The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy: Issues and Options for the 118th Congress

July 26, 2023 R47635

The White House Office of Science and
July 26, 2023
Technology Policy: Issues and Options for the
Emily G. Blevins
118th Congress
Analyst in Science and
Technology Policy
Congress has a longstanding interest in the development and implementation of science and

technology (S&T) policies across the federal government as well as the effective coordination of
Rachael D. Roan
multi-agency research and development (R&D) initiatives. To ensure a permanent source of
Senior Research Librarian
S&T-related advice and policy coordination within the White House, Congress established the

Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) within the Executive Office of the President
(EOP) through the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of

1976 (P.L. 94-282). The act charged it with serving as “a source of scientific and technological
analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal Government.”
OSTP develops and coordinates the implementation of federal S&T policies and R&D initiatives through the work of the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). Established in 1993 by Executive Order 12881, the NSTC is composed
of representatives from federal departments and agencies with significant S&T responsibilities and is charged with
coordinating S&T policy across the federal government.
The 118th Congress may be interested in a number of recent and ongoing issues related to the policy and coordination duties
of OSTP and the NSTC. For example, Congress may consider potential issues and policy options related to the status of un-
filled OSTP leadership positions and general staffing practices under the Biden Administration as well as the role of OSTP
and the NSTC in coordinating federal R&D initiatives and policies related to quantum information science (QIS), artificial
intelligence (AI), and research security.
As of June 2023, President Biden has not nominated any of the four authorized Associate Director positions within OSTP.
The OSTP Director has established Deputy Director positions (which do not require Senate confirmation) to lead OSTP’s six
policy teams. The 118th Congress may consider whether these unfilled positions may influence OSTP’s ability to perform its
mission or may impede congressional oversight of OSTP activities.
The ability of OSTP to perform its statutory duties related to developing and coordinating S&T policy depends, in part, on
the size of its budget and staff. To increase staff levels beyond what is funded through congressional appropriations, OSTP
has long relied on detailees, IPAs (Intergovernmental Personnel Act; individuals from outside the federal government
appointed through the IPA Mobility Program), and fellows. The 118th Congress may continue consideration of OSTP staffing
practices, including the recruitment of S&T experts from outside the government and methods to guard against potential
conflicts of interest and undue influence of private interests on the development of public S&T policies and priorities.
The NSTC also receives direction from Congress through statutory mandates. For example, Congress has charged the NSTC
with specific statutory duties related to the coordination of multi-agency R&D initiatives. The 118th Congress might consider
the efficacy of NSTC coordination efforts in the congressionally mandated areas of QIS and AI R&D. In doing so, Congress
may consider issues and options related to potential resource constraints as well as the adequacy of the NSTC’s organization
and current authorities to maintain continuity across presidential administrations.
Congress has charged OSTP, working through the NSTC, with standardizing agency policies related to research security. In
January 2022, the NSTC Subcommittee on Research Security released guidance related to the required disclosure of potential
conflicts of interest and commitment held by participants in the federally funded research and development (R&D) enterprise.
Standardized “common disclosure forms,” which are to be required elements of all applications for federal R&D grants or
cooperative agreements, are expected to be released in 2023, and their implementation may spur congressional oversight.

Congressional Research Service

link to page 40 OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

Contacts
Author Information ........................................................................................................................ 36

Congressional Research Service

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

o ensure a permanent source of science and technology-related advice and policy
coordination within the White House, Congress established the Office of Science and
T Technology Policy (OSTP) within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) through the
National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-282).
Congress charged OSTP with serving as “a source of scientific and technological analysis and
judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the Federal
Government.”
OSTP develops and coordinates federal science and technology (S&T) policies and research and
development (R&D) initiatives through the work of the National Science and Technology Council
(NSTC). Established in 1993 by Executive Order 12881, the NSTC is composed of
representatives from federal departments and agencies with significant S&T responsibilities and
is charged with coordinating S&T policy across the federal government.
This report provides selected background on OSTP and the NSTC and discusses related issues
and options that may be particularly relevant for the 118th Congress, including the status of un-
filled OSTP leadership positions and general staffing practices under the Biden Administration as
well as the role of OSTP and the NSTC in coordinating federal R&D initiatives and policies
related to quantum information science (QIS), artificial intelligence (AI), and research security.
This report does not provide a comprehensive overview of the White House S&T advisory
structure, which, in addition to OSTP and the NSTC, consists of the Assistant to the President for
Science and Technology and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST), among others. For such information and analysis, see CRS Report R47410, The Office
of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): Overview and Issues for Congress, by Emily G.
Blevins.
Background
The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)
Situated within the Executive Office of the President (EOP), OSTP provides advice to the
President on policies for the conduct and use of S&T in addressing national concerns or
challenges. Within its statutory authorities, the composition and policy focus of OSTP have varied
according to the priorities of different Administrations.
Under President Biden, OSTP describes its mission as working to “maximize the benefits of
science and technology to advance health, prosperity, security, environmental quality, and justice
for all Americans.” OSTP states that the specific duties it performs in service to this mission
include:
providing advice to the President and the Executive Office of the President on all matters
related to science and technology; stewarding the creation of bold visions, unified
strategies, clear plans, wise policies, and effective, equitable programs for science and
technology, working with departments and agencies across the federal government and
with Congress; engaging with external partners, including industry, academia,
philanthropic organizations, and civil society; state, local, tribal and territorial
governments; and other nations; and working to ensure inclusion and integrity in all aspects
of science and technology.1

1 The White House, “Office of Science and Technology Policy,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp.
Congressional Research Service

1

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

Additionally, OSTP has several roles not articulated in these formal statements, including serving
as a conduit of information about S&T policy objectives and priorities to and from agency
executives; facilitating agency coordination and integration of S&T strategies and activities; and
helping resolve potential interagency conflicts over overlapping areas of responsibility. OSTP
also plays a managerial and executive role with respect to other White House science and
technology entities. OSTP exercises policy and programmatic oversight of PCAST and manages
the NSTC.
The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)
Created by Executive Order 12881, the NSTC is a cabinet-level body composed of federal agency
and department heads charged with coordinating S&T policy and advising the President. The
main functions of the NSTC are to:
Coordinate the S&T policy-making process; ensure that S&T policy decisions and
programs are consistent with the President’s policy priorities; integrate the President’s S&T
policy agenda across the Federal Government; ensure that S&T are considered in
developing and implementing Federal policies and programs; and to further international
S&T cooperation.2
Under President Biden, the work of the NSTC is organized through six committees, which are
each co-chaired by an OSTP representative and an agency or department representative. OSTP
identifies the six committees as the Committee on Science (CoS), the Committee on STEM
Education (CoSTEM), the Committee on Environment (CoE), the Committee on Technology
(CoT), the Committee on Homeland and National Security (CHNS), and the Committee on
Science and Technology Enterprise (CSTE).
Selected Issues and Policy Options
While OSTP’s degree of influence and level of activity within presidential Administrations varies,
certain issues persist related to the structure and function of OSTP and the NSTC that may be of
interest to Congress. In particular, the 118th Congress may opt to consider:
• the implications of OSTP’s four statutorily authorized Associate Director
positions remaining unfilled;
• the adequacy of OSTP’s staffing level in enabling it to execute its statutory
responsibilities;
• efforts by OSTP and the NSTC to coordinate federal R&D initiatives, such as the
National Quantum Initiative and the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative;
and
• efforts by OSTP and the NSTC to coordinate federal R&D policies, such as the
development and implementation of standardized disclosure requirements related
to research security.
The following sections address each of these issues along with potential policy options for
Congress.

