

CRS Report R46881, The Bioeconomy: A Primer
CRS Report R47274, White House Initiative to Advance the Bioeconomy, E.O. 14081: In Brief
CRS Report R47265, Synthetic/Engineering Biology: Issues for Congress
National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Biomedical Research
NIH is the lead federal agency for medical and health research. NIH funds basic, translational,
and clinical research, with basic research comprising about half of its funded research. NIH
supports intramural research conducted at NIH research facilities (about 10% of its budget) as
well as extramural research through grants, contracts, and other mechanisms at research
institutions nationwide and globally (over 80% of its budget). NIH’s FY2022 enacted program
level is $46.2 billion. NIH represents about one-fifth of total federal R&D spending, and close to
half of non-DOD research and development funding.
NIH is a large agency made up of 27 institutes and centers (ICs) and the Office of the Director.
Each research IC receives separate appropriations, sets its own priorities, and manages its
programs in coordination with the Office of the Director. Funding levels vary widely among the
ICs. The National Cancer Institute has the highest FY2022 enacted funding level at $6.9 billion,
and the John E. Fogarty International Center (focus on global health) has the lowest FY2022
funding level at $87 million. Aside from setting funding levels for individual IC accounts,
Congress has not designated funding for specific disease or research areas, except in a few cases
(e.g., Alzheimer’s disease research).
In FY2022, Congress funded a new Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H)—
an agency focused on advancing health innovations by funding high-risk, high-reward research.
ARPA-H is housed within NIH but functions independently. Moving forward, Congress may wish
to consider the respective roles for NIH and ARPA-H in health research.
NIH is arguably at an inflection point at the start of the 118th Congress. Its long-time director, Dr.
Francis Collins, stepped down in 2021, and a new director has yet to be appointed. Some IC
director positions are also vacant, and new leadership could lead to an overall shift at the agency.
In recent years, NIH has received some praise, especially for its role in research and development
supporting COVID-19 vaccines and tests. On the other hand, some have criticized the agency as
it relates to research security, including its role in funding controversial “gain-of-function”
research and its oversight of funded research in China. Some have also critiqued the agency as
risk-averse in its approach to funding research and the slow pace of some of its research
initiatives, such as its Long COVID research. The 118th Congress may wish to consider how best
to ensure that NIH-funded research—and U.S. biomedical science more broadly—is productive,
secure, and effective.
For Further Information
Kavya Sekar, Analyst in Health Policy
CRS Report R43341, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding: FY1996-FY2023
CRS Report R47074, Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H): Congressional
Action and Selected Policy Issues
Oversight of Engineering Biology
Engineering biology is the application of engineering principles and the use of systematic design
tools to enable the reprogramming of living cells at the genetic level for a specific functional
Congressional Research Service

14

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

output. As the field of engineering biology is developing rapidly, distinctions are not always clear
among engineering biology, synthetic biology, and other related terms such as GE, genome
engineering, and biotechnology. Engineering biology may find use in multiple sectors, including
biomanufacturing, medicine, consumer products, agriculture, smart materials, energy generation,
adaption to and mitigation of climate change, environmental conservation, pollution remediation,
and others. On September 12, 2022, President Biden issued Executive Order 14081, “Advancing
Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American
Bioeconomy.” An accompanying White House press release stated that “global industry is on the
cusp of an industrial revolution powered by biotechnology” and that “other countries are
positioning themselves to become the world’s resource for biotechnology solutions and
products.”
Applications of engineering biology have become more complex, novel, and designed for broader
use in the environment—for example, to control disease transmission and reduce the impacts of
invasive species on natural population. Applications designed for release into the environment
may have biosecurity implications. For example, gene drives, a system of biasing inheritance to
increase the likelihood of sexually reproducing species passing on a modified gene to offspring,
could potentially spread and persist throughout the environment with irreversible effects on
organisms and ecosystems. These potential ecological impacts could have biosecurity and
strategic implications for the United States. For example, if a staple crop or ecosystem were
impacted by an engineering biology application, deliberately or by accident, it could affect U.S.
food and water supply chains and global food security systems.
In the 118th Congress, policymakers may wish to consider whether the current U.S. regulatory
system, research and infrastructure investments, and agency expertise appropriately balance the
broad cross-cutting issues associated with engineering biology (e.g., biosafety, biosecurity, and
ecological impacts) while maintaining U.S. competitiveness and leadership in biotechnology.
For Further Information
Todd Kuiken, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R47265, Synthetic/Engineering Biology: Issues for Congress
CRS Report R47274, White House Initiative to Advance the Bioeconomy, E.O. 14081: In Brief
Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests (LDTs)
Regulation of LDTs—a class of in vitro diagnostic devices that is designed, manufactured, and
used within a single laboratory—has been debated for many years, driven in part by an increase
in the number and complexity of LDT genetic tests. FDA has traditionally exercised enforcement
discretion over LDTs, meaning that most have not undergone FDA premarket review. Regardless,
FDA has asserted authority over certain LDTs that it considers to be higher risk—in particular,
direct-to-consumer genetic tests and pharmacogenetic tests. In 2014, FDA published draft
guidance outlining a comprehensive risk-based regulatory framework for LDTs. This guidance
was never finalized, although FDA published a discussion paper in 2017 summarizing the
comments received on the draft guidance and presenting a modified proposed framework for an
approach to LDT oversight.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted issues around FDA regulation of LDTs. Specifically,
although FDA generally exercises enforcement discretion over LDTs, most COVID-19 LDTs
have nevertheless been subject to Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) requirements in the same
Congressional Research Service

15

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

way as other medical products, including other in vitro diagnostics. In August 2020, the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that FDA was prohibited from
requiring premarket review for all LDTs without first undergoing notice-and-comment
rulemaking. Pursuant to this announcement, FDA temporarily halted review of COVID-19 LDT
EUA submissions. HHS rescinded this policy on November 15, 2021.
Two bills addressing LDT regulation were introduced early in 2020 in response to the long-
standing debate and partially spurred by the pandemic: the VALID Act (H.R. 6102, S. 3404),
which would establish a comprehensive regulatory scheme for all in vitro clinical tests, and the
VITAL Act (S. 3512), which would exclude LDTs from regulation by the FDA. The VALID Act
was again introduced in the 117th Congress (S. 2209/H.R. 4128) and was incorporated into a
Senate user fee bill (S. 4348, Subtitle C—In Vitro Clinical Tests), which did not pass. The 118th
Congress might wish to consider similar legislation.
For Further Information
Amanda Sarata, Specialist in Health Policy
CRS In Focus IF11389, FDA Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests (LDTs)
DNA as Data: Environmental DNA/RNA
Environmental deoxyribonucleic acid (eDNA) and environmental ribonucleic acid (eRNA) are
trace amounts of genetic material collected from an environmental sample such as soil,
sediments, water, or air. An eDNA/RNA sample can be compared against primers, or specific
partial sequences of DNA/RNA, developed from reference databases of previously sequenced
DNA/RNA from known species. The results of that comparison can be used to identify and track
a species of interest, identify the presence of small or rare species, and detect the presence of non-
native plants or animals, as well as microbes, viruses, and other pathogens. For example, analysis
of eRNA in wastewater and sewage has been used to detect and monitor the presence of the virus
that causes COVID-19.
How sequences and other data are collected, analyzed, and stored in these reference databases
could have an impact on how eDNA/RNA data can be used for research and decisionmaking. The
availability, quality, and selection of a primer, or DNA sequence, from one database over another
can affect the analysis of an eDNA/RNA sample. For example, to accurately identify a particular
species, or to conduct a broad, multi-species survey (a technique known as metagenomics)
requires reference sequences of particular quality and length from all species of interest. Whether
databases are private or publicly managed can affect access to datasets for eDNA analysis.
Databases that contain genetic sequence information can also have implications for biosafety and
biosecurity.
The 118th Congress may wish to consider the appropriate level of federal investment in
eDNA/RNA techniques, the development and maintenance of genetic sequence information
databases, and the development of federal standards/protocols for applying eDNA/RNA tools.
Policymakers may also consider regulation of the collection, use, retention, and access to digital
DNA/RNA sequence data and how local, state, and federal agencies currently use or could use
eDNA/RNA for decisionmaking.
For Further Information
Todd Kuiken, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
Anna E. Normand, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Congressional Research Service

16

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Caitlin Keating-Bitonti, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Anne A. Riddle, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
John F. Sargent Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
CRS In Focus IF12285, eDNA/eRNA: Scientific Value in What’s Left Behind
Convergence of Biotechnology, Digital Data, Robotics, and
Artificial Intelligence
As biotechnology has advanced, it has built upon advances in other fields of S&E such as
nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, robotics, and digital data management. Advances in DNA
sequencing technologies have made it possible to sequence entire genomes (the genetic
information responsible for the development and function of an organism) in greater depth and at
lower cost. The resulting digital sequence information can be stored in proprietary or public
databases, many of which are publicly funded and freely accessible to interested parties to
download. Gene synthesis technologies can use this information to “write” DNA, turning the data
back into actual genetic material. This ability to both read and write DNA is a fundamental
enabling technology for biotechnology. Biofoundries that combine biology, computer-aided
design, robotics, and engineering technologies in a single facility increasingly provide an
integrated infrastructure that enables the rapid design, construction, and testing of engineered
organisms for biotechnology applications and research.
This has led to the establishment of new industries and the emergence of new communities of
practice. At the same time, increased access to digital sequence information, combined with
advances in artificial intelligence and robotics, has raised biosafety and biosecurity concerns.
Questions include, for example: Who should have access to these capabilities? What limits should
be placed on the services that may be provided in order to prevent the deliberate or accidental
development and use of a potential biological threat?
The United States has multiple, overlapping policies that provide guidance and oversight for life
sciences research and its associated applications. In the 118th Congress, policymakers may wish to
consider whether current policies to address the convergence of biotechnology, digital data,
robotics, and artificial intelligence are sufficient and adequately balanced or whether new
oversight authorities are needed to manage the emerging biosafety and biosecurity issues without
unduly stifling innovation.
For Further Information
Todd Kuiken, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R47114, Oversight of Gain of Function Research with Pathogens: Issues for
Congress
CRS Report R47265, Synthetic/Engineering Biology: Issues for Congress
Climate Change
S&T considerations permeate deliberations on climate change and may be grouped into five
interrelated topics:
1. climate-change-related science and the ocean-climate nexus;
2. clean energy research, development, demonstration, and deployment;
Congressional Research Service

17

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

3. climate change and infrastructure;
4. S&T for adaptation and resilience to climate change; and
5. carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration.
Legislation regarding climate change and water policy was enacted in the 117th Congress,
providing a new landscape for charting the 118th Congress’s priorities in these issue areas.
Climate Change-Related Science and the Ocean-Climate Nexus
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is an interagency program required by the
Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-606) that coordinates global climate change
research across 13 government agencies. For FY2021, enacted appropriations for this purpose
were approximately $3.2 billion. The Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, published in 2022, provides current information on climate change science and
relied, in part, on U.S. federal investment in global climate change science.
In 2017, USGCRP published the Climate Science Special Report, Volume I (CSSR), which found
that human-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere,
intensifying the natural GHG effect, and increasing acidity of the global oceans. It concluded that
the increase in GHG emissions is driving global land and ocean warming and other climate
changes that are now unprecedented in the history of modern civilization. It also stated
[B]ased on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely that human activities, especially
emissions of greenhouse gases, are the dominant cause of the observed warming since the
mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there is no convincing alternative
explanation supported by the extent of the observational evidence.
The ocean is an integral part of the global climate system, as it absorbs, retains, and transports
heat, water, and carbon. This interplay is referred to as the ocean-climate nexus. The CSSR stated,
“Oceans currently absorb about 26% of the human-caused CO2 [carbon dioxide]
anthropogenically emitted into the atmosphere.” This absorption is causing acidification of the
ocean, affecting some marine species. Ocean acidification is an area of ongoing research by
federal science agencies. The ocean also absorbs heat resulting from GHG warming. The CSSR
stated, “The world’s oceans have absorbed about 93% of the excess heat caused by greenhouse
gas warming since the mid-20th century, making them warmer and altering global and regional
climate feedbacks.”
The 118th Congress may wish to examine the role of the federal government in supporting federal
climate change and ocean-based science. This assessment may involve oversight of how the
executive branch implements legislation enacted in the 117th Congress. For example, P.L. 117-
169, commonly referred to as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, provided appropriations for a
range of climate-related objectives, including research. The 118th Congress may wish to examine
how appropriations provided in P.L. 117-169 support climate research, whether subsequent
congressional support for climate change science is warranted, and how appropriations may be
allocated.
For Further Information
Jane A. Leggett, Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
Caitlin Keating-Bitonti, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Jonathan Haskett, Analyst in Environmental Policy
Congressional Research Service