2 The White House, “National Science and Technology Council,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/nstc.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 7

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

OSTP’s Unfilled Associate Director (AD) Positions
Congress established OSTP within the EOP through P.L. 94-282, which outlined the office’s basic
organizational structure and afforded the President significant flexibility in determining the
number and types of positions to be established within OSTP. The statute (P.L. 94-282, as
amended and codified at 42 U.S.C. §§6611 et seq.) allows for:
• one office head—the OSTP Director—to be nominated by the President and
confirmed by the Senate;
• not more than four Associate Directors, for which topical foci are not ascribed in
statute, to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate; and
• a Chief Technology Officer (CTO), who counts as one of the four Associate
Directors and is therefore to be nominated by the President and confirmed by the
Senate.
As of June 2023, one of the five positions in statute is filled. The Senate confirmed Arati
Prabhakar as OSTP Director on September 22, 2022. President Biden has not nominated
individuals for the other positions.3
Congress has chosen not to authorize or require the creation of specific policy divisions or teams
within OSTP. As a result, presidential Administrations may structure OSTP according to their
preferences and policy priorities. This has typically included the creation of divisions or teams to
organize the office’s advisory and coordination duties into specific policy areas. As Figure 1
illustrates, the Biden Administration’s OSTP is composed of the Director’s Office and six policy
teams: Climate and Environment; Energy; Health and Life Sciences; National Security; Science
and Society; and the U.S. Chief Technology Officer (also referred to as the Tech Team). During
the Trump Administration, OSTP had three divisions: Science, Technology, and National
Security. Previous Administrations selected other structures.
Figure 1. OSTP Organization Under President Biden

Source: OSTP organization as of February 2023. White House, “OSTP’s Teams,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/
ostp/ostps-teams. CRS graphic.
The number of Senate-confirmed Associate Director positions has varied under different
presidential Administrations.4 President Biden’s administration has appointed Deputy Directors,
Principal Assistant Directors or a Principal Deputy U.S. CTO—positions that do not require

3 The Partnership for Public Service and the Washington Post, “Political Appointee Tracker,”
https://ourpublicservice.org/performance-measures/political-appointee-tracker/.
4 Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), “OSTP Full of Firsts,” White House OSTP Blog, September 24,
2010, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2010/09/24/ostp-full-first; Jim Dawson, “OSTP Associate Directors
Confirmed,” Physics Today, September 2002, p. 33, https://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/abs/10.1063/1.4796856;
“Clinton Nominates Physicists for Key OSTP Positions,” APS News, November 1997, https://www.aps.org/
publications/apsnews/199711/ostp.cfm; CRS discussions with Stanley Sokul, Chief of Staff, George W. Bush
Administration OSTP, August 14, 2008.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 8 link to page 28 OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

presidential nomination or Senate confirmation, to lead the six core policy teams.5 President
Trump appointed three Principal Assistant Directors and nominated one Associate Director,
whom the Senate confirmed.6
It is most common to have fewer than four confirmed Associate Directors. During the 45 years of
OSTP’s existence (1977-2022), there have been three periods during which OSTP had four
presidentially nominated and Senate-confirmed Associate Directors simultaneously. These
periods amounted to a total of approximately five years:
• 1991-1993 (2-year span)
• 1994-1996 (2-year span)
• 1998-1999 (1-year span)
For a period of eight years (2003-2010), the U.S. Government Manual lists two OSTP policy
divisions or teams, both led by an individual who had been nominated by the President and
confirmed by the Senate. During the remaining 32 of 45 years, OSTP had at least one policy
division or team led by an individual who was neither nominated by the President nor confirmed
by the Senate.7
Table 1 summarizes the number of OSTP Associate Director nominations issued during each
Administration and the number of those nominations that were confirmed by the Senate (see
Appendix A for detailed information regarding each nomination).
Table 1. OSTP Associate Director Nominations and Confirmations: Summary
Total Associate
Director
Total Senate-Confirmed
Administration
Nominations
Associate Directors
Jimmy Carter (1977-1981)
0
0
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
4
4
George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
6
6
Wil iam Clinton (1993-2001)
12
10
George W. Bush (2001-2009)
3
3
Barack Obama (2009-2017)
11
5
Donald Trump (2017-2021)
1
1
Joseph R. Biden (2021-present)
0
0
Source: CRS analysis of results col ected by searching the Congressional Record and the “Nominations” col ection
in Congress.gov as well as the Congressional Record in ProQuest Congressional for the fol owing terms and
phrases: associate director, Office of Science and Technology Policy, nomination, and confirmation.
Notes: Nominations totals may include multiple nominations of the same individual for the same position and
may not reflect the number of nominations issued simultaneously during one Administration. The Ford

5 Will Thomas, “Biden Rounding Out Appointments to Top Science Positions,” FYI Bulletin, American Institute for
Physics, September 8, 2021, https://ww2.aip.org/fyi/2021/biden-rounding-out-appointments-top-science-positions.
6 Email communication from OSTP to CRS, May 2, 2019.
7 Though President Obama issued nominations to fill all four Associate Director positions authorized by Congress, his
nomination for Associate Director for National Security and International Affairs, Phil Coyle, was not confirmed by the
Senate. See Archived White House, President Barack Obama, “OSTP Full of Firsts,” September 24, 2010,
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2010/09/24/ostp-full-first.
Congressional Research Service

4

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

Administration has been excluded from this list because OSTP was established near the end of that
Administration. Totals for the Biden Administration are current as of July 26, 2023.
a. During the Reagan Administration, Associate Directors were referred to as “Deputy Directors” and, based
on information provided in the U.S. Government Manual, did not appear to lead policy divisions, with one
exception: from 1985-1986 Bernadine H. Bulkley served concurrently as OSTP Deputy Director and head
of the Life Sciences policy division.
Vacancies in leadership positions could also affect the ability of OSTP to perform its mission and
meet its objectives. For example, some Members of Congress have urged President Biden to
nominate an individual to serve as the United States Chief Technology Officer (CTO), arguing the
need for a CTO “to support the development and execution of the Administration’s spectrum
policy.”8
Some observers have argued that President Biden’s decision not to nominate a CTO could
negatively impact federal technology policy across a number of areas and hamper the adoption of
best practices for the use of new technologies in federal agency operations.9 Echoing such
concerns in their first formal report released in May 2023, the National Artificial Intelligence
Advisory Committee (NAIAC)10 recommended that the President immediately appoint a CTO,
given the role’s importance to “ensuring leadership and consistency in AI preparedness, policy
organization, and implementation across the executive branch.”11
Congress may consider a number of legislative options and oversight activities to influence
OSTP’s organization and activities. For example, Congress might opt to limit the President’s
administrative discretion over whether and how to establish OSTP Associate Director positions
and make related appointments. Currently, statutory language specifically establishes the position
of OSTP Director and, by contrast, authorizes the appointment of “not more than four” Associate
Directors as well as the potential designation of one of those Associate Directors as CTO.
In 42 U.S.C. §6612(a), Congress specifies the following about the OSTP Director position:
There shall be at the head of the Office a Director who shall be appointed by the President,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate....
42 U.S.C. §6612(b) and 42 U.S.C. §6612(c) specify the following about the Associate Director
and CTO positions within OSTP:
The President is authorized to appoint not more than four Associate Directors, by and with
the advice and consent of the Senate, ...
Subject to subsection (b), the President is authorized to designate 1 of the Associate
Directors under that subsection as a United States Chief Technology Officer.

8 Letter from Doris Matsui, Member of Congress, Anna G. Eshoo, Member of Congress, and Ann McLane Kuster,
Member of Congress, et al. to The Honorable Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President, February 3, 2022,
https://matsui.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/matsui.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/
Matsui%20Spectrum%20Letter%202.22.pdf; Congresswoman Doris Matsui (CA-07), “Matsui and Colleagues Urge
Biden Administration to Bolster NTIA, Nominate CTO,” press release, February 4, 2022, https://matsui.house.gov/
media/press-releases/matsui-and-colleagues-urge-biden-administration-bolster-ntia-nominate-cto.
9 Stephen Levy, “Joe Biden, and the Country, Could Really Use a CTO,” Wired, April 22, 2022,
https://www.wired.com/story/plaintext-joe-biden-cto/; Kathy Kemper, “The U.S. Needs a New Chief Technology
Officer Sooner Rather Than Later,” The Hill, December 3, 2022, Opinion, https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/
3759910-the-us-needs-a-new-chief-technology-officer-sooner-rather-than-later/.
10 The National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee (NAIAC) was created by P.L. 116-283 to advise the
President and National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Office on matters related to artificial intelligence.
11 P.L. 116-283; National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee, National Artificial Intelligence Advisory
Committee (NAIAC): Year 1, May 2023, p. 19, https://www.ai.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/NAIAC-Report-
Year1.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 8 link to page 28 OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

Mandate a Fixed Number of Associate Directors in Statute
Congress could opt to mandate a fixed number of Associate Directors by amending 42 U.S.C.
§6612(b). Though this could create a stronger statutory basis for the establishment of Associate
Director positions, the President might still not issue nominations for the positions.12 In such
cases, Congress might still choose to exercise oversight authority in urging the President to issue
nominations. The creation of a stronger statutory mandate for the establishment of Associate
Director positions might lend additional emphasis to related oversight activity.
Specify Areas of Policy Focus for Associate Director Positions
Congress could seek to specify certain areas of responsibility for Associate Directors to ensure
that OSTP is adequately addressing S&T areas of importance to Congress. Statute requires the
OSTP Director to fulfill a number of functions and responsibilities.13 However, Congress has
specified that one Associate Director shall also be designated as U.S. CTO and not assigned roles
to the others. 42 U.S.C. §6612(b) states that Associate Directors “shall perform such functions as
the Director may prescribe.”14 Assigning specific functions in statute might strengthen
congressional influence over OSTP policy priorities. On the other hand, assigning specific
statutory policy functions to Associate Directors may create structural rigidity that could impede
OSTP’s ability to remain responsive to the changing S&T landscape.
Leave Leadership Selection to the OSTP Director’s Discretion
Congress could opt to leave the selection of OSTP leadership positions to the discretion of the
President or OSTP Director, either by retaining the statutory status quo or potentially by repealing
the current statutory direction regarding Associate Directors and the CTO. This could give the
OSTP Director maximum flexibility to adapt to changes in technology and evolving S&T policy
priorities. It might also acknowledge the possibility that even if Congress mandated a certain
number of Associate Directors, potentially with statutorily specified areas of responsibility, the
President might still opt not to issue corresponding nominations. For example, though President
Biden has not nominated a U.S. CTO, the OSTP Director has established the position of Principal
Deputy U.S. CTO within OSTP, which appears to perform some of the activities envisioned by
Congress.15 As previously noted (see the above analysis of content contained in Table 1 and
Appendix A), OSTP Directors have often created such assistant or deputy-level positions to lead
the office’s policy divisions.16
On the other hand, it is sometimes the case that individuals in positions that require nomination
by the President and confirmation by the Senate (known as PAS positions) have greater authority
and influence in agency and interagency deliberations. Congress may consider whether OSTP’s
reliance on leadership positions that lack the authority vested in a PAS Associate Director might
impede the office’s ability to effectively coordinate S&T policy across federal agencies and

12 For more information, see CRS Report RS21412, Temporarily Filling Presidentially Appointed, Senate-Confirmed
Positions, by Henry B. Hogue.
13 42 U.S.C. §6613.
14 42 U.S.C. §6612(b).
15 Though the Principal Deputy U.S. CTO is listed, the duties and responsibilities are not enumerated. See The White
House, OSTP Teams, “U.S. Chief Technology Officer,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ostps-teams/u-s-chief-
technology-officer.
16 For a description of OSTP’s policy teams under President Biden, see Table 1, “OSTP Policy Teams Under President
Biden” in CRS Report R47410, The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): Overview and Issues for
Congress, by Emily G. Blevins.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 18 link to page 18 link to page 12 OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

departments, especially when working with colleagues in other agencies who occupy PAS
positions. For associated considerations and options related to OSTP’s role in coordinating
federal S&T policies, see the below section, “OSTP and NSTC Coordination of Federal R&D
Initiatives.”
OSTP Staffing Levels
OSTP’s ability to perform its statutory duties depends, in part, on the size of its budget and staff.
To increase staff levels beyond what annual congressional appropriations support, OSTP has long
relied on detailees, fellows, and Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) appointments (see shaded
box below for a description of each staffing categories). The historical use of non-permanent staff
within OSTP across Administrations may indicate a consistent view of a need for more staff
capacity within OSTP. This use of non-permanent staff may pose particular challenges regarding
funding, conflicts of interest, and institutional knowledge.
As of this report’s publication date, OSTP has not publicly disclosed the total number of detailees,
IPAs, and fellows employed by the office during the Biden Administration. CRS analysis of
available staffing information suggests that OSTP currently employs a high ratio of such staffing
categories compared to reported full-time equivalent (FTE) levels. FTE positions (expressed in
terms of the number of regular hours worked by a full-time employee over one year) represent the
number of staff Congress has authorized OSTP to directly support through appropriations.17
OSTP’s annual budget contains authorized FTE levels for each fiscal year. The most recent
budget reported 26 FTEs for FY2022 and an estimated 42 FTEs for FY2023 (see Figure 2). For
comparison, OSTP published a staff list on October 20, 2022, showing a total of 136 staff.18

17 For example, one employee working 40 hours per week for a year equals 1 FTE, and two employees each working
20 hours per week for a year also equals 1 FTE.
18 White House, “OSTP Staff,” October 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/OSTP-Staff-
10-20-2022.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

7

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

Figure 2. OSTP Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Levels, FY1993-FY2024
(FY2023-FY2024 are estimates)

Source: CRS analysis of data from OMB, Budget of the United States Government, FY1993-FY2024. Actual staffing
numbers are provided two years later. For example, actual staffing for FY2018 comes from the FY2020 budget.
OMB did not provide data for FY2001; CRS has estimated the number of FTEs for FY2001 based on information
provided by OSTP. FY2023 and FY2024 FTE levels are listed as “estimates” in the FY2024 budget.
Notes: Data reported are in ful -time equivalents (FTE, the number of regular hours worked by a ful -time
employee over one year) and may not equal number of staff as some staff may be part-time or may be employed
for less than a ful year. Data do not include staff or FTEs funded by agencies or organizations other than OSTP,
such as detailees, IPAs, and fellows. Historical data includes ful -time equivalent of holiday and overtime hours.
CRS analysis of historical staffing data suggests that the Biden Administration’s estimated
reliance on non-FTE positions at OSTP is comparable to previous administrations. For example,
during the Trump and G.W. Bush Administrations, detailees, IPAs, and fellows accounted for
more than half of OSTP’s total staff, and during the Clinton and Obama Administrations, they
accounted for approximately two-thirds of total staff.19
Some might argue that OSTP’s reliance on non-permanent staff such as detailees, fellows, and
IPAs has served a vital function in enabling OSTP to fulfill its statutory duties. Potential
rationales for this view may include the ability for non-permanent staff to contribute new ideas
and considerations to OSTP activities, strengthen OSTP’s connections with federal science
agencies, and increase OSTP’s S&T expertise—specifically its ability to remain responsive to the
latest developments and changes within the S&T landscape.
The 118th Congress may consider a range of issues and options associated with OSTP’s
longstanding reliance on staffing categories that involve temporary appointments of individuals
from within and outside the federal government and that may involve partial or full support from
external funding sources.

19 Email communication from OSTP to CRS, July 27, 2017.
Congressional Research Service

8

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

Overview of Select Mechanisms Used by OSTP to Staff Positions
OSTP has traditionally relied on a number of hiring mechanisms to employ a combination of permanent staff,
political appointees, individuals on assignment from federal agencies, individuals on temporary assignment from
outside the federal government, and fellows. Selected staffing categories include:
•
Detailees—A detail is an official y approved temporary assignment of a civil service employee (informally
called a “detailee”) to a different position in another federal agency. The employee’s official title, series, grade,
rate of compensation, and permanent employer do not change. Detailees are typically funded by their home
agencies, though some associated costs may be reimbursed by the assigned agency.
•
IPAs—The Office of Personnel Management’s Intergovernmental Personnel Act Mobility Program provides
for the temporary assignment of personnel (IPAs) between the federal government and state and local
governments, col eges and universities, Indian tribal governments, federally funded research and development
centers, and other eligible organizations. IPAs may be funded by OSTP, their home organizations, or a
combination of the two.
•
Fellows—In the OSTP context, fellows are scientists and engineers who come to Washington, DC, to gain
experience in public policy and provide science and technical advice to policymakers. Their salaries are often
funded by external organizations, such as academic societies and foundations. Most are recent graduates of
doctoral programs, but some are more experienced staff from industry or universities. Fellows generally
come for one year, but that time can be extended.
Request Staffing Category Data
To assess the adequacy of OSTP staffing levels and potential issues stemming from over-reliance
on one staffing category versus another, Congress may exercise oversight of OSTP by directing it
to report on the total number of employees serving under each staffing category. OSTP has
typically made this information available upon request during previous presidential
Administrations. For example, according to OSTP, as of February 14, 2020, OSTP’s workforce
under the Trump Administration consisted of 4 political staff, 21 career staff, 2 unpaid
consultants, 1 paid consultant, 34 detailees, 4 IPAs, and 5 fellows. During the Obama
Administration, OSTP began with approximately 30 and ended with approximately 70 detailees,
IPAs, and fellows.20 During the G.W. Bush Administration, OSTP had approximately 30-40
detailees per year. Toward the end of the Clinton Administration, OSTP had approximately 60
detailees and fellows.21
Limit OSTP’s Use of IPA Appointments
Because OSTP has not publicly disclosed staffing category totals, it is difficult to assess whether
OSTP currently relies on one staffing category more than another. OSTP’s use of one staffing
category—IPA appointments—however, has faced increased scrutiny. News reports and
congressional oversight inquiries have questioned whether individuals serving on IPA
appointments might shape federal S&T policy in ways that could raise concerns about potential
conflicts of interest.22