18

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

CRS Report R45086, Evolving Assessments of Human and Natural Contributions to Climate
Change
CRS Report R47172, Geoengineering: Ocean Iron Fertilization
CRS Report R47300, Ocean Acidification: Frequently Asked Questions
CRS Report R47082, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Sixth Assessment Report
Clean Energy Research, Development, Demonstration, and
Deployment
Many analysts see a path to stabilizing climate change as involving improved energy efficiency,
decarbonization, and electrification of the world’s economies. Many options could potentially
provide additional security and health benefits, while their costs may depend on public and
private investments in research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D), as well
as efforts to facilitate transitions in businesses, employment, and communities.
A large majority of federal climate-change-related expenditures is aimed at advancing “clean
energy,” though Members may disagree about what should be included as a clean energy
technology. For example, clean energy might include advanced fossil fuels, renewable energy,
biofuels, energy efficiency, energy storage, vehicles and their fuels, nuclear energy, the electricity
grid, and ocean carbon sequestration and direct capture of CO2from the atmosphere, among
others. Clean energy may include those technologies and practices that reduce GHG emissions for
agriculture, industry, and additional sectors.
Some clean energy incentives focus on “supply-push” of technologies (e.g., R&D funding and
federal financial assistance), while others emphasize “demand-pull” (e.g., tax incentives for
purchasers). Numerous examples suggest that coordinated use of both supply- and demand-side
policies could be most effective. The magnitude of federal expenditures for climate change
technologies, the performance of federally supported programs, and priorities for policy tools and
technologies may be topics for Congress to evaluate regarding their role in incentivizing or de-
incentivizing clean energy technologies.
The 117th Congress passed legislation that includes clean energy RDD&D provisions. The 118th
Congress may consider oversight of how the Administration implements the legislation or
amending the law to achieve a different policy direction or outcome. Legislation key to clean
energy RDD&D from the 117th Congress includes
 P.L. 117-169, commonly known as the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, includes
tax incentives for deployment of many clean energy technologies, grants and
rebates for some clean energy technologies, and provisions for clean energy
demonstration projects under an advanced industrial facilities deployment
program, among other provisions.
 The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA, P.L. 117-58) includes funding
for multiple technology demonstration programs, including hydrogen, energy
storage, carbon removal, and advanced nuclear energy. Other provisions fund
infrastructure seen as necessary to enable greater use of certain clean energy
technologies.
 P.L. 117-167, commonly knowns as the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022,
includes funding for a low-emissions steel manufacturing research program and a
regional technology and innovation hub program, among others provisions.
Congressional Research Service

19

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

For Further Information
Jane A. Leggett, Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
CRS Report R47262, Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (IRA): Provisions Related to Climate
Change
CRS Report R47034, Energy and Minerals Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
Act (P.L. 117-58)
CRS In Focus IF11861, DOE’s Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Removal
Programs
CRS In Focus IF11404, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks in U.S. Agriculture
CRS Report R47107, Domestic Steel Manufacturing: Overview and Prospects
CRS In Focus IF12188, What Is the Blue Economy?
Climate Change and Infrastructure
Current infrastructure investment decisions may shape not only future GHG emissions for
decades to come but also the resilience of infrastructure to future climate conditions. Regarding
GHG emissions, infrastructure’s influence on future emissions is particularly strong for energy
supply, transportation, industry, buildings, and communities. For example, in transportation,
choices among transportation modes and choices in how to power transport occur in the context
of the infrastructure that supports refueling (e.g., distribution of electric charging stations).
Congressional interest in S&T for more climate-resilient infrastructure may stem from multiple
events, including the effects of hurricanes and hot and cold extremes from 2017 to 2022 on
electricity provision in Puerto Rico, Texas, and western states; the flood and wind disruption and
damage at military installations in Nebraska and Florida; and concerns regarding the ability of
western water infrastructure to meet water supply demands during drought conditions.
Infrastructure resilience relates both to avoiding damages and to maintaining and recovering
functionality from extreme weather events that may change with a warming climate in frequency
and intensity in some U.S. regions. Congress may wish to consider the merits of altering federal
R&D activities, for example, to support S&T related to infrastructure that would reduce GHG
emissions. Congress may also revisit how support for S&T informs weather-related technical
specifications and guidelines for infrastructure and the choice of protective measures (including
the role of natural or nature-based features in infrastructure design and investment evaluations).
In addition to the conduct of oversight, or legislation that may be introduced, in the 118th
Congress, the extent to which climate change is considered as part of infrastructure investments is
likely to be shaped by how the Administration implements IRA (P.L. 117-169). For example, IRA
authorized and funded a direct loan program for electricity transmission projects that promote the
use of renewable energy sources, which may emit less GHG than fossil fuels. Additionally, IIJA
(P.L. 117-58) includes some infrastructure provisions that might help reduce GHG emissions,
such as increasing the use of public transportation and intercity passenger rail by providing more
public funding. Regarding more climate-resilient infrastructure, IRA also included provisions
related to contingency planning for climate-related effects on weather events that could affect the
electric grid. IIJA provided federal funding for “protective features” designed to reduce the risk of
infrastructure damage from extreme weather events.
For Further Information
Jane A. Leggett, Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
Congressional Research Service

20

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Jonathan Haskett, Analyst in Environmental Policy
CRS In Focus IF11921, Surface Transportation and Climate Change: Provisions in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58)
CRS Insight IN11981, Electricity Transmission Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022
CRS In Focus IF12034, Extreme Weather and Lifeline Infrastructure Resilience: Provisions in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
CRS Insight IN11980, Offshore Wind Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act
CRS Report R47286, Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk
CRS Report R46892, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA): Drinking Water and
Wastewater Infrastructure
CRS Report R46719, Green Building Overview and Issues
S&T for Adaptation and Resilience to Climate Change
Congress may wish to review federal programs and funding for S&T to support adaptation or
resilience to observed and projected climate change in light of recent scientific assessments.
Congress may also review federal outlays for relief and recovery following extreme weather
events, some of which have been statistically linked to GHG-induced climate change. With
respect to this linkage, statistical analysis can sometimes be used to determine whether part of the
increased intensity of an extreme weather event can be attributed to GHG-induced climate
change.
Some issues related to infrastructure technology are discussed above, and there are additional
S&T issues associated with adaptation and resilience. For example, technological R&D needs
may include new crop seed varieties suited to emerging climate conditions, better means to
manage floodwaters, advanced air conditioning technologies for buildings, improved wildfire
management techniques, and others. Improvements in climate change projections, particularly at
the local scale, could assist assessment of vulnerabilities and preparation for opportunities and
risks. Research leading to an improved understanding of the various costs and benefits of
adaptation techniques could also assist adaptation and resilience.
Congress may wish to address the federal role in supporting S&T that can facilitate effective
state, local, and private decisionmaking on adaptation and resilience to climate change. A federal
role, in addition to funding for S&T, may include increasing public access to scientific research,
climate and seasonal projections, impact assessments, and adaptation decision tools, as well as
training to facilitate productive use of such decision tools. Congress may wish to examine
whether federal financial support for resilience enhancements and disaster recovery encourages or
discourages the recognition of vulnerabilities and adaptation needs in private, state, and local
adaptation decisionmaking. One question, for example: Does federal support for disaster recovery
after a flood encourage or discourage activities that would mitigate flood risk? Congress may also
review efforts that the federal government has begun to incorporate projections of the effects of
climate change into federal agency management of federal personnel, lands and waters,
infrastructure, and operations. The effectiveness of agency actions to promote adaptation and
resilience could depend, in part, on the adequacy and appropriate use of scientific information and
available technologies.
For Further Information
Jane A. Leggett, Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
Congressional Research Service

21

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Jonathan Haskett, Analyst in Environmental Policy
CRS Report R47215, Hazard-Resilient Buildings: Sustaining Occupancy and Function After a
Natural Disaster
CRS Report R46911, Drought in the United States: Science, Policy, and Selected Federal
Authorities
CRS Report R47286, Flooding: Selected Federal Assistance and Programs to Reduce Risk
CRS In Focus IF12034, Extreme Weather and Lifeline Infrastructure Resilience: Provisions in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)
CRS In Focus IF11921, Surface Transportation and Climate Change: Provisions in the
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58)
CRS In Focus IF11827, Climate Change: Defining Adaptation and Resilience, with Implications
for Policy
CRS In Focus IF12161, Climate Change and Adaptation: Department of Defense
Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration
Carbon capture, utilization and sequestration (or storage)—known as CCUS—seeks to capture
CO2 at its source, store it underground, or utilize it for another purpose or product. (CCUS is
sometimes referred to as CCS—carbon capture and storage.) CCUS could reduce the amount of
CO2 emitted at large stationary sources. Carbon utilization has recently gained interest as a means
of converting CO2 into potentially commercially viable products, such as chemicals, fuels,
cements, and plastics. Direct air capture, a related emerging technology, is intended to remove
atmospheric CO2 directly from the atmosphere. Capturing CO2 is the most costly and energy-
intensive step in the process.
Federal law and regulations specify certain requirements for CO2 underground injection wells,
which are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency or delegated states. Currently in the
United States, two commercial-scale facilities are capturing and injecting CO2 into underground
reservoirs for geologic sequestration.
Since FY2010, Congress has provided a total of $9.2 billion (in constant 2022 dollars) in annual
appropriations for the DOE research arm conducting most federal CCUS research activity.
Additionally, IIJA (P.L. 117-58) provided supplemental appropriations of $8.5 billion for CCUS
for FY2022-FY2026 and $3.6 billion for direct air capture for the same time period. IRA (P.L.
117-169) increased the “Section 45Q” tax credit for underground carbon sequestration, among
other provisions.
In recent years, proponents of CCUS and some Members of Congress have called for increased
federal support for building out CO2 pipeline and storage infrastructure related to CCUS. Others
oppose investment in CCUS and prefer to focus climate and energy policy on renewable energy
exclusively. CCUS technology and the federal role in development of the U.S. CCUS industry
may continue to be of interest in the 118th Congress.
For Further Information
Angela Jones, Analyst in Environmental Policy
Ashley Lawson, Analyst in Energy Policy
CRS Report R44902, Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States
Congressional Research Service