20 OSTP staffing details during the Trump and Obama Administration provided via email communication from OSTP
to CRS, February 26, 2020.
21 Email communication from OSTP to CRS, July 27, 2017.
22Concern surrounding the use of IPA appointments has not been limited to OSTP. Congress has directed GAO to study
potential issues pertaining to IPA appointments at the Department of Homeland Security and the National Science
Foundation. See U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: DHS’s Actions to Recruit and Retain
Staff and Comply with the Vacancies Reform Act, GAO-07-758 , July 2007, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-07-
758.pdf; U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: DHS Needs to Improve Ethics-Related
Management Controls for the Science and Technology Directorate, GAO-06-206, December 2005; and U.S.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

9

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

For example, Politico reported that former Google CEO Eric Schmidt contributed money to the
nonprofit Federation of American Scientists (FAS) to support the salaries of “more than two
dozen officials in the Biden administration” including at least two individuals who worked at
OSTP as IPAs from FAS, including the chief of staff for a six-week period.23 The Tech
Transparency Project, a nonprofit watchdog organization, has argued that Schmidt’s alleged
financial contributions to staff salaries pose a significant conflict of interest given that, while
employed at OSTP, such staff may be in the position to shape policy priorities in areas where
Schmidt holds a financial interest.24
On March 28, 2022, Schmidt Futures issued a “Statement on Science Funding,” which refuted
Politico’s charges of exerting “undue influence” over policy decisions at OSTP. The statement
explained that Schmidt Futures had joined 20 other organizations or initiatives in contributing
funds to the Federation of American Scientists’ Talent Hub fund that supports fellowships (or in
this case, IPA appointments) in the federal government.25 Referring to OSTP as “chronically
underfunded,” the statement cited the office’s long history of bringing in technical expertise to
address a rapidly changing S&T landscape and argued that the practice was explicitly permitted
by a section of OSTP’s founding statute codified at 42 U.S.C. §6617(a)(4), which states that, in
exercising the office’s functions, the OSTP Director shall:
Utilize with their consent to the fullest extent possible the services, personnel, equipment,
facilities, and information (including statistical information) of public and private agencies
and organizations, and individuals, in order to avoid duplication of effort and expense, and
may transfer funds made available pursuant this chapter to other Federal agencies as
reimbursement for the utilization of such personnel, services, facilities, equipment, and
information.
Based on such concerns, the 118th Congress might consider limiting OSTP’s reliance on IPA
appointments by amending statute to restrict the types of duties an IPA appointee may perform.26
For example, potential conflict of interest concerns might be greater if an IPA appointee is serving
in a senior position with significant policymaking responsibilities.
The Intergovernmental Personnel Act (as amended and codified at 5 U.S.C. §§3371-3375)
provides the legal authority underpinning the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) IPA
Mobility Program. OPM, which is responsible for implementing the IPA Mobility Program, issues
implementing regulations, which are codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) at 5
C.F.R. Part 334.27

Government Accountability Office, National Science Foundation: A Workforce Strategy and Evaluation of Results
Could Improve Use of Rotating Scientists, Engineers, and Educators, GAO-18-533 , September 2018,
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-533.pdf.
23 Alex Thompson, “A Google Billionaire’s Fingerprints Are All Over Biden’s Science Office,” Politico, March 28,
2022, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/28/google-billionaire-joe-biden-science-office-00020712.
24 OSTP’s former general counsel raised such concerns in internal emails obtained by Politico as cited in ibid.; a
Brookings Institution fellow claims Schmidt is attempting to influence AI policy in Alex Thompson, “Ex-Google Boss
Helps Fund Dozens of Jobs in Biden’s Administration,” Politico, December 22, 2022; and Tech Transparency Project,
“Eric Schmidt’s Expanding Influence Apparatus,” December 20, 2022, https://www.techtransparencyproject.org/
articles/eric-schmidts-expanding-influence-apparatus.
25 Schmidt Futures, “Statement on Science Funding,” March 28, 2022, https://www.schmidtfutures.com/our-work/
statement-on-science-funding.
26 Similar conflict of interest issues could potentially also apply to fellows, but to date such concerns have mostly
focused on IPA appointments rather than fellows, possibly because fellows tend to be at an earlier stage in their careers
and may therefore tend to have fewer potential conflicts of interest.
27 71 Federal Register 54565, September 18, 2006.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 17 link to page 17 link to page 18 OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

The statute and regulations outline the types of duties IPA appointees may perform while serving
in federal positions. For example, OPM guidance explains:
A non-Federal employee who is assigned to a Federal position, either by detail or
appointment, may serve as a project lead and perform project management leadership
activities such as assigning work, establishing project milestones, completion dates, etc. A
non-Federal employee who is assigned to a Federal position, either by detail or
appointment, cannot perform other aspects of the Federal supervisory function, such as
conducting an employee’s annual performance rating, engaging in performance based or
adverse action procedures, rewarding employees, etc.28
Though this guidance doesn’t specifically address policymaking activities, Congress might
consider whether to narrow the scope of duties IPAs can perform at OSTP to exclude
policymaking functions. The exclusion of policymaking duties might limit the ability of IPAs to
influence federal policy in areas where their institutional affiliations might pose certain conflicts
of interest. On the other hand, such an exclusion might also limit OSTP’s ability to recruit staff
with S&T expertise that might inform the development of federal S&T policies.
Congress may pursue a variety of staffing options that may have the indirect effect of reducing
OSTP’s reliance on IPAs. Such options include, for example, increasing the number of staff
supported directly through appropriations (for a discussion of this policy option, see “Increase the
Number of FTE Positions”) or increasing the number of federal agency detailees (for a discussion
of this policy option, see “Increase the Number of Detailees from Federal Science Agencies”). It
is unclear, however, whether these policy options might reduce the number of IPA appointments
at OSTP due to the limited data available regarding current staffing category totals.
Continue Use of IPA Appointments
Congress may also choose not to limit OSTP’s use of IPA appointments, either directly or
indirectly, as some contend that IPA positions serve a vital function in recruiting S&T experts to
inform federal policies. In a January 2022 report evaluating federal agency use of the Personnel
Mobility Program (which implements IPA appointments), GAO found that the program
functioned as an important mechanism by which to address agency “skills gaps in highly
technical or complex mission areas.”29 GAO affirmed that the program “holds promise as a tool”
for agencies to address skills gaps and concluded that additional data on program use as well as
increased program oversight may be warranted.30 The GAO study examined IPA use across the
federal government, not specifically at OSTP.
Increase Oversight of IPA Appointments
Congress might increase its oversight of OSTP use of IPA appointments. Specifically, Congress
might consider whether current statute and regulations address instances where an individual
might be serving on an IPA appointment from an organization that receives funding from industry
or other private sources.