22

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

CRS In Focus IF11501, Carbon Capture Versus Direct Air Capture
CRS Report R46192, Injection and Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide: Federal Role and
Issues for Congress
CRS In Focus IF11861, DOE’s Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Removal
Programs
CRS In Focus IF11455, The Tax Credit for Carbon Sequestration (Section 45Q)
CRS In Focus IF11639, Carbon Storage Requirements in the 45Q Tax Credit
Defense
S&T play an important role in national defense. DOD relies on a robust R&D effort to develop
new military systems and improve existing systems. Issues that may come before the 118th
Congress regarding DOD’s S&T activities include budgetary concerns, the effectiveness of
programs to transition R&D results into fielded products, and how DOD encourages innovation.
DOD Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
DOD spends more than $100 billion per year on research, development, testing, and evaluation
(RDT&E). In FY2022, enacted RDT&E funding was $119.3 billion. Roughly 80%-85% of this is
spent on the design, development, and testing of specific military systems. Examples of such
systems include large integrated combat platforms such as aircraft carriers, fighter jets, and tanks,
among others. They also include much smaller systems such as blast gauge sensors worn by
individual soldiers. The other 15%-20% of the RDT&E funding is spent on what is referred to as
DOD’s Science and Technology Program. The Program includes activities ranging from basic
science to demonstrations of new technologies in the field. The goal of DOD’s RDT&E spending
is to provide the knowledge and technological advances necessary to maintain U.S. military
superiority.
DOD’s RDT&E budget contains hundreds of individual line items. Congress provides oversight
of the program, making adjustments to the amount of funding requested for any number of line
items. These changes are based on considerations such as whether DOD has adequately justified
the expenditure or the need to accommodate larger budgetary adjustments.
RDT&E priorities and focus, including those of the S&T portion, do not change radically from
year to year, though a few fundamental policy-related issues regularly attract congressional
attention. These include ensuring that S&T—particularly basic research—receives sufficient
funding to support next-generation capabilities, seeking ways to speed the transition of
technology from the laboratory to the field, and ensuring an adequate supply of S&T personnel.
Additionally, the impact of budgetary constraints, including continuing resolutions, on RDT&E
may be of interest to the 118th Congress.
In addition, as U.S. federal defense-related R&D funding’s share of global R&D funding has
fallen from about 36% in 1960 to about 3% in 2020, some have become concerned about the
ability of DOD to direct the development of leading technologies and to control which countries
have access to it. Today, commercial companies in the United States and elsewhere in the world
are leading development of groundbreaking technologies in fields such as artificial intelligence,
autonomous vehicles and systems, and advanced robotics. DOD has sought to build institutional
mechanisms (e.g., the Defense Innovation Unit) and a culture for accessing technologies from
nontraditional defense contractors. DOD’s ability to maintain a technology edge for U.S. forces
Congressional Research Service

23

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

may depend increasingly upon these external sources of innovation for its weapons and other
systems.
For Further Information
John F. Sargent Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R44711, Department of Defense Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
(RDT&E): Appropriations Structure
CRS In Focus IF10553, Defense Primer: RDT&E
CRS Report R45403, The Global Research and Development Landscape and Implications for the
Department of Defense
Innovation Capacity of DOD
R&D is a global enterprise, with the private sector driving technology development. Some assert
that DOD has been slow to react and adapt to this new reality, raising concerns that the U.S.
military may be unable to maintain its historical technological advantages. Congress and the
executive branch have adopted a number of reforms to address the perceived concerns, including
the reestablishment of the position of Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering,
the expansion of other transaction authority, and the creation of new organizations (e.g., the
Defense Innovation Unit and the Air Force’s AFWERX) and programs (e.g., the Rapid Innovation
Program and the Accelerate the Procurement and Fielding of Innovative Technologies pilot
program). Many of these efforts will likely require sustained management focus and oversight to
ensure that DOD transforms into a more innovative, risk-tolerant R&D organization that delivers
new technologies to the warfighter in a timely and relevant manner. As Congress considers the
impact of these reforms and their effectiveness, there are several issues it may wish to examine in
the 118th Congress, such as
 The adequacy of DOD’s investments in research, development, test, and
evaluation programs;
 The sufficiency of DOD’s strategic planning as it relates to the development and
deployment of technologies deemed critical for national security, in particular
emerging technologies;
 DOD’s ability to attract and retain scientific and technical talent;
 How to measure the rate and extent of cultural change in innovation practices
within DOD;
 The effectiveness of DOD’s collaborations and cooperation with other federal
agencies and allied nations in the development and implementation of
technologies deemed critical for national security, in particular emerging
technologies;
 The degree to which DOD is incorporating nontraditional contractors and small
businesses into the defense industrial base; and
 How Congress can effectively balance its oversight responsibilities and the desire
for transparency and accountability with the need for DOD to respond flexibly
and nimbly to emergent opportunities.
For Further Information
Congressional Research Service

24

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
John F. Sargent Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R45403, The Global Research and Development Landscape and Implications for the
Department of Defense
CRS Report R45088, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency: Overview and Issues for
Congress
CRS In Focus IF10834, Defense Primer: Under Secretary of Defense for Research and
Engineering
Energy
Energy-related S&T issues that may come before the 118th Congress include biofuels, offshore
energy technologies, and hydrogen pipelines.
Biofuels
Biofuels—transportation fuels produced from biomass—are an alternative to conventional fuels.
Some see promise in producing fuels from a domestic feedstock that may reduce dependence on
foreign energy sources, improve rural economies, and lower GHG emissions. Others regard
biofuels as potentially more harmful to the environment (e.g., air and water quality concerns),
more land-intensive, and prohibitively expensive to produce. The debate about biofuels is
complex, as policymakers consider numerous factors (e.g., feedstock costs, the potential for
certain advanced biofuels, environmental impact of biofuels). The debate can be even more
complicated because biofuels may be produced using numerous biomass feedstocks and
conversion technologies.
Congress has supported biofuels for decades, with most of its attention on “first-generation”
biofuels (e.g., cornstarch ethanol). Starting in 2002, the farm bills have contained an energy title
with several programs to assist biofuel production and R&D. In addition, the DOE Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy supports domestic biofuel production R&D. Congress
has also established tax incentives for biofuels (e.g., the biodiesel credit). While commercial-scale
production of first-generation biofuels is well established, commercial-scale production for some
advanced biofuels (e.g., cellulosic ethanol) has yet to materialize for various reasons.
In 2007, Congress expanded the main policy support for biofuel production—the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS), which requires U.S. transportation fuel to contain minimum volumes of different
classes of biofuels. The RFS is under scrutiny for various reasons, including concerns about
program implementation, advanced biofuel pathway approval, and RFS compliance. These
concerns, among others, create uncertainty for some stakeholders.
The 118th Congress may wish to consider whether to modify various existing biofuel policies,
establish new biofuel initiatives, or maintain the status quo. Other topics of potential
congressional interest include the development of a federal low-carbon fuel standard in lieu of or
complementing the RFS and R&D into sustainable fuels for aviation, shipping, and other
applications.
For Further Information
Kelsi Bracmort, Specialist in Natural Resources and Energy Policy
CRS Report R43325, The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): An Overview
Congressional Research Service

25

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

CRS Report R45943, The Farm Bill Energy Title: An Overview and Funding History
CRS Report R46835, A Low Carbon Fuel Standard: In Brief
CRS Report R47171, Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF): In Brief
Offshore Energy Technologies
Technological innovations are key drivers of U.S. ocean energy development. They may facilitate
exploration of previously inaccessible resources, provide cost efficiencies, address safety and
environmental concerns, and enable advances in emerging sectors such as U.S. offshore
renewable energy. Private industry, universities, and government are all involved in ocean energy
R&D. At the federal level, both DOE and the Department of the Interior support ocean energy
research.
With respect to U.S. offshore oil and gas, developers and federal regulators have focused on
exploration of deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Industry interest in expanding deepwater
activities has prompted improvements in drilling technologies and steps toward automated
monitoring and maintenance. Government and industry seek to address concerns about safety,
resilience, and security, including cybersecurity. Also of interest are technologies for
decommissioning offshore oil and gas infrastructure as wells reach the end of their producing
lifetimes. This could potentially include repurposing of assets for hydrogen transportation or
CCUS, among other uses. Some companies operating in the Alaskan Arctic are pursuing
technologies (such as ice-resistant drilling units) to extend the drilling season beyond the periods
where sea ice is absent and are pursuing improvements to oil spill response capability in Arctic
conditions. DOE and the Department of the Interior undertake and fund Arctic energy R&D,
including through DOE’s Arctic Energy Office.
Among renewable ocean energy sources, only wind energy is poised for commercial application
in U.S. waters. In March 2021, the Biden Administration announced a national goal to deploy 30
gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030. In addition to identified resources in the Atlantic region,
wind energy has potential in the Great Lakes, offshore of the West Coast and Alaska, and offshore
of the Gulf Coast. Identified priorities for offshore wind R&D include (1) technology
advancement of the offshore wind plant; (2) improvements of resource and physical site
characterization; and (3) technology improvements in installation, operations and maintenance,
and supply chain issues for the U.S. market. For offshore wind plant technology advancement, the
Biden Administration announced in September 2022 a Floating Offshore Wind Shot with a goal
of reducing the costs of floating technologies by more than 70% by 2035. IRA (P.L. 117-169)
appropriates $100 million for convening stakeholders and conducting analysis related to
development of interregional transmission and transmission for offshore wind energy. The 118th
Congress may wish to consider whether and how to support or incentivize development of
offshore wind and other ocean renewables.
For Further Information
Laura B. Comay, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Corrie E. Clark, Specialist in Energy Policy
CRS Insight IN11980, Offshore Wind Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act
CRS Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress
Congressional Research Service

26

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Hydrogen Pipelines
IIJA (§40315, P.L. 117-58) authorized an $8 billion program of Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs,
which would be centers of activity involving hydrogen production, delivery, and end use.
Supplying hydrogen from sources such as regional hubs to power plants, industrial facilities, and
vehicular fuel distribution centers could require the development of an expansive hydrogen
pipeline network. Shipping hydrogen by pipeline in the United States is not new, but the existing
pipeline network is small and located almost entirely along the Gulf Coast. The pipeline network
required to support a hydrogen-based U.S. energy strategy would be much larger. Establishing
such a network could pose technical challenges due to the chemical characteristics of hydrogen.
Hydrogen molecules are the smallest of all molecules and, therefore, are more prone than
methane (the principal component of natural gas) to leak through joints, microscopic cracks, and
seals in pipelines and associated infrastructure. Hydrogen can also permeate directly through
polymer (plastic) materials, such as those typically used to make natural gas distribution pipes.
The presence of hydrogen can deteriorate steel pipe, pipe welds, valves, and fittings through a
variety of mechanisms, particularly embrittlement. Pipeline companies may use specialty steels or
may modify their infrastructure and put other measures in place to manage embrittlement risks.
Nonetheless, the potential for hydrogen embrittlement is a key safety consideration.
Some in Congress have called for federal initiatives to advance hydrogen pipeline-related
research and development. For example, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee stated at a 2022 committee hearing
We will certainly need to build some new infrastructure dedicated solely to transporting
and storing hydrogen. There is also potential to adapt our country’s extensive natural gas
delivery network in the near-term to support a blend of hydrogen and natural gas.... More
work is needed to look at the safety and feasibility of these modifications.
IIJA directs the Secretary of Energy to advance the safe and efficient delivery of hydrogen or
hydrogen-carrier fuels in pipelines, including by retrofitting existing natural gas pipelines
(§40313). Other legislative proposals, such as H.R. 9000 and H.R. 9018 in the 117th Congress,
would have mandated studies to synthesize research results involving hydrogen pipeline materials
and to determine outstanding research questions for hydrogen pipelines. The Senate Committee
on Appropriations (H.Rept. 117-394) has encouraged DOE to include hydrogen pipeline-related
research and development in its plans for transitioning segments of the economy to low-carbon
fuels.
Executive agencies, such as the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, may fund hydrogen pipeline research under existing research grant
programs and may examine hydrogen pipeline technical issues through advisory committees and
industry partnerships. Such activities may advance hydrogen pipeline design, operations, or safety
research and the development of standards, which could be incorporated into industry practices or
federal pipeline regulations.
For Further Information
Paul W. Parfomak, Specialist in Energy and Infrastructure Policy
CRS Report R46700, Pipeline Transportation of Hydrogen: Regulation, Research, and Policy
CRS Report R47289, Hydrogen Hubs and Demonstrating the Hydrogen Energy Value Chain
Congressional Research Service

27

link to page 47 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Earth and Environmental Sciences
Earth and environmental science-related issues that may come before the 118th Congress include
the National Spatial Data Infrastructure system, the ShakeAlert earthquake early warning system,
and emerging environmental issues associated with seabed mining of critical minerals to support
the U.S. transition to clean energy technologies.
National Spatial Data Infrastructure
The National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) facilitates data development, information
sharing, and collaborative decisionmaking across multiple sectors as called for in the FAA
Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Subtitle F, Geospatial Data of Title VII, Flight R&D Act, P.L. 115-
254). The GeoPlatform, a key element of NSDI, provides access to geospatial data from federal
government resources and web-based geospatial services. Geospatial data include land cover
resources (e.g., rocks, minerals, soils, vegetation, and water), topography, and the built
environment above and below ground (e.g., buildings and related structures, as well as water,
energy, transportation, and communications infrastructure) among many other datasets.
Geospatial data come from various federal resources, including the Landsat series of satellites,
other NASA and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) earth-observing
satellites, lidar and other instruments on aircraft (including the newer use of uncrewed aircraft
systems, commonly called drones), and other ground-based observations. GeoPlatform provides
open access to more than 100,000 datasets, cloud computing, and ArcGIS toolsets. The Federal
Geographic Data Committee oversees the policy, planning, development, and implementation of
the NSDI.
The 118th Congress may be interested in a number of S&T advances that facilitate NSDI—for
example, Earth-observing satellites designed and operated by federal agencies (e.g., Landsat 9,
see “Civil Earth-Observing Satellites”) and cloud computing and geographic information system
software developed and maintained by the private sector. Congress may also be interested in how
any parallel S&T advances may improve and expand GeoPlatform to meet its primary objective
of findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable data for resource and land management,
hazards assessment, and many other purposes. In addition, Congress may be interested in
oversight of interagency collaborations and public-private partnerships to facilitate NSDI.
For Further Information
Linda R. Rowan, Analyst in Natural Resources and Earth Sciences Policy
Eva Lipiec, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Anna Normand, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
CRS Report R46560, Landsat 9 and the Future of the Sustainable Land Imaging Program
The ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System on the
West Coast
Portions of all 50 states, as well as U.S. territories and the District of Columbia, are vulnerable to
earthquake hazards and associated risks to varying degrees. People and automated systems
receive an earthquake early warning (EEW) before potential strong ground shaking reaches their
locations after detecting an earthquake so that people can protect themselves and automated
systems can protect property. EEW is among the most challenging types of emergency
Congressional Research Service

28

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

communications, in part because earthquakes cannot be predicted and occur suddenly. Mass
notification to high-risk areas must occur within seconds of earthquake detection to be effective.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), with many partners, established the first operational EEW
system, called ShakeAlert, in California, Oregon, and Washington, which began operations in
2019 to 2021. ShakeAlert benefits from innovations in earthquake science, earthquake modeling
(e.g., using machine learning and artificial intelligence), seismic instruments, geodetic
instruments, and telemetry. Geodetic instruments rely on the Global Positioning System (GPS)
and other Global Navigation Satellite Systems and can quickly and precisely measure ground
and/or water motions to provide warnings for many hazards, such as earthquakes, volcanic
eruptions, and tsunamis. Geodetic instruments have the potential to improve EEW. However,
ShakeAlert has not fully incorporated geodetic data into its EEW system. In addition, the United
States faces challenges in operating and maintaining GPS, such as signal interference and the
increasing number of proximate satellites in Earth orbit.
In 2021, EEWs sent via the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) communication
pathways often did not arrive before intense shaking occurred. EEWs sent in 2021 via cell phone
applications over Wi-Fi or cellular networks were typically faster, and most alerts arrive before
intense shaking occurs.
The 118th Congress may be interested in what S&T advances might improve earthquake warnings
(e.g., incorporating geodetic data), in expanding ShakeAlert into other states and territories, and
whether ShakeAlert could be used for other hazards. Also, Congress may be interested in how to
improve emergency communications, especially for mass notifications, using FEMA
communication pathways or the First Responder Network so that alerts arrive before the shaking
occurs.
For Further Information
Linda R. Rowan, Analyst in Natural Resources and Earth Sciences Policy
Jill Gallagher, Analyst in Telecommunications Policy
CRS Report R47121, The ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System and the Federal Role
CRS Insight IN12023, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Report on
Ligado Networks and the Interference Debate
Seabed Mining
The transition to clean energy technologies has been driving U.S. interest in securing a domestic
supply of critical minerals. Some scientists estimate that certain critical minerals, such as cobalt
and manganese, are more abundant in seafloor deposits than in land deposits. Many of these
seabed deposits are located in the deep ocean in areas beyond U.S. jurisdiction. U.S interest, and
most global interest, in deep-seabed mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction is focused
primarily on a 4.5-million-square-kilometer area of the Pacific seafloor located between Hawaii
and Mexico. This area of the Pacific is rich in polymetallic nodules, which contain nickel,
manganese, copper, zinc, cobalt, and other minerals. Private industry and governments have been
exploring areas of the ocean for the purposes of seabed mining. CRS identified no entities
exploiting seabed minerals under international waters to date.
At the federal level, NOAA has authority to issue licenses to U.S citizens for the purpose of
seabed mining exploration in areas beyond U.S. jurisdiction and has issued licenses to several
entities for that purpose, two of which are currently active. In addition, NOAA is the primary
federal agency dedicated to exploring and studying the deep ocean. As directed by Congress,
Congressional Research Service

29

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

NOAA leads research and assessment of seabed mining activities’ potential impacts to proposed
mining areas of interest beyond U.S jurisdiction.
The emergence of the seabed mining industry in areas beyond national jurisdiction raises
questions about the potential impacts seabed mining may have on deep-sea ecosystems.
Government, industry, and universities are all involved in studying the potential environmental
impacts of seabed mining activities. In 1980, Congress directed NOAA to assess the effects on
the deep-sea environment from seabed mineral exploration and commercial recovery activities.
For more than two decades, NOAA studied the recovery of deep-sea benthic organisms (i.e.,
those living on or in the seafloor sediment) from sediment disturbance as a means of assessing the
potential impacts of seabed mining activities. These studies focused primarily on the potential
ecosystem impacts of collecting and removing polymetallic nodules from the seafloor.
The 118th Congress may consider whether additional authorities or funding may be useful in
understanding and addressing potential environmental and ecosystem impacts from future deep-
seabed mining. With current and growing interest in exploiting the deep ocean for seabed
minerals, the 118th Congress may consider changes to NOAA’s research on the environmental
impacts of collecting polymetallic nodules in the deep sea by studying different seabed mineral
deposits (e.g., ferromanganese crusts, polymetallic sulfides). In addition, the 118th Congress may
also consider expansion of NOAA’s ocean exploration campaigns to further document deep-sea
life in order to provide a baseline for understanding whether—and to what degree—deep-sea life
is vulnerable or resilient to human disturbance.
For Further Information
Caitlin Keating-Bitonti, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
CRS Report R47324, Seabed Mining in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction: Issues for Congress
Financial Technology, or “Fintech”
Financial technology, or fintech, refers to a broad set of technologies being deployed across a
variety of financial industries and activities. This section considers cryptocurrency, investor
applications, and consumer finance applications.
Cryptocurrency
Cryptocurrencies are designed to function as payment and value storage systems, which the
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) described as “electronic cash protected
through cryptographic mechanisms instead of a central repository or authority.” Cryptocurrencies
are typically exchanged across and cleared on public blockchains. Satoshi Nakamoto, an
anonymous individual or collective, introduced the first cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, in a whitepaper
in 2008.
Cryptocurrency attempts to replace aspects of the current financial system, of which a central
tenet is trust, with one that is trustless and permissionless. For example, there are a variety of
safeguards built into the traditional financial system that seek to foster trust and inspire
confidence, including, among others, regulation and government backstops. Cryptocurrency, on
the other hand, relies on a series of separate but concurrent incentives for network participants,
such as rewards and pseudonymity, which are expected to work even when those participants are
operating in their own self-interest. Users can participate in on-chain transactions—those
facilitated directly on a blockchain (i.e., ledger) network—or in intermediated transactions with
platforms such as cryptocurrency exchanges and payments companies.
Congressional Research Service

30

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

The system emerged as a payment tool, but its attractiveness as a speculative investment soon
eclipsed that use. The two most prevalent cryptocurrencies are Bitcoin and Ethereum, which
combined represent slightly more than half of the entire crypto market. According to industry
websites that track data, there are more than 10,000 cryptocurrencies. Volatility and rapid growth
characterize the crypto market. Most recently, after reaching a record high of more than $3 trillion
in November 2021, the market capitalization fell to below $900 billion in November 2022,
reportedly due to various interconnected factors such as higher interest rates and failures of
various crypto-related entities. Growth in the industry and various crypto company failures may
prompt the 118th Congress to consider changes in the way the industry is regulated, either by
drawing crypto finance further into the regulatory perimeter or alternatively walling it off from
the traditional financial system to preclude the potential for systemic risk.
For Further Information
Paul Tierno, Analyst in Financial Economics
CRS Report R45427, Cryptocurrency: The Economics of Money and Selected Policy Issues
CRS Report R46332, Fintech: Overview of Innovative Financial Technology and Selected Policy
Issues
CRS In Focus IF11997, Bank Custody, Trust Banks, and Cryptocurrency
CRS Insight IN12047, What Happened at FTX and What Does It Mean for Crypto?
Investment Activities
In recent years, financial innovation in capital markets has fostered a new asset class—called
digital assets, which include cryptocurrencies—and introduced new forms of fundraising, trading,
and other investment activities.
IIJA (P.L. 117-58) defines digital asset as “any digital representation of value, which is recorded
on a cryptographically secured distributed ledger or any similar technology as specified by the
[Treasury] Secretary.” The oversight of digital assets is split among different agencies. Some
aspects of existing regulation have drawn policy debates about regulatory uncertainty, especially
with regard to how previously enacted laws and regulations could be applied to new activities and
products. Some digital assets meet the legal definition of securities and are primarily regulated by
the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which oversees securities offers, sales, and
investment activities. Those that do not meet the definition of securities may be legally
considered commodities under the Commodities Exchange Act (P.L. 74-675) and fall under the
oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which also oversees U.S. derivatives
markets.
New S&T have brought greater investor access through retail investor digital engagement
practices (DEPs). DEP tools are deployed in investment advisory services where broker-dealers
and investment advisers use websites or mobile applications to interact with retail investors, such
as collecting investor data or providing financial advice. DEPs often deploy game-like features,
behavioral prompts, differential marketing, and predictive data analytics. The SEC is soliciting
public input on how broker-dealers and investment advisers, including robo advisers, mitigate
conflict of interest concerns. Specifically, the SEC is concerned about how the DEPs’ profit
optimization designs may encourage investors to invest in ways that would prioritize the
profitability of the firms (as opposed to their retail investor clients). Digital asset market events in
2022 have exposed the industry’s structural vulnerability and perceived regulatory gaps. More
Congressional Research Service