28 Office of Personnel Management, “Intergovernment [sic] Personnel Act: Assignments,” see subsection titled “Status
of Employee,” https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/intergovernment-personnel-act/#url=
Assignment.
29 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Personnel Mobility Program: Improved Guidance Could Help
Federal Agencies Address Skills Gaps and Maximize Other Benefits, GAO-22-104414, January 2022,
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104414.pdf.
30 Ibid., p. 28.
Congressional Research Service

11

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

The IPA Mobility Program allows for the temporary assignment of personnel between the federal
government and state and local governments, colleges and universities, Indian tribal governments,
federally funded research and development centers, and other eligible organizations.31 5 C.F.R.
§334.102 specifies that “other organization” as defined in 5 U.S.C. §3371(4) means the
following, which does not include commercial companies:
(1) A national, regional, Statewide, area wide, or metropolitan organization representing
member State or local government;
(2) An association of State or local public officials;
(3) A nonprofit organization which offers, as one of its principal functions, professional
advisory, research, educational, or development services, or related services, to
governments or universities concerned with public management; or
(4) A federally funded research and development center.
Congress may also choose to assess the efficacy of OSTP policies and procedures designed to
mitigate conflicts of interest that IPAs might encounter during their appointment. OPM’s IPA
Mobility Program Guidance states that nonfederal employees are subject to the Ethics in
Government Act of 1978, as amended and codified at 5 U.S.C. §§13121-13126, which regulates
employee responsibilities and conduct; as well as agency standards of conduct regulations.32
Further, OPM states that nonfederal employees are also subject to additional laws governing
ethical or other conduct while serving on an appointment or detail to a federal agency, which
program guidance listed on OPM.gov provides along with associated U.S. Code citations.33
Congress may seek clarification regarding whether any conflict-of-interest policies were violated
in particular cases and what, if any, actions were taken to remedy potential violations. Congress
might also request information from OSTP regarding the internal processes that are in place to
monitor allegations of conflicts of interest in order to assess their efficacy. According to accounts
published in Politico and the Washington Post, as well as a formal whistleblower complaint filed
by the Government Accountability Project, OSTP’s legal team had flagged potential conflicts of
interest related to Schmidt Futures over the course of a year and were bullied by the then-OSTP
Director, Eric Lander, as a result.34 Lander subsequently resigned from his position as OSTP
Director in February 2022. News coverage of his resignation largely cited his violations of the
Biden Administration’s policies related to workplace conduct.35

31 Emphasis added.
32 For an overview of the act and the Office of Government Ethics, which gives direction to executive branch conflict
of interest policies, see CRS In Focus IF10634, Office of Government Ethics: A Primer, by Jacob R. Straus.
33 Office of Personnel Management, “Intergovernment [sic] Personnel Act: Provisions,” see subsection titled
“Standards of Conduct and Conflict-of-Interest Provisions,” https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-
information/intergovernment-personnel-act/#url=Provisions.
34 Alex Thompson, “A Google Billionaire’s Fingerprints Are All Over Biden’s Science Office,” Politico, March 28,
2022, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/28/google-billionaire-joe-biden-science-office-00020712; Tyler Pager,
“Whistleblower Alleges Bullying; Ethical Lapses at White House Science Office,” Washington Post, March 10, 2022,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/10/whistleblower-alleges-bullying-ethical-lapses-white-house-
science-office; and Letter from David Z. Seide, Government Accountability Project, and Dana Gold, Government
Accountability Project, to U.S. Office of Special Counsel, “Protected Whistleblower Disclosures of Abuse of Authority
and Gross Mismanagement at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy,” March 10, 2022,
https://whistleblower.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/Government-Accountability-Project-OSTP-Disclosure-Letter-3-
10-2022-1.pdf.
35 Katie Rogers, “Biden’s Top Science Adviser Resigns After Acknowledging Demeaning Behavior,” New York Times,
February 7, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/07/us/politics/eric-lander-resigns-white-house.html; Alex
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

12

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

In overseeing OSTP’s use of IPAs, more generally, Congress might consider the following
questions:
• What guidance or policies does OSTP have regarding the type of work typically
assigned to different employment categories (detailees, IPAs, fellows, etc.)?
• How many individuals from “other eligible organizations” are currently serving
on IPA appointments at OSTP (not including individuals from state and local
governments, colleges and universities, Indian tribal governments, and federally
funded research and development centers)?
• What mechanisms does OSTP currently have in place to mitigate potential
conflicts of interest?
• Which nongovernmental, nonprofit organizations contribute financial support to
OSTP (in the form of employee salaries and benefits) and what is the total
contribution from each organization?
Increase the Number of FTE Positions
Congress could increase the number of FTEs supported by OSTP through the annual
appropriations process. This might have a range of outcomes. For example, increasing OSTP’s
FTE level might lead to an increase in the number of career civil service professional staff at
OSTP. Some in the S&T community have long advocated for more career staff whose tenure at
OSTP might be more likely to span multiple presidential Administrations. They argue that career
staff would maintain institutional knowledge and provide a solid understanding of government
operations, potentially enabling a new Administration to move more quickly on S&T policy
issues and providing enhanced support to political appointees during presidential transitions.36
Those expressing such views assert that increasing the office’s career staff would bring OSTP
staffing practices more in line with other EOP offices that rely on expert staff, such as the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB).37 Significant differences exist, however, in the scope of
duties and responsibilities Congress has assigned to OSTP and OMB, with the scope of OMB’s
duties being much broader.38 OSTP appropriations and staffing levels are correspondingly lower
than those of OMB. The President requested just under $8 million and an estimated 42 FTEs for
OSTP in FY2024, versus and about $137 million and an estimated 533 FTEs for OMB.39

Thompson, “Biden’s Top Science Adviser, Eric Lander, Resigns Amid Reports of Bullying,” Politico, February 7,
2022, https://www.politico.com/news/2022/02/07/eric-lander-resigns-00006545; Jocelyn Kaiser, “Updated: White
House Science Adviser Eric Lander Resigns After Bullying Investigation,” Science, February 7, 2022,
https://www.science.org/content/article/white-house-science-adviser-eric-lander-under-fire-bullying.
36 Henry Kelly, Ivan Oelrich, Steven Aftergood, and Benn H. Tannenbaum, Flying Blind: The Rise, Fall and Possible
Resurrection of Science Policy Advice in the United States (Washington, DC: Federation of American Scientists, 2004),
http://www.fas.org/pubs/_docs/flying_blind.pdf; and Jennifer Sue Bond, Mark Schaefer, David Rejeski, Rodney W.
Nichols, OSTP 2.0: Critical Upgrade: Enhancing Capacity for White House Science and Technology Policymaking:
Recommendations for the Next President (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, June
2008).
37 Ibid.
38 31 U.S.C. §501 et seq.
39 OMB, Detailed Budget Estimate of the Executive Office of the President, Budget of the United States Government,
FY2024, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/eop_fy2024.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

13

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

Increase the Number of Detailees from Federal Science Agencies
Congress may consider directing federal agencies to increase the number of staff serving on detail
to OSTP. For example, Congress may create new statutory requirements or direction in report
language that increase or encourage agency detailees to OSTP either to support work in specific
policy areas or without specifying a particular purpose. Federal agencies, however, may be
reluctant to increase the number of employees they detail to OSTP given the associated human
capital costs involved. Such potential concerns may be greater for some agencies than others,
depending on the number of staff and size of the agency.
Though increasing the number of individuals serving on detail at OSTP from federal science
agencies might mitigate potential conflict of interest concerns associated with IPA appointments,
Congress may weigh this intended goal against other potential policy outcomes. For example,
individuals detailed to OSTP from a particular federal agency may influence policymaking
activities in ways that could have outsized benefits for their home agency. Considering the
potential human capital costs involved, federal agencies may also be reluctant to detail senior
level staff to OSTP, which could potentially impact the efficacy of OSTP policy development and
implementation activities.
OSTP and NSTC Coordination of Federal R&D Initiatives
Congress has a longstanding interest in the effective coordination of multi-agency R&D
initiatives, recognizing that certain lines of research or national challenges are best confronted
when the nation’s S&T resources work in concert. The decentralized nature of the federal
government’s support for R&D (largely owing to the ad-hoc way in which federal science
agencies proliferated during World War II and immediately after) has posed a perennial challenge
for effective coordination.40 To encourage coordination, Congress has mandated a number of
multi-agency R&D initiatives in statute, including the Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development (NITRD) program,41 the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI),42
the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP),43 the National Quantum Initiative (NQI),
and the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative (NAII).44
For each of the above multi-agency R&D initiatives, Congress has tasked OSTP and the NSTC
with varying roles in coordinating and administering cross-agency planning and collaboration. In
addition to the roles and responsibilities executed by the OSTP Director, OSTP exercises its
science advisory and policy coordination duties through:
• the work of its six policy teams, which help coordinate government-wide
initiatives that fall within specific policy areas (for example, OSTP’s Climate and

40 Examples include the Office of Scientific Research and Development (created in 1941), the Office of Naval Research
(created in 1946), and the Atomic Energy Commission (created in 1946). For more on federal support for science
research during the 1930s and 1940s, see Hunter Dupree, Science in the Federal Government: A History of Policies and
Activities, Johns Hopkins Paperbacks edition ed. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1986).
41 For an overview, see CRS Report RL33586, The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and
Development Program: Background, Funding, and Activities, by Patricia Moloney Figliola.
42 For an overview, see CRS Report RL34511, Nanotechnology: A Policy Primer, by John F. Sargent Jr., and CRS
Report RL34401, The National Nanotechnology Initiative: Overview, Reauthorization, and Appropriations Issues, by
John F. Sargent Jr.
43 For an overview, see the USGCRP subsection of CRS Report R47564, Federal Research and Development (R&D)
Funding: FY2024, coordinated by John F. Sargent Jr.
44 For an overview, see CRS Report R46795, Artificial Intelligence: Background, Selected Issues, and Policy
Considerations, by Laurie A. Harris.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 20 OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

Environment Team supports the participation of the Director, or the Director’s
designee, in federal coordinating bodies such as the Arctic Executive Steering
Committee, which “meets regularly to shape priorities, establish strategic
direction, oversee implementation, and ensure coordination of Federal activities
in the Arctic”);45
• the federal budget process, during which OSTP works with the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to develop the President’s budget proposal to
Congress for each fiscal year; and
• the work of the NSTC’s committees, subcommittees, and working groups,
which are generally co-chaired by representatives from OSTP and designees of
participating federal agencies.
The NSTC largely executes its coordination responsibilities through the work of its
subcommittees and interagency working groups (see Figure 3). In some cases, the coordination
of a multi-agency R&D initiative is also supported by a national coordination office (NCO). Each
of these entities play distinct roles in the coordination, assessment, and execution of multi-agency
R&D initiatives.

45 The White House, OSTP Climate and Environment Team, “Arctic Executive Steering Committee (AESC),”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/ostps-teams/climate-and-environment/arctic-executive-steering-committee-aesc/. The
Climate and Environment Team’s Deputy Director has also participated in cross-government initiatives such as the
Northern Bering Sea Climate Resilience Area (NBSCRA); see The White House, “Readout of the Northern Bering Sea
Climate Resilience Area (NBSCRA) Joint Bering Federal Task Force and Bering Intergovernmental Tribal Advisory
Council Meeting, June 3, 2022,” https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/06-2022-Readout-of-the-
NBSCRA-JOINT-BFTF-BITAC-Meeting.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

15

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

Figure 1. National Science and Technology Council Overview
Figure 3. National Science and Technology Council Overview

Source: CRS visualization of NSTC organization chart provided by OSTP via email communication on October
Source: CRS visualization of NSTC organization chart provided by OSTP via email communication on October
28, 2022.
28, 2022.
Given its interest in ensuring U.S. global competitiveness and a robust S&T ecosystem, Congress
may consider the efficacy of OSTP and NSTC coordination efforts. For example, in a May 10,
2023, letter to OSTP Director Arati Prabhakar, GAO highlighted seven priority recommendations
which, if implemented, could improve OSTP operations.46 GAO grouped the seven
recommendations into three categories, two of which directly pertained to the efficacy of OSTP’s
coordination and assessment duties: strengthening interagency collaboration and tracking
progress toward national goals.47 GAO urged OSTP to more effectively use the committees and
subcommittees of the NSTC to sustain coordination of national research and development
priorities and develop mechanisms to track and evaluate interagency progress toward addressing
cross-cutting S&T issues.
Potential Resource Constraints
Congress might consider the sufficiency of OSTP and NSTC funding and staffing available to
execute the congressionally mandated coordination functions of the previously cited multi-agency
R&D initiatives (e.g., NNI and USGCRP). The NSTC does not receive direct appropriations for

46 Letter from Gene L. Dodaro, Comptroller General, to The Honorable Arati Prabhakar, Director, Office of Science
and Technology Policy, May 10, 2023, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106571.pdf.
47 “Managing climate risks” was the third category identified by GAO, ibid.
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 21 OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

coordinating multi-agency R&D programs; rather, it primarily relies on support from OSTP staff
and the resources provided by participating agencies in the form of staff appointed to serve on
NSTC committees, subcommittees, and working groups. Congress might provide dedicated
funding to increase the robustness of its coordinating functions, which include supporting NCOs,
studies, advisory committees, and administrative costs.
If Congress chose to fund NSTC activities directly, Congress might authorize or appropriate
general NSTC funding or direct funding amounts to support specific functions, such as the
coordination and support activities NCOs provide to each multi-agency R&D initiative. Figure 4
lists funding levels for selected NCOs, including NNI, NITRD, and the USGCRP, which are
funded through a distributed cost budget. Under such arrangements, participating agencies
typically contribute a percentage of NCO funding based on the total share of initiative-related
R&D they support.
In contrast to the NCOs for NITRD, NNI, and USGCRP, the more recently established National
AI Initiative Office (NAIIO) and the National Quantum Coordination Office (NQCO) do not have
budgets. The National Quantum Initiative Act (P.L. 115-368, as amended and codified at 15
U.S.C. §§8801 et seq.) and the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (Division E
of P.L. 116-283, as amended and codified at 15 U.S.C. §§9411 et seq.) indicate that federal
agencies supporting R&D related to the initiatives should contribute funding necessary to carry
out the activities of each office.
Figure 4. Selected National Coordination Office (NCO) Budgets
FY2020
Multi-agency R&D Initiative
Funding Contributions of
NCO
Participating Agencies
NITRD NCO
$4.4 mil ion
NNI NCO
$2.9 mil ion
USGCRP NCO
$8.1 mil ion

Source: U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Research and Development: Funding Has Grown Since
2012 and Is Concentrated Within a Few Agencies, GAO-23-105396, December 2022, available at
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-105396.pdf.
Regarding NQCO funding, 15 U.S.C. §8812(c) specifies:
Funds necessary to carry out the activities of the Coordination Office shall be made
available each fiscal year by the Federal departments and agencies described in section
8813(b) of this title, as determined by the Director of the Office of Science and Technology
Policy.
Regarding NAIIO funding, 15 U.S.C. §9412(c) specifies:
The Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, in coordination with each
participating Federal department and agency, as appropriate, shall develop and annually
update an estimate of the funds necessary to carry out the activities of the Initiative
Coordination Office and submit such estimate with an agreed summary of contributions
from each agency to Congress as part of the President’s annual budget request to Congress.
To assess whether the NQCO and NAIIO have adequate funding to carry out the coordination
functions mandated in statute, Congress might request that OSTP provide additional information
about the past, present, and future funding needs of each office. For example, the NQI Program’s
annual report, which was included as a supplement to the President’s budget for FY2021,
Congressional Research Service

17

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

FY2022, and FY2023, did not include information regarding any funding allocated to support
NQCO activities. Congress might amend 15 U.S.C. §8812(c) to require the submission of NQCO
budget information each year, beginning with the NQI Supplement to the President’s FY2024
Budget.
Though Congress directed OSTP to submit an annual budget estimate for the NAIIO, it was not
included in any of the supplemental information that accompanied the President’s FY2023 budget
request. Rather, NITRD and NAIIO submitted a combined Supplement to the President’s FY2023
Budget, which explained that the “supplement also meets NAIIO’s obligation to submit NAIIA-
related budget and program information to Congress as part of the President’s annual budget
request.”48 The joint supplement, however, did not contain the NAIIO budget estimate mandated
in 15 U.S.C. §9412(c). Congress may exercise oversight of OSTP in requesting the statutorily
required budget estimate.
The National AI Advisory Committee (NAIAC), authorized by P.L. 116-283 to advise the
President and NAIIO on matters related to AI, published a report in May 2023 summarizing its
recommendations. The report highlighted the potential implications of the NAIIO being under-
resourced, stating:
The National AI Initiative Office (NAIIO) is tasked with significant responsibility of
interagency coordination on matters relating to AI. For most of NAIIO’s existence, it has
been staffed by three full-time equivalent (FTE) detailed employees, nine advisors in total.
Without adequate staffing and leadership, NAIIO cannot maintain the level of output
needed to meet its ongoing statutory requirements, nor provide the required interagency
coordination to ensure U.S. AI leadership.49
The NAIAC issued the following related recommendation:
NAIAC recommends the President or Congress provide sufficient resources for NAIIO’s
statutorily mandated coordinating functions and oversight responsibilities, including
providing no less than six full-time equivalent employees. These roles should be filled by
permanent staff with expertise in both trustworthy AI governance and executive branch
coordination.50
If accepted, the NAIAC’s staffing recommendation would bring NAIIO’s staff size to the level of
NQCO, which GAO reported included five individuals serving on details from participating
agencies (as of August 2022).51 Testifying before the House Committee on Science, Space, and
Technology’s June 7, 2023, hearing “Advancing American Leadership in Quantum Technology,”
the NQCO Director reported that the office consists of a team of “government experts in quantum
physics and computer science detailed from the Department of Energy (DOE), the National
Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the
Department of Defense (DOD), and the Intelligence Community (IC).”52

48 NSTC Subcommittee on Networking and Information Technology Research and Development and NSTC Machine
Learning and Artificial Intelligence Subcommittee, The Networking & Information Technology R&D Program and the
National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Office Supplement to the President’s FY2023 Budget, National Science and
Technology Council, November 2022, p. 3, https://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/FY2023-NITRD-NAIIO-Supplement.pdf.
49 National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee, Year 1, May 2023, p. 19, https://www.ai.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2023/05/NAIAC-Report-Year1.pdf.
50 Ibid., p. 19.
51 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Research and Development: Funding Has Grown Since 2012 and
Is Concentrated Within a Few Agencies, GAO-23-105396, December 2022, p. 48, https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-
105396.pdf.
52 Written Testimony of Dr. Charles Tahan, Assistant Director of Quantum Information Science and Director of the
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

18

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

After evaluating the staffing and funding levels of the NQCO and NAIIO, Congress may
determine that the NCOs are adequately funded and staffed. Alternatively, Congress may
determine that the NCOs require additional funds and staff, opting to authorize or appropriate
funding directed to support the coordination duties carried out by each office.
If Congress chooses to increase funding for NQCO and NAIIO coordination duties, it may direct
individual agencies to contribute specific amounts from available appropriations or increase
agency appropriations by a specified amount to be directed toward coordination efforts. Agencies
may be reluctant to direct funds from available appropriations toward NQCO and NAIIO budgets.
Congress might also direct a portion of OSTP appropriations for the purpose of supporting the
coordination efforts of the NQCO and NAIIO, as both offices are situated within OSTP’s
organizational structure.
Potential Organizational or Structural Constraints
In addition to evaluating potential challenges the NSTC faces regarding resources, Congress
might consider whether formalizing the NSTC structure and organization would strengthen
OSTP’s ability to coordinate federal R&D efforts through the work of its committees,
subcommittees, and working groups. Currently, NSTC responsibilities are derived by executive
order and congressional mandates in statute. Though the NSTC was established by Executive
Order 12881,53 Congress has also charged it with specific statutory responsibilities, including the
coordination of a number of federal initiatives and programs, including ocean acidification
research and mitigation efforts;54 STEM education support;55 advanced manufacturing research
and development activities;56 the dissemination and long-term stewardship of the results of
unclassified research;57 and research facilities and major instrumentation planning and
evaluation.58
Congress’s ability to evaluate the efficacy of NSTC coordination efforts might be limited by a
lack of comprehensive public information about its current structure, as OSTP does not maintain
a current public organizational chart for the NSTC or a public list of its statutory responsibilities.
As such, CRS performed a custom search of select databases to identify relevant federal statutes,
executive orders, and presidential memoranda tasking the NSTC with various responsibilities
related to the coordination of federal R&D policies and programs.59

National Quantum Coordination Office, OSTP, U.S. Congress, House Science, Space, and Technology, Advancing
American Leadership in Quantum Technology, 117th Cong., 1st sess., June 7, 2023, https://republicans-
science.house.gov/_cache/files/2/3/23dd7b1c-5140-418f-b811-21e4eafbf848/
F2FDE1E06B20EBCAF869EFC86A7B3442.2023-06-07-tahan-testimony.pdf.
53 Executive Order 12881, “Establishment of the National Science and Technology Council,” 58 Federal Register
62491-62492, November 23, 1993.
54 P.L. 111-11, “The Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009,” §12403.
55 P.L. 111-358, “America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010,” §101.
56 P.L. 111-358, “America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010,” §102.
57 P.L. 111-358, “America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010,” §103.
58 P.L. 110-69, “America COMPETES Act,” §1007.
59 CRS performed a search of the Lexis+ database for federal statutes, executive orders (EOs), and presidential
memoranda (PMs) containing the phrase “National Science and Technology Council” within 15 words of at least one
of the following terms: committee, subcommittee, working group, council, task force, and team. In addition, CRS
searched for instances that include the NSTC and titles of each of its sub-entities based on a list of NSTC sub-entities
provided by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in email communication to CRS on
October 28, 2022. CRS used wildcard characters to search for alternate spellings and variations of the root search terms
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 35 link to page 35 OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

CRS analyzed the search results to identify 32 citations in the U.S. Code, four executive orders,
and two presidential memoranda containing references to the creation of, or assignment of duties
to, various bodies of the NSTC. CRS aggregated these results and mapped them in a table to
correspond to the NSTC sub-entities provided through correspondence with OSTP (see Appendix
B for a full list).60 An analysis of these citations illustrates the varying approaches Congress and
presidential Administrations may take in assigning responsibilities to the NSTC. Congress may
assign the NSTC responsibilities to meet non-specific mandates, such as requiring the creation of
an entity or coordinating body, and the President or OSTP Director may then delegate that
responsibility to the NSTC. Congress may specify the creation of a specific NSTC entity in
statute (a working group, for example) whereas the naming convention of the type of body
established within the NSTC may differ (e.g., a subcommittee is established instead of a working
group). The NSTC may also have an established body to meet certain statutory requirements,
even though the statute does not designate these requirements specifically to the NSTC.
Congress may choose to formalize the NSTC’s structure by codifying it more explicitly in statute.
If Congress decides to do this, it might consider how specific to make its direction. Congress may
set broad statutory guidelines regarding NSTC’s organization, codify NSTC’s existing structure,
or some combination of these approaches. Congress may consider whether mandating a specific
organizational structure might have the unintended consequence of limiting the NSTCs flexibility
and utility as a coordinating mechanism capable of adapting to the changing S&T landscape.
Congress might also consider a range of questions related to how the NSTC’s structure and
processes related to coordinating federal R&D initiatives might be formalized and standardized
through codification, including:
• Should Congress mandate additional reporting requirements for NSTC entities?
• Should the OSTP Director, in consultation with Congress or relevant advisory
groups, be required to periodically update the NSTC’s structure to identify
potential redundancies or multi-agency R&D efforts that no longer require the
same level of coordination (e.g., a dedicated NCO)?
• Should new NSTC entities or multi-agency R&D initiatives terminate after a
standard period of time?
OSTP and NSTC Coordination of Federal R&D Policies
In addition to the coordination of multi-agency R&D initiatives, Congress has a longstanding
interest in the effective coordination of R&D-related policies across federal agencies that support
S&T R&D. The decentralized nature of the federal government’s support for R&D and existing
variations in federal agency missions (as well as the specific operational needs related to such
varied missions) have posed a perennial challenge for the coordination of policies governing a
number of aspects related to the performance and management of federally sponsored R&D.
OSTP and the NSTC have played key roles in coordinating the development and implementation
of R&D policies in response to presidential priorities and congressional direction. For example, in
August 2022, OSTP directed federal agencies to develop and implement “public access plans” by
December 31, 2025, that would require scientific publications resulting from federally funded

to identify relevant statutes, EOs, and PMs. The search yielded 72 citations in statute and 33 citations in EOs and PMs,
which CRS analyzed and narrowed to 32 relevant U.S. Code citations, four EOs, and two PMs.
60 NSTC sub-entities provided by OSTP in email communication to CRS on October 28, 2022.
Congressional Research Service