31

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

policy debates relating to the SEC’s digital asset jurisdiction and potential legislative fixes to
address the perceived regulatory gaps are likely during the 118th Congress.
For Further Information
Eva Su, Analyst in Financial Economics
CRS Report R46208, Digital Assets and SEC Regulation
CRS Insight IN12052, SEC Jurisdiction and Perceived Crypto-Asset Regulatory Gap: An FTX
Case Study
Consumer Products
Beyond the retail investment activities discussed in the prior section, fintech also has the potential
to change other consumer finance products and services, including in consumer payments and
lending markets. Modern technologies—such as internet access, mobile technology, electronic
payment improvements, alternative data, and artificial intelligence—have been used to create new
fintech products for consumers. Some recent fintech products include “peer to peer” payments,
digital wallets, consumer data aggregation services, marketplace lending, and “Buy Now, Pay
Later” financing.
New technology could potentially improve consumer experiences, lower the cost of providing
financial products, and expand access to underserved consumers. For example, internet-based or
mobile financial products may be able to help consumers manage their finances better and
provide more affordable access to financial services. In addition, consumer loan underwriting—
when a lender evaluates the likelihood that a loan applicant will make timely repayment—can
potentially be enhanced by these new technologies. For example, alternative data and artificial
intelligence may be able to better price default risk for lenders, which could expand credit access
or make credit less expensive for some consumers.
New technologies could pose certain consumer protection and data security risks, raising
questions over what consumer information is appropriate to collect and use. Policymakers
designed many of the financial laws and regulations before the most recent technological
changes. This raises questions concerning whether the existing legal and regulatory frameworks,
when applied to fintech, effectively mitigate risks without unduly hindering the development of
beneficial technologies. In addition, fintech products often access sensitive consumer financial
data, which may introduce privacy and cybersecurity concerns. Fintech innovations may also
have impacts on market competition, such as potentially creating systemic risks. Moreover,
consumer loan underwriting models using alternative data and artificial intelligence could
introduce fair lending risks due to biases in data or model development. The Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) is the primary consumer protection regulator for consumer financial
products and services. The 118th Congress may continue to be interested in how existing laws
apply to consumer fintech products, how these products should be regulated by the CFPB, and
whether new laws are necessary to regulate these products.
For Further Information
Cheryl Cooper, Analyst in Financial Economics
CRS In Focus IF11682, Introduction to Financial Services: Consumer Finance
CRS In Focus IF11630, Alternative Data in Financial Services
CRS In Focus IF12079, Digital Wallets and Selected Policy Issues
Congressional Research Service

32

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Information Technology and Social Media
Rapid advancements in information technologies present several issues for congressional
policymakers, including those related to artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, social media
platforms, big tech and online platforms, immersive technologies, law enforcement access to
platforms and social media, and blockchain technologies.
Artificial Intelligence
In recent years, the Administration and Congress have been increasingly engaged in supporting
artificial intelligence (AI) R&D and working to address policy concerns arising from AI
development and use. Congressional activities focused on AI increased substantially in the 116th
and 117th Congresses, including multiple committee hearings in the House and Senate, the
introduction of numerous AI-focused bills, and the passage of AI provisions in legislation.
Enacted legislation has included the National AI Initiative Act of 2020 within the William M.
(Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (P.L. 116-283); the AI
in Government Act of 2020 within the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260); and
provisions focused on AI activities at NSF, DOE, and NIST within P.L. 117-167, the CHIPS and
Science Act.
AI holds potential benefits and opportunities, such as through augmenting human decisionmaking
and optimizing performance for complex tasks. It also presents challenges and pitfalls, such as
through perpetuating or amplifying bias and failing in unexpected ways. The ready availability in
2022 of software (i.e., ChatGPT) that can intelligently (1) respond to questions, and (2) draft
prose documents may represent a sentinel event in popular use of AI.
There are several broad concerns related to AI, spanning multiple sectors, that could be
considered in the 118th Congress. These include
 the impact of AI and AI-driven automation on the workforce, including potential
job losses and the need for worker retraining;
 the challenges of educating students in AI, from teaching foundational concepts
at the K-12 level to supporting doctoral-level training to meet increasing demand
for AI expertise;
 the balance of federal and private sector funding for AI;
 whether and how to increase access to public datasets to train AI systems for use
in the public and private sectors;
 the development of standards and testing protocols and algorithmic auditing
capabilities for AI systems;
 the need for and effectiveness of federal and international coordination efforts in
AI, as well as concerns over international competition in AI R&D and
deployment; and
 the incorporation of ethics, privacy, security, transparency, and accountability
considerations in AI systems, including such applications as facial recognition
technologies.
There are additional national security concerns about the potential use of AI technologies that
Congress could address, such as the potential for “deep fakes” to influence elections and erode
public trust, the balance of human and automated decisionmaking in military operations, and
Congressional Research Service

33

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

concerns about the dissemination of U.S.-developed AI technologies and federally funded AI
research results to potential competitors or adversaries.
For Further Information
Laurie A. Harris, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
CRS In Focus IF11333, Deep Fakes and National Security
Cybersecurity
Cybersecurity is not an end state. Rather, it is a risk management process that information
technology (IT) system owners and operators use to ensure that data, devices, systems, and
networks
 maintain confidentiality among authorized parties,
 preserve the integrity of both the data and the technology, and
 are available when users desire.
Some cybersecurity issues persist across multiple Congresses. For example, the 117th Congress
 explored policy options to ensure the confidentiality of internet-based
communications (i.e., data security and privacy) by enacting national privacy
legislation;
 investigated ways that nation-state actors compromised the integrity of IT
vendors’ products in order to compromise their customers; and
 considered cybersecurity incident reporting requirements as a way to better
understand and mitigate ransomware attacks that attack the availability of data
and systems.
The 117th Congress enacted a variety of cybersecurity-related legislation. Funding in the
American Rescue Plan Act provided resources for federal agencies to transition to the zero-trust
architecture (i.e., the continuous authentication of a user in a system). Legislation and oversight
also addressed federal support for the cybersecurity of state and local governments. IIJA provided
$1 billion to state and local governments to improve their cybersecurity posture. Congress also
created programs to address cybersecurity education, improve cybersecurity at schools, and
increase federal information sharing and technical assistance to state and local governments.
One new area of ongoing congressional interest is the relationship between the private sector and
the federal government. Two ways this manifested in the 117th Congress was in the examination
of the role of cybersecurity companies and IT vendors in national cybersecurity (e.g., following
the Solarwinds attack) and a requirement that all companies report when they experience a
cybersecurity incident. Such concerns are likely to continue in the 118th Congress.
For Further Information
Chris Jaikaran, Specialist in Cybersecurity Policy
CRS In Focus IF10559, Cybersecurity: A Primer
CRS In Focus IF10920, Cyber Supply Chain Risk Management: An Introduction
CRS Report R47011, Cybersecurity: Deterrence Policy
Congressional Research Service

34

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Social Media Platforms
Scrutiny of social media platforms—such as Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, and YouTube—has
focused on their content moderation practices, including the spread of misinformation as well as
the censorship of lawful content. Section 230 of the Communications Act of 1934, enacted as part
of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, protects interactive computer service providers and their
users from liability for publishing, and in some instances restricting access to, another’s content.
Two states—Texas and Florida—have passed laws that limit social media platforms’ ability to
moderate content. Legal challenges to these laws are pending.
Some Members of Congress have also expressed interest in other aspects of social media
platforms. These concerns include the use of algorithms to amplify or remove content; the use of
social media by law enforcement; and the national security, data privacy, and foreign influence
risks posed by TikTok, a social media platform owned by Chinese company ByteDance. The 117th
Congress passed legislation to ban TikTok from certain government devices. While other
concerns—such as competition among platforms—are applicable to social media, they are
typically part of broader discussions of online platforms (discussed separately in “Big Tech and
Online Platforms”).
In the 116th and 117th Congresses, there were multiple bills and hearings related to social media
platforms. Some bills would have amended Section 230 in a manner that would allow social
media companies to be held liable for hosting or removing certain content or for using algorithms
to rank, sort, and recommend content, with some exceptions. Others would have required
increased transparency for social media platforms’ content moderation practices or imposed
requirements unrelated to content moderation. The 118th Congress may be interested in similar
legislation related to social media platforms.
For Further Information
Clare Cho, Analyst in Industrial Organization and Business
Valerie Brannon, Legislative Attorney
Eric Holmes, Legislative Attorney
Kristin Finklea, Specialist in Domestic Security
Kristen Busch, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R46662, Social Media: Misinformation and Content Moderation Issues for Congress
CRS Report R46751, Section 230: An Overview
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10748, Free Speech Challenges to Florida and Texas Social Media Laws
CRS In Focus IF12180, False Speech and the First Amendment: Constitutional Limits on
Regulating Misinformation
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10742, Online Content Moderation and Government Coercion
CRS Report R47049, Children and the Internet: Legal Considerations in Restricting Access to
Content
CRS Report R47008, Law Enforcement and Technology: Using Social Media
Congressional Research Service

35

link to page 40 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Big Tech and Online Platforms
Technological developments have allowed companies to offer various services through online
platforms, transforming existing industries and creating new markets. Some of these companies
collect data from their users, such as the users’ behavior on the platform and personally
identifiable information. This data can be used for various purposes, including providing services
for customers and obtaining revenue from sending targeted advertisements to specific individuals.
The collection of consumer data has raised concerns about consumer data privacy and may
contribute to the dominance of some companies that have been able to collect large amounts of
various types of data.
Congressional interest in companies that operate online platforms have largely focused on
Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Amazon, Apple, Meta Platforms (formerly Facebook), and
at times Microsoft—companies collectively known as “Big Tech.” Issues related to Big Tech
include how the companies collect and use consumer data, whether the companies use
anticompetitive methods to obtain and maintain market dominance, and whether to implement
additional privacy protections for content accessed by individuals under the age of 16 or 18.
The 118th Congress may wish to pursue legislation related to online platforms in addition to those
specifically related to social media platforms (discussed separately in “Social Media Platforms”).
Numerous bills and hearings in the 116th and 117th Congresses were related to consumer data
privacy and market dominance concerns, including bills to create a comprehensive federal data
protection law, to create competition-related requirements for online platforms that meet certain
criteria, and to amend antitrust laws. Some bills would have increased funding for federal
antitrust enforcers—the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the antitrust division of the
Department of Justice.
For Further Information
Clare Cho, Analyst in Industrial Organization and Business
Kristen Busch, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
Jay Sykes, Legislative Attorney
Chris Linebaugh, Legislative Attorney
Eric Holmes, Legislative Attorney
CRS Report R47298, Online Consumer Data Collection and Data Privacy
CRS In Focus IF11207, Data Protection and Privacy Law: An Introduction
CRS In Focus IF12244, Unfair or Deceptive Acts or Practices (UDAP) Enforcement Authority
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10839, FTC Considers Adopting Commercial Surveillance and Data
Security Rules
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10846, The EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework: Background,
Implementation, and Next Steps
CRS In Focus IF11234, Antitrust Law: An Introduction
CRS Report R46739, Mergers and Acquisitions in Digital Markets
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10635, The FTC’s Competition Rulemaking Authority
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10725, Antitrust Issues in Labor Markets
Congressional Research Service

36

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

CRS Report R47018, Stop the Presses? Newspapers in the Digital Age
Metaverse and Immersive Technologies
Many in Congress have maintained an interest in policy issues related to technologies used to
access computer-simulated environments and participate in virtual activities on the internet.
These technologies show potential to support new ways for users to interact, work, socialize,
transact, and access services in an immersive virtual world, which has come to be called the
metaverse. Metaverse services are likely to feature three key characteristics that differentiate them
from traditional online applications: (1) an immersive user experience; (2) real-time, persistent
network access; and (3) interoperability across networked platforms. Technologies enabling
metaverse services include extended reality (e.g., augmented reality, mixed reality, and virtual
reality), advanced wireless communications (e.g., fifth generation and next generation), and
digital assets.
Some experts have expressed concerns that the immersive, persistent, and real-time environment
and large-scale, distributed virtual platforms in the metaverse could reproduce and magnify a
number of existing issues, such as content moderation, data privacy, competition, and digital
inclusion. Some Members of Congress have shown interest in each of these issues in the context
of existing online platforms and may consider addressing them in the specific context of the
metaverse. In the recently enacted Research and Development, Competition, and Innovation Act
(P.L. 117-167), Congress identifies “immersive technology” among an initial list of 10 “key
technology focus areas.” The act tasked NSF and other federal agencies with carrying out
activities and programs in those focus areas to support research and technology transfer and
increase capabilities to enhance the competitive advantage and leadership of the United States in
the global economy.
While the development trajectory of the metaverse is uncertain, the 118th Congress may be
interested in a range of metaverse-related issues as it continues to shape internet and information
policies. For example, Congress may be concerned about whether the metaverse and other
internet platforms are open, free, interoperable, reliable, and secure and support innovation,
competition, privacy, and trust. Through oversight of federal agencies such as the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), and FTC, Congress may wish to to address content moderation, data privacy,
competition, digital inclusion, and other internet governance issues that could be more
challenging in the metaverse than on the current internet platforms. Congressional oversight
could include assessments of federal investments in immersive technologies and whether they
will enhance and preserve U.S. competitiveness and leadership in the digital economy.
For Further Information
Ling Zhu, Analyst in Telecommunications Policy
CRS Report R47224, The Metaverse: Concepts and Issues for Congress
CRS Video WVB00498, The Metaverse: Concepts and Policy Issues for Congress
Evolving Technology and the Debate over “Lawful Access”
Technological advances present both opportunities and challenges for U.S. law enforcement.
Some developments have increased the quantity and availability of digital content and
information for investigators and analysts. Other advances have presented new hurdles for law
enforcement. For example, while some believe that law enforcement now has access to more
Congressional Research Service

37

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

information than ever before, other observers express concern that law enforcement’s
investigative capabilities may be outpaced by the speed of technological change, preventing
investigators from accessing certain information they may otherwise be authorized to obtain.
Specifically, law enforcement officials cite strong, end-to-end encryption, or what they have
called warrant-proof encryption, as preventing lawful access to certain data. Companies
employing such strong encryption have stressed they do not hold encryption keys. This means
they may not be readily able to unlock, or decrypt, the devices or communications—even for law
enforcement presenting an authorized search warrant or wiretap order.
The tension between law enforcement capabilities and technological change—including
sometimes competing pressures for technology companies to provide data to law enforcement as
well as to secure customer privacy—has received congressional attention for several decades. For
instance, in the 1990s the crypto wars pitted the federal government against technology
companies, and this strain was underscored by proposals to build in vulnerabilities, or back doors,
to certain encrypted communications devices as well as to restrict the export of strong encryption
code. In addition, Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act
(CALEA; P.L. 103-414) in 1994 to help law enforcement agencies maintain their ability to
execute authorized electronic surveillance as telecommunications providers turned to digital and
wireless technology. More recently, there have been questions about whether CALEA should be
amended to apply to a broader range of entities that provide communications services.
The debate over lawful access to information originally focused on data in motion, or law
enforcement’s ability to intercept real-time communications. More recent technology advances
have affected law enforcement’s capacity to access not only real-time communications but stored
content, or data at rest. Some officials have urged the technology community to develop a means
to assist law enforcement in lawfully accessing certain data. At the same time, law enforcement
entities have taken their own steps to bolster their technology capabilities. The 118th Congress
may wish to consider possible legislation that would address law enforcement’s concerns and
customer privacy issues involving access to communications and data.
For Further Information
Kristin Finklea, Specialist in Domestic Security
CRS In Focus IF11769, Law Enforcement and Technology: the “Lawful Access” Debate
Law Enforcement Use of Social Media
As the ways in which individuals interact continue to evolve, social media has had an increasing
role in facilitating communication and sharing content online. Law enforcement relies on social
media as a tool for information sharing as well as for gathering information to assist in
investigations. For instance, law enforcement may use social media to connect with the
community, such as pushing out bulletins on wanted persons or establishing tip lines to
crowdsource information. Social media is also an investigative tool that can help establish leads
and collect evidence on potential suspects.
There are no federal laws that specifically govern law enforcement agencies’ use of information
obtained from social media sites, but their ability to obtain or use certain information may be
influenced by social media companies’ policies, law enforcement agencies’ own social media
policies, and the rules of criminal procedure. Law enforcement may require social media
platforms to provide access to certain restricted information through a warrant, subpoena, or other
court order. While some have suggested that social media can provide a wealth of information for
law enforcement and intelligence analysts, some observers have suggested that agencies may be
Congressional Research Service

38

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

reluctant to regularly analyze public social media posts for various reasons, including that it could
be viewed as spying on the American public and could subsequently chill free speech protected
under the First Amendment.
Although there is no specific legislative framework at the federal level that governs law
enforcement use of social media, there are laws and policies governing law enforcement
investigations and intelligence gathering broadly. Some observers, however, have questioned
whether the nature of social media may place it in a qualitatively different category than law
enforcement’s use of other investigative tools and have suggested that there should be enhanced
boundaries regarding law enforcement operations that utilize social media. For instance, some
have suggested that law enforcement agencies should have written, publicly available policies on
their use of social media; they should obtain local government approval before using these online
spaces; they should obtain judicial approval for conducting undercover operations using social
media; there should be restrictions on law enforcement contacting minors via social media; and
law enforcement’s use of social media should be audited. These types of proposals could be a
subject of discussion in the 118th Congress.
For Further Information
Kristin Finklea, Specialist in Domestic Security
CRS Report R47008, Law Enforcement and Technology: Using Social Media
CRS Insight IN11999, Law Enforcement Investigations of Extremist Calls to Action on Social
Media
Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technologies
Blockchain is a database technology that records and stores information in blocks of data that are
linked, or “chained,” together. This system enables tamper-resistant recordkeeping, generally
without a centralized authority or intermediary. Blockchain is one example of the larger family of
distributed ledger technologies (DLTs). Since its popularization after the publication of the
Bitcoin white paper in 2008, blockchain has been most commonly associated with
cryptocurrencies, but more recently, public and private sector actors have used blockchain
applications in fields such as supply chain management, asset registration, and digital identity and
ownership.
The emergence of new blockchain applications—including Web3, non-fungible tokens,
decentralized finance, and other novel use cases—have raised policy concerns among some
stakeholders, ranging from technological classification to financial regulation and energy
consumption. In 2022, President Biden signed Executive Order 14067 on the responsible
development of digital assets, which established policy objectives around national security,
financial stability, environmental impact, and other issues related to digital assets, but it could
also implicate other blockchain applications.
The 117th Congress enacted legislation related to blockchain and DLTs. The CHIPS and Science
Act (P.L. 117-167) directed the White House OSTP to establish a blockchain and cryptocurrency
specialist position. In addition to numerous hearings and bills on the financial regulation of digital
assets, the 117th Congress also held blockchain-focused hearings, such as “Cleaning Up
Cryptocurrency: The Energy Impacts of Blockchains” and “Securing U.S. Leadership in
Emerging Compute Technologies.”
Congressional Research Service

39

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

The 118th Congress may wish to consider similar legislation to create comprehensive regulatory
frameworks for specific blockchain applications, such as digital assets, or oversight actions to
influence the future development and growth of distributed ledger technologies.
For Further Information
Kristen Busch, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R47064, Blockchain: Novel Provenance Applications
CRS Report R47189, Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs)
CRS In Focus IF12075, Web3: A Proposed Blockchain-Based, Decentralized Web
CRS Video WVB00495, Boom or Bust? Blockchain Technologies and Policy Issues
Space and Aviation
Congress has historically had a strong interest in space policy and aviation issues. Issues that may
come before the 118th Congress include the funding and oversight of NASA, issues related to the
commercialization of space, Earth-observing satellites, and advanced air mobility technologies.
NASA
Spaceflight has attracted strong congressional interest since the establishment of NASA in 1958.
Issues facing the 118th Congress include the goals and strategy of NASA’s human spaceflight
program, the relationship between NASA and the commercial space sector, and implementation
of the NASA Authorization Act of 2022 (Division B, Title VII, of P.L. 117-167, the CHIPS and
Science Act). Congress may address these and other topics through oversight hearings, NASA
reauthorization legislation, and the annual appropriations process.
As directed by the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-267), NASA is pursuing a two-
track strategy for human spaceflight. First, for crew transport to low Earth orbit, NASA has been
supporting the development of commercial capabilities. After years of reliance on Russian
spacecraft following the end of the space shuttle program in 2011, in 2020 a NASA-contracted
U.S. commercial spacecraft carried a crew to the International Space Station (ISS) for the first
time. A second commercial crew transport provider is expected to begin operational flights in
2023.
Second, for human exploration beyond Earth orbit, NASA is developing a crew capsule called
Orion and a heavy-lift rocket called the Space Launch System (SLS). These are key elements of
the Artemis program for human exploration of the moon and eventually Mars. The first test flight
of Orion and the SLS occurred in late 2022, and the first test flight with a crew on board is
expected in 2024. The progress of Orion and SLS testing, the development of other components
of Artemis (such as the Human Landing System), and the schedule for an operational Artemis
mission including a lunar landing may all draw attention in the 118th Congress.
The relationship between NASA and the commercial space sector continues to evolve. Rather
than acquiring government-owned systems, NASA increasingly contracts for commercial
services, including crew and cargo transport to the ISS, the Human Landing System, and a
planned sequence of robotic lunar landers. Some in Congress would prefer a more traditional
government-owned approach, especially for systems affecting the safety of astronauts. A related
topic is the future of the ISS, which NASA has proposed to transition after 2025 to a combination
of public-private partnerships and commercial service contracts.
Congressional Research Service

40

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

The NASA Authorization Act of 2022 includes policy direction about the Artemis program, the
ISS, NASA programs in science, space technology, STEM education, and other matters. NASA’s
implementation of that policy direction may be a subject for congressional oversight in the 118th
Congress.
For Further Information
Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R43419, NASA Appropriations and Authorizations: A Fact Sheet
Section on NASA in CRS Report R47161, Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding:
FY2023
Commercial Space
Since the earliest days of spaceflight, U.S. companies have been involved as contractors to
government agencies. Increasingly, though, space is becoming commercial. A majority of U.S.
satellites are now commercially owned, providing commercial services, and launched by
commercial launch providers. Congressional and public interest in space is also becoming more
focused on commercial activities, such as companies flying private individuals into space,
collecting business data with fleets of small Earth-imaging satellites, or providing timely satellite
images of events in the news such as the war in Ukraine.
Some observers have identified a distinct “new space” sector of relatively new companies
focused on private spaceflight at low cost. One factor driving this trend is NASA’s reliance on
commercial providers for access to the ISS, but “new space” companies are also focused on other
markets. These include the launch of national security satellites for DOD, the launch of
commercial satellites for U.S. and foreign companies, and the provision of commercial services
such as satellite communications and space tourism.
Multiple federal agencies regulate the commercial space industry, based on statutory authorities
that were enacted separately and have evolved over time. The Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA) licenses commercial launch and reentry vehicles (i.e., rockets and spaceplanes) as well as
commercial spaceports. NOAA licenses commercial Earth remote sensing satellites. The FCC
licenses commercial satellite communications. The Departments of Commerce and State license
exports of space technology. In the past few years, several of these agencies have made
significant changes in their regulations affecting commercial space, and additional regulatory
action is underway or expected on topics such as orbital debris and in-space servicing, assembly,
and manufacturing. In addition, a statutory moratorium on FAA regulations to protect the health
and safety of humans aboard commercial spacecraft is set to expire in October 2023. The 118th
Congress may wish to examine the implementation of these regulatory changes and consider
whether additional legislation is required. Related ongoing efforts, such as the proposed
reorganization of space offices in the Commerce Department, the creation of a new Space Bureau
at the FCC, and the shift from DOD to civil responsibility for space situational awareness (e.g.,
issuing alerts when orbiting satellites may be about to collide) are also likely to attract
congressional attention. Some observers also anticipate new legislative proposals regarding
mission authorization (i.e., authorities for regulation of emerging commercial space activities not
covered by the current licensing regimes).
How the federal government makes use of commercial space capabilities continues to evolve.
NASA used to own and operate the space shuttles that contractors built for it, but since 2012 it
has contracted with commercial service providers to deliver cargo into orbit using these
providers’ spacecraft. DOD has its own satellite communications and reconnaissance capabilities.
Congressional Research Service