20

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

research to be publicly available immediately upon publication.61 OSTP, working through the
NSTC, has also directed federal efforts to develop policies regarding scientific integrity and to
ensure the consistency of such policies across R&D agencies.62
Given its interest in ensuring U.S. global competitiveness and a robust S&T ecosystem, Congress
may consider the efficacy of OSTP and NSTC efforts to coordinate and standardize federal R&D
policies such as those cited above, as well as others, including research security-related policies.
Standardizing Research Security Disclosure Policies
Federal and legislative efforts to develop a comprehensive research security strategy have
intensified over roughly the past five years based on a growing awareness and concern for the
threats posed by foreign talent recruitment programs like China’s Thousand Talents Program to
the U.S. R&D ecosystem.63 In shaping such a strategy, Congress has charged OSTP with playing
a leading role in ensuring that policies and requirements related to research security practices are
developed and implemented consistently across the federal government.
For example, the 117th Congress mandated research security-related requirements as part of the
legislation referred to as CHIPS and Science Act (P.L. 117-167), which, among other things,
directed federal agencies to establish policies prohibiting agency personnel from participating in
any foreign talent recruitment program and policies prohibiting covered individuals involved with
federally funded R&D awards from participating in malign foreign talent recruitment programs.64
Congress specifically tasked OSTP with publishing and distributing a uniform set of guidelines
for federal research agencies regarding foreign talent recruitment programs by February 9,
2023.65 As of July 2023, OSTP has not distributed such uniform guidelines.
Congress also established new requirements for federal R&D award applicants to disclose
information about research support received from other sources in an effort to identify potential
conflicts of interest and ties to foreign entities.66 Congress specifically charged OSTP, acting
through the NSTC Research Security Subcommittee, with ensuring the consistency of such
requirements established by federal agencies.67 Acting on behalf of the Research Security
Subcommittee, the National Science Foundation (NSF) responded on August 31, 2022, with the
release of draft common disclosure forms for public comment. The draft forms, titled
“Biographical Sketch” and “Current and Pending (Other) Support,” are intended for inclusion in
all federal research grant applications to increase the consistency of disclosure forms currently
used by federal research agencies and to reduce administrative burden.68 The comment period on

61 Memorandum from Alondra Nelson, Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Director for Science and Society,
to The Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, “Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally
Funded Research, August 25, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Public-
Access-Memo.pdf. See also CRS Insight IN12049, Public Access to Scientific Publications Resulting from Federally
Funded R&D, by Marcy E. Gallo.
62 CRS Report R46614, Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer, by Marcy E. Gallo.
63 Smriti Mallapaty, “China Hides Identities of Top Scientific Recruits Amidst Growing US Scrutiny,” Nature, October
24, 2018, https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07167-6.
64 42 U.S.C. §19231(a)
65 The language specifies that policies should be distributed not later than 180 days after August 9, 2022, 42 U.S.C.
§19231(b).
66 Section 223, National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (P.L. 116-283); 42 U.S.C. §6605.
67 42 U.S.C. §6605(b).
68 National Science Foundation on behalf of the National Science and Technology Council’s Research Security
Subcommittee, “Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comment Regarding Common Disclosure
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

21

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

the draft common disclosure forms closed on October 31, 2022. As of this report’s publication
date, the finalized forms have not been released.
Given continuing interest in potential foreign influence over U.S. academic R&D, Congress may
exercise oversight in evaluating OSTP and NSTC efforts to coordinate statutorily mandated
disclosure policies and uniform policies regarding foreign talent recruitment programs. For
example, Congress might require OSTP and the NSTC Subcommittee on Research Security to
update relevant oversight committees on the progress of finalizing common disclosure forms,
including an expected publication date, and plans to ensure their consistent use across federal
agencies.
Congress might also evaluate the scope of reporting requirements as posed by the draft forms
posted for public comment on August 31, 2022.69 For example, the “Proposed Template and
Instructions for Submission of Current and Pending (Other) Support Information,” specifies that
only individuals identified as “senior/key personnel” will be required to disclose current and
pending support.70 The form defines senior/key personnel as “individuals listed by the
applicant/awardee organization and approved by the Federal research funding agency who
contribute in a substantive, meaningful way to the scientific development or execution of a
research and development project proposed to be carried out with a research and development
award.”71 Congress might consider whether the proposed definition of senior/key personnel,
which generally would not include graduate students, is sufficient.
Congress may consider a number of additional questions related to OSTP’s coordination and
implementation of disclosure policies across federal R&D funding agencies, including:
• Do proposed disclosure requirements related to current and pending support adequately
clarify the types of support that R&D funding applicants?
• To what degree should OSTP also issue standardized requirements and procedures for
federal agencies to follow in investigating alleged violations of disclosure requirements
and issuing enforcement actions?
• Do federal agencies currently have the authorities and resources necessary to monitor
disclosures for policy violations and what additional resources might they need?

Forms for the Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support,” 87 Federal Register 53505-53507,
August 31, 2022. See also Office of Science and Technology Policy, “An Update on Research Security: Streamlining
Disclosure Standards to Enhance Clarity, Transparency, and Equity,” August 31, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/
ostp/news-updates/2022/08/31/an-update-on-research-securitystreamlining-disclosure-standards-to-enhance-clarity-
transparency-and-equity.
69 National Science Foundation on behalf of the National Science and Technology Council’s Research Security
Subcommittee, “Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comment Regarding Common Disclosure
Forms for the Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support,” 87 Federal Register 53505-53507,
August 31, 2022.
70 “Proposed Template and Instructions for Submission of Current and Pending (Other) Support Information,” in
National Science Foundation on behalf of the National Science and Technology Council’s Research Security
Subcommittee, “Agency Information Collection Activities: Request for Comment Regarding Common Disclosure
Forms for the Biographical Sketch and Current and Pending (Other) Support,” 87 Federal Register 53505-53507,
August 31, 2022, https://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/researchprotection/FederalRegisterCPSfinal.pdf.
71 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service

22

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

Concluding Observations
Congress has expressed an abiding interest in the health of the federal S&T enterprise and the
roles that it plays in meeting federal mission needs, expanding the frontiers of human knowledge,
addressing societal needs, developing the U.S. science and engineering workforce, and promoting
U.S. technological leadership, innovation, and competitiveness.
OSTP has played a significant role in coordinating and integrating the activities of the federal
S&T enterprise, acquiring scientific and technical advice and information from the private sector,
and advising the President on related matters.
Congress may explore issues and legislative options related to the structure and authorities of
OSTP and the NSTC as well as provide oversight of OSTP in the execution of its statutory
authorities described in this report. In addition, Congress might consider potential oversight
activity related to OSTP and the NSTC’s roles in coordinating federal R&D initiatives and the
development and implementation of government-wide R&D polices.

Congressional Research Service

23

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

Appendix A. Nominations and Confirmations of
Associate Directors in the Office of Science
Technology and Policy, 1976-2023
(Current as of June 8, 2023)
President
Confirmed/
Nomination
Issuing the
Nominee Name/
Not
Number
Congress
Nomination
Prospective Title
Confirmed
PN1274
97th (1981-1982)
Ronald Reagan
Ronald B. Frankum
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Deputy Science Adviser to
the President and Deputy
Director of OSTP
PN776
98th (1983-1984)
Ronald Reagan
John P. McTague
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Deputy Director of OSTP
PN833
98th (1983-1984)
Ronald Reagan
Bernadine Healy Bulkley
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Deputy Director of OSTP
PN434
100th (1987-1988)
Ronald Reagan
Thomas P. Rona
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Deputy Director of OSTP
PN783
101st (1989-1990)
George H.W.
James B. Wyngaarden
Confirmed
Bush

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy
Congressional Research Service

24

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

President
Confirmed/
Nomination
Issuing the
Nominee Name/
Not
Number
Congress
Nomination
Prospective Title
Confirmed
PN782
101st (1989-1990)
George H.W.
J. Thomas Ratchford
Confirmed
Bush

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Policy and International
Affairs
PN936-2
101st (1989-1990)
George H.W.
Eugene Wong
Confirmed
Bush

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Physical Sciences and
International Affairs
PN936-1
101st (1989-1990)
George H.W.
Wil iam D. Phil ips
Confirmed
Bush

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Industrial Technology
PN4
102nd (1991-1992)
George H.W.
Donald A. Henderson
Confirmed
Bush

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for Life
Sciences
PN1007
102nd (1991-1992)
George H.W.
Karl A. Erb
Confirmed
Bush

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Physical Sciences and
Engineering
Congressional Research Service

25

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

President
Confirmed/
Nomination
Issuing the
Nominee Name/
Not
Number
Congress
Nomination
Prospective Title
Confirmed
PN357
103rd (1993-1994)
Wil iam Clinton
Lionel Skipwith Johns
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Technology
PN