41

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

It also procures communications bandwidth and imagery from commercial satellite companies.
Agencies are considering a host of new opportunities, including acquisition of weather data from
commercial satellites, acquisition of science data from commercial lunar landers, and expanded
commercial utilization of the ISS for technology development and demonstration as well as other
purposes. The 118th Congress may address these developments primarily through oversight of
agency programs and decisions on agency budgets.
For Further Information
Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
CRS In Focus IF11940, Commercial Human Spaceflight
Civil Earth-Observing Satellites
The constellation of civil Earth-observing satellites launched and operated by the U.S.
government performs a wide range of observational and data collecting activities. These activities
include measuring the change in mass of polar ice sheets, wind speeds over the ocean, and land
cover change, as well as the more familiar daily measurements of key atmospheric parameters
that enable modern weather forecasts and storm prediction. Satellite observations of Earth’s
ocean and land surface help with short-term seasonal forecasts of El Niño and La Niña
conditions, which are valuable to U.S. agriculture and commodity interests; identification of the
location and size of wildfires, which can assist firefighting crews and mitigation activities; and
long-term observational data on the global climate, which are used in models to assess the degree
and magnitude of current and future climate change and its impacts.
Congress continues to be interested in the performance of NASA, NOAA, and USGS in building
and operating Earth-observing satellites. NASA’s Earth-observing satellites are primarily for
research purposes, but some of the data they provide are also used operationally. Congress has
often taken an interest in the relationship between NASA’s Earth Science research program and
the operational programs at NOAA and USGS. Congress is also interested in the agencies’ ability
to continually improve satellite technology and capabilities and keep to budgets and schedules so
that critical space-based observations are not missed due to cost overruns and delays.
Congressional interest in NOAA in the 118th Congress is likely to focus on the congressionally
approved restructuring of the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service,
the ongoing development of the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) and
Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) weather satellites, and plans for other future satellites. NOAA
has launched several GOES satellites in the past few years, including GOES-16 in 2016, GOES-
17 in 2018, and GOES-18 in 2022. NOAA expects to launch the last satellite in the series (GOES-
U) in 2024. Three polar-orbiting JPSS satellites—Suomi National Polar-orbiting Partnership,
NOAA-20, and JPSS-2—are currently flying. NOAA is on schedule to launch two additional
satellites in this system (JPSS-3 and JPSS-4) in 2028 and 2032, respectively. Future NOAA
Earth-observing satellite coverage includes the Geostationary Extended Observations program,
among others. The 118th Congress may continue to require updates on NOAA satellite design,
construction, and budget and timelines for operations, as indicated in explanatory language
accompanying recent annual appropriations legislation. Congress may also wish to provide
oversight of NOAA’s partnerships with NASA, other agencies, and the commercial sector in the
development and deployment of polar-orbiting and geostationary satellites.
In September 2021, NASA and the USGS launched Landsat 9, the latest satellite in a series that
began in 1972, to provide medium-resolution images of Earth’s surface. Landsat 9 is essentially a
rebuild of Landsat 8. Together, they acquire around 1,500 images of Earth per day, with a repeat
Congressional Research Service

42

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

visit every eight days, on average. The 118th Congress may wish to consider the future of the
Sustainable Land Imaging Program under which NASA and the USGS develop, launch, and
operate Landsat satellites, including Landsat Next, the mission planned to follow Landsat 9.
When considering the agencies’ forthcoming proposal for Landsat Next, the 118th Congress may
consider whether to pursue the development of another satellite similar to Landsat 9 or to explore
alternatives, such as technological improvements, cost-saving opportunities, public-private
partnerships, and international cooperation and data sharing.
For Further Information
Eva Lipiec, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Anna E. Normand, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Caitlin Keating-Bitonti, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
CRS Report R46560, Landsat 9 and the Future of the Sustainable Land Imaging Program
CRS Report R47021, Federal Involvement in Ocean-Based Research and Development
Advanced Air Mobility
Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) refers to a novel transportation system for flying passengers and
cargo, typically over relatively short distances ranging from about 10 miles up to roughly 150
miles, using advanced aircraft technologies, principally electric aircraft and aircraft with vertical
takeoff and landing capabilities. Future AAM aircraft are envisioned to operate similarly to
remotely operated or highly autonomous drones, although initially flights will be piloted. The
future introduction of AAM concepts using small electric-powered vertical takeoff and landing
(eVTOL) aircraft poses unique challenges to address the regulation and management of low
altitude airspace, flight procedures, infrastructure needs, and related policy issues.
The AAM concept was first introduced in 2016 with visions of an on-demand urban air
transportation system operating eVTOL aircraft using a network of vertiports (VTOL hubs with
multiple VTOL pads and charging infrastructure) and smaller single pad vertistops located in
urban and suburban settings. The use cases for eVTOL aircraft have since expanded to include
regional passenger operations to and from small airports; air cargo deliveries; public service
operations such as police, fire, and medical services; agricultural operations such as crop dusting;
and private and recreational flights.
A number of companies are engaged in R&D of marketable passenger-carrying AAM vehicles
capable of carrying from two to about eight people. The end goal of these projects is to develop
uncrewed and largely autonomous AAM vehicles and supporting infrastructure, although initially
flights will be piloted. Future AAM concepts for passenger-carrying operations are envisioned to
function in a manner similar to concepts being developed for self-driving vehicles deployed in
taxi fleets and ride-share systems: A passenger would simply input an origin and a destination
into an application interface, and AI built into a connected reservation system and integrated with
computers onboard the vehicle would handle scheduling, logistics, navigation, and flight
guidance.
There are a number of complex technical challenges related to operational safety and efficiency
and the development of ground infrastructure to support AAM operations and electric aircraft.
Additionally, the future introduction of AAM technologies raises a number of policy issues,
including potential landowner rights to low altitude airspace over their properties; noise and
Congressional Research Service

43

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

privacy concerns; and the appropriate role of federal, state, and local governments and private
industry stakeholders in accessing, regulating, and managing airspace and flight operations.
Congress has expressed support for promoting and fostering AAM concepts and addressing
policy issues regarding this emerging technology. The Advanced Air Mobility Coordination and
Leadership Act (P.L. 117-203) mandated the establishment of a federal working group to develop
a national strategy for AAM. It also requires a Government Accountability Office study assessing
the interests, roles, and responsibilities of federal, state, local, and tribal governments regarding
AAM aircraft and operations.
For Further Information
Bart Elias, Specialist in Aviation Policy
CRS Report R42781, Federal Civil Aviation Programs: In Brief
Telecommunications
Telecommunication technologies present several issues for policymakers in the 118th Congress,
including those related to 5G technologies, broadband deployment and the digital divide,
undersea cables, federal spectrum auctions and allocations, and FCC and NTIA spectrum
programs.
5G Telecommunications Technologies
Wireless providers are upgrading to fifth-generation (5G) telecommunication technologies, as 5G
promises faster speeds, more bandwidth, greater interconnectedness of devices, and less lag time
for users, including consumers, businesses, government, and military users. Recognizing that U.S.
leadership in fourth-generation technologies yielded significant economic gains for the country,
Congress in general has taken action to accelerate the deployment of secure 5G networks.
The 118th Congress may continue to focus on U.S. leadership in 5G, U.S. competitiveness with
China, and security of 5G networks in the United States and abroad. It may wish to consider
legislation to provide additional funding to the Secure and Trusted Communications Network
Reimbursement Program, established in P.L. 116-124 to fund the replacement of Chinese
equipment (i.e., Huawei and ZTE equipment) in U.S. networks. In December 2020 (P.L. 116-
260), Congress appropriated $1.9 billion to the FCC for the program. The FCC received $4.98
billion in requests from companies seeking to replace untrusted equipment in their networks.
Congress may also wish to continue its oversight of restrictions imposed under Section 889 of the
John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for FY2019 (P.L. 115-232), enacted August
13, 2018. Within one year of enactment, the act restricts federal agencies from purchasing
“covered” (i.e., Chinese) telecommunications and video surveillance equipment and services due
to national and cybersecurity concerns. Within two years of enactment, the act restricts U.S.
agencies from doing business with companies that use covered equipment and restricts the use of
federal grant and loan funds for covered equipment. Some agencies, such as DOD and the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID), received waivers from the restrictions,
providing them additional time to implement these provisions. DOD’s waiver expired on
September 30, 2022, and USAID’s limited waiver is to expire on September 30, 2028. Congress
may choose to continue its oversight of agency implementation of these provisions and consider
the impact of the restrictions on the U.S. telecommunications industry, equipment users (e.g.,
defense industry, universities, international nonprofits), and security of U.S. networks.
Congressional Research Service

44

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Congress may also wish to assess progress on existing 5G R&D programs in DOD, NIST, and
NSF and new programs funded under the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 (P.L. 116-283), which
provided $1.5 billion to NTIA for the Public Wireless Supply Chain Innovation Fund to develop
open and interoperable network solutions (e.g., Open Radio Access Network technologies).
The 118th Congress may be interested in monitoring the deployment of 5G in rural regions
through oversight of the recent funding programs in IIJA (P.L. 117-58) and the FCC’s 5G Fund
for Rural America, which is expected to be awarded after the FCC finalizes its broadband maps.
For Further Information
Jill Gallagher, Analyst in Telecommunications Policy
CRS Report R47012, U.S. Restrictions on Huawei Technologies: National Security, Foreign
Policy, and Economic Interests
CRS Insight IN11663, Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program:
Frequently Asked Questions
Broadband Deployment and the Digital Divide
Broadband internet service is delivered through a variety of technologies and allows users to send
and receive data at volumes and speeds that support a wide range of applications. Broadband
technologies are currently being deployed throughout the United States, primarily by the private
sector. While broadband deployment continues to progress, there are communities that lack
broadband services entirely or lack affordable broadband service options. These communities are
typically in rural and tribal areas but may also be in urban areas. The gap between those who have
access to broadband internet services and those who do not is often termed the “digital divide.”
As classrooms, workplaces, and social activities migrated online during the COVID-19 pandemic,
the digital divide became increasingly apparent. The 117th Congress passed two bills—the
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2) and IIJA (P.L. 117-58)—which included
broadband appropriations aimed at addressing the digital divide.
The largest federal broadband grant program is the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment
(BEAD) program under the IIJA. This program provides $42.45 billion to states and territories for
broadband deployment, connectivity, mapping, and adoption projects. The BEAD program is
among a total of $48 billion broadband grants administered by NTIA under the IIJA. The calendar
years of 2023 and 2024 will be a critical implementation window for these grants, as NTIA will
review applications and distribute significant portions of the funding.
The 118th Congress could consider a range of broadband-related issues as it continues to address
the digital divide. These include ongoing funding for the broadband programs of USDA’s Rural
Utilities Service, the future of the FCC’s long-standing Universal Service Fund broadband
programs, oversight of broadband investments under the IIJA, adequacy of the currently
established benchmark broadband speed, sufficiency of mapping efforts pursuant to the
Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability Act (P.L. 116-130), streamlining
broadband deployment regulation, potential broadband workforce challenges, how new
broadband technologies may increase coverage, and the role of municipalities as broadband
providers.
For Further Information
Colby Rachfal, Analyst in Telecommunications Policy
Ling Zhu, Analyst in Telecommunications Policy
Congressional Research Service

45

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

CRS Report R46896, Low Earth Orbit Satellites: Potential to Address the Broadband Digital
Divide
CRS Report R46967, The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58): Summary of the
Broadband Provisions in Division F
CRS Report R47075, The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA):
Current Roles and Programs
CRS Report R47225, Expanding Broadband: Potential Role of Municipal Networks to Address
the Digital Divide
CRS In Focus IF12030, The Broadband Digital Divide: What Comes Next for Congress?
CRS In Focus IF12111, Bridging the Digital Divide: Broadband Workforce Considerations for
the 118th Congress
Undersea Telecommunication Cables
Commercial undersea telecommunication cables, which are privately owned and operated, carry
approximately 99% of transoceanic digital communications (e.g., voice, data, internet), including
international financial transactions, and serve as the physical backbone for the internet. Recent
incidents involving cables—damage from a volcanic eruption in Tonga that damaged an undersea
telecommunication cable, an attempted cybersecurity attack on a third-party system connected to
an undersea cable in Hawaii, and threats from Russian ships near cables that enable
communications among North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations—have raised concern among
U.S. officials. The U.S. government has strengthened processes for reviewing foreign ownership
interest of cables landing in the United States, denied approval of a license application for a cable
connecting the United States to China, restricted the use of untrusted equipment in undersea
cables, established an outage reporting system for cables, and expanded its cable repair fleet.
The 118th Congress may wish to consider previous policies and recommendations to strengthen
cable security, including increased U.S. government oversight. A 2017 report found that the
majority of disruptions are caused by human activity (e.g., fishing, anchoring) and natural
disasters, with new cybersecurity risks emerging. An FCC advisory committee identified a need
for a lead agency to coordinate U.S. government agency review of cable landing applications,
facilitate communication between the U.S. government and private sector owners, promote
protection standards (e.g., protection zones, spatial separation), and participate in international
cable protection organizations.
For Further Information
Jill Gallagher, Analyst in Telecommunications Policy
CRS Report R47237, Undersea Telecommunication Cables: Technology Overview and Issues for
Congress
FCC Spectrum Allocation and Interference Concerns
Radio spectrum consists of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that are allocated for various
wireless services, including mobile communications, radar systems, satellites, navigation systems,
and radio and television broadcasting. It is a critical and limited resource for a nation’s economic
well-being.
Congressional Research Service

46

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

The FCC, an independent agency, manages nonfederal use of the radio spectrum. The FCC
allocates segments of spectrum for various uses, such as radio broadcasting, mobile
communications, and satellite services. It grants licenses to nonfederal entities to use specific
frequencies within those bands and sets terms and conditions on use to serve the public interest,
avoid interference between users, and promote the most efficient use of spectrum. NTIA, an
agency of the Department of Commerce, manages federal use of radio spectrum. Together, the
two agencies manage use of the nation’s spectrum.
Since much of the radio spectrum is already in use by federal and nonfederal users, finding
spectrum for new wireless technologies is challenging. The FCC has taken action to allocate
spectrum for 5G wireless communications, holding auctions of several spectrum bands to grant
licenses to the highest bidders, to support 5G deployment and development of 5G technologies,
and to promote U.S. competitiveness in telecommunications. However, in some instances,
incumbent users, including federal agencies, lost spectrum to 5G, while others raised concerns
that 5G use would cause interference with mission-essential functions in nearby bands. Congress
has pressed for greater coordination between the FCC and NTIA and the development of a long-
term spectrum strategy to identify bands for next generation technologies while also protecting
federal use.
The 118th Congress may wish to consider options that address both the economic benefits of
expanded 5G deployment and federal agency concerns about the impact of 5G use on agency
missions. The 118th Congress may consider designating bands for auction or authorizing the FCC
to auction bands for 5G and next generation technologies. Other potential actions could include
funding or incentivizing private investment in R&D of spectrum-sharing capabilities, interference
mitigation methods, and upgrades to federal receivers and systems to avoid interference from 5G
systems in neighboring bands.
For Further Information
Jill Gallagher, Analyst in Telecommunications Policy
CRS In Focus IF12046, National Spectrum Policy: Interference Issues in the 5G Context
CRS Insight IN12023, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine Report on
Ligado Networks and the Interference Debate
CRS In Focus IF12028, Aviation Concerns Regarding the Rollout of 5G Wireless
Telecommunications Networks
NTIA Federal Spectrum Issues
In the United States, as noted in the previous section, the FCC regulates nonfederal spectrum use,
and NTIA has the delegated authority to assign and manage frequencies for federal use. NTIA
also presents to the FCC the views of the executive branch agencies on spectrum issues. The FCC
and NTIA coordinate spectrum allocations, which are not perpetual and may be reassigned. Over
90% of U.S. radio spectrum is shared between federal and nonfederal users. The FCC and NTIA
coordinate this sharing to avoid harmful interference and resolve technical, procedural, and policy
differences. By statute (47 U.S.C. §922), the two agencies must meet regularly to conduct joint
spectrum planning.
To help address the growing demand for spectrum used by advanced wireless communication
services, including 5G communications, Congress has directed NTIA to identify federal
frequencies that can be reallocated to the FCC for commercial or shared use. A major challenge of
spectrum repurposing is that users operating in adjacent frequencies do not always agree on
Congressional Research Service

47

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

measurement of harmful interference and mitigation methods. This issue has drawn congressional
attention as, in several cases, the FCC issued licenses for commercial use, while NTIA and
federal agencies using adjacent frequencies raised concerns that, for example, a new 5G service
could cause harmful interference to nearby federal devices and operations. Some of these
interference disputes will continue in the 118th Congress.
The 118th Congress may wish to consider a range of federal spectrum issues as it continues to
shape national spectrum policy to weigh public and private interests in wireless operations, to
make spectrum allocation and access efficient and sustainable, to facilitate deployment of
wireless broadband services, and to ensure U.S. competitiveness and leadership in advanced
wireless communications technologies. The issues may include (1) whether to renew efforts to
develop, formalize, and implement a national strategy to manage spectrum resources, particularly
to inventory, assess, and create a pipeline of spectrum availability and use to help plan for current
and long-term demand; (2) oversight of the FCC and NTIA, particularly their collaboration in
repurposing federal spectrum for commercial services and their coordination in addressing
disputes of frequency allocation and interference; and (3) oversight and assessment of federal
resources and efforts invested in spectrum-related R&D, particularly in dynamic spectrum sharing
and advanced wireless communications technologies.
For Further Information
Ling Zhu, Analyst in Telecommunications Policy
CRS Report R47075, The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA):
Current Roles and Programs
CRS In Focus IF12046, National Spectrum Policy: Interference Issues in the 5G Context
CRS Video WVB00471, National Spectrum Policy: Concepts, Issues, and Options for Congress
Water
The reliable supply of water in sufficient quantities supports the U.S. population and economy,
including public and ecosystem health, agriculture, and industry (e.g., energy production,
fisheries, manufacturing, and navigation). Federal water research activities and facilities span
numerous agencies and laboratories and include both cooperative agreements with and grants to
nonfederal researchers. Drinking water contamination and recent droughts, floods, and storms
have increased interest in innovative technologies and practices (including approaches that mimic
nature, often referred to as green infrastructure or nature-based infrastructure). The 118th
Congress may wish to consider water research and technology topics, which can be broadly
divided into water data and aquatic ecosystem information, water infrastructure and water use,
and water quality.
Water Data and Aquatic Ecosystem Information
Science and research agencies collect marine and freshwater data using in situ and remote
technologies and may also conduct related modeling of past, current, and future conditions and
issue associated forecasts and outlooks. Topics of interest related to water data and aquatic
ecosystem information research may include the following:
 Water monitoring infrastructure and science programs (e.g., programs for
drought, groundwater and streamflow, evapotranspiration, and water quality);
Congressional Research Service

48

link to page 47 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

 Next-generation water observing systems, modeling frameworks and machine
learning for informing predictions;
 Water-related weather, climate, and Earth system science, including hurricane,
rainfall, and associated in situ and remote sensing monitoring and data collection
(see, for example, “Civil Earth-Observing Satellites”);
 Monitoring and modeling ocean and coastal changes (e.g., warming,
acidification, loss of oxygen, relative sea-level rise rates);
 Monitoring and management of aquatic invasive species and harmful algal
blooms;
 Standardization, access, dissemination, and use of water data; and
 Coordination of water science and research.
For Further Information
Anna E. Normand, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Laura Gatz, Analyst in Environmental Policy
Caitlin Keating-Bitonti, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Eva Lipiec, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
CRS Report R47021, Federal Involvement in Ocean-Based Research and Development
CRS In Focus IF10719, Forecasting Tropical Cyclones: NOAA’s Role
CRS Report R47300, Ocean Acidification: Frequently Asked Questions
CRS Report R46921, Marine Harmful Algal Blooms (HABs): Background, Statutory Authorities,
and Issues for Congress
Water Infrastructure and Water Use
Water infrastructure research includes techniques to prolong and improve the performance of
existing infrastructure and the development of next-generation infrastructure technologies. Some
water infrastructure and water use research topics include
 water augmentation and efficiency technologies and science, including
stormwater capture, water reuse, and groundwater storage and recovery;
 technologies and materials for monitoring and rehabilitating aging infrastructure,
such as structural health monitors and leak detection;
 use of forecasts in the operation of existing reservoirs;
 resilience of infrastructure to droughts, floods, hurricanes, and other natural
hazards through gray and green technologies; and
 costs and benefits of utilizing and expanding natural or nature-based features to
support water storage, navigation, and other activities.
For Further Information
Nicole T. Carter, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Eva Lipiec, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Elena H. Humphreys, Analyst in Environmental Policy
Congressional Research Service

49

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

CRS Report R46911, Drought in the United States: Science, Policy, and Selected Federal
Authorities
Water Quality
Quality of drinking water, surface water, groundwater, and marine water is important for public
health, environmental protection, food security, and other purposes. Technologies for preventing
contamination and for identifying and treating existing contamination is an ongoing research
topic for the federal government. Some research topics include
 analytical methods and treatment technologies to detect and manage emerging
contaminants (e.g., cyanotoxins associated with harmful algal blooms, per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances, and microplastics);
 technologies to prevent and manage contamination at drinking water treatment
plants and in distribution systems (e.g., real-time monitoring, treatment to
minimize disinfection byproducts, and lead pipe corrosion control); and
 innovative technologies and practices to protect or improve water quality (e.g.,
green infrastructure, watershed management, and nonpoint source pollution
management), including methods for increasing resilience of drinking water
systems against natural events and disasters.
For Further Information
Laura Gatz, Analyst in Environmental Policy
Elena H. Humphreys, Analyst in Environmental Policy
CRS Report R45998, Contaminants of Emerging Concern Under the Clean Water Act
CRS Report R45986, Federal Role in Responding to Potential Risks of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl
Substances (PFAS)

Congressional Research Service

50

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Author Information

Frank Gottron, Coordinator
Angela C. Jones
Acting Section Research Manager
Analyst in Environmental Policy

Jason A. Gallo, Coordinator
Caitlin Keating-Bitonti
Section Research Manager
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Lisa S. Benson
Todd Kuiken
Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Analyst in Science and Technology Policy

Emily G. Blevins
Julie M. Lawhorn
Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
Analyst in Economic Development Policy

Kelsi Bracmort
Ashley J. Lawson
Specialist in Natural Resources and Energy Policy
Analyst in Energy Policy

Valerie C. Brannon
Jane A. Leggett
Legislative Attorney
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy

Kristen E. Busch
Adam G. Levin
Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
Analyst in Economic Development Policy

Nicole T. Carter
Chris D. Linebaugh
Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Legislative Attorney

Clare Y. Cho
Eva Lipiec
Analyst in Industrial Organization and Business
Analyst in Natural Resources Policy

Corrie E. Clark
Daniel Morgan
Specialist in Energy Policy
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

Laura B. Comay

Specialist in Natural Resources Policy

Cheryl R. Cooper

Analyst in Financial Economics

Bart Elias

Specialist in Aviation Policy

Kristin Finklea

Specialist in Domestic Security

Congressional Research Service

51

Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress

Jill C. Gallagher

Analyst in Telecommunications Policy

Marcy E. Gallo

Analyst in Science and Technology Policy

Laura Gatz

Specialist in Environmental Policy

Gary Guenther

Analyst in Public Finance

Laurie A. Harris

Analyst in Science and Technology Policy

Jonathan D. Haskett

Analyst in Environmental Policy

Kevin J. Hickey

Legislative Attorney

Eric N. Holmes

Attorney-Adviser (Constitution Annotated)

Elena H. Humphreys

Analyst in Environmental Policy

Chris Jaikaran

Specialist in Cybersecurity Policy

Renée Johnson

Specialist in Agricultural Policy

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R47373 · VERSION 3 · UPDATED
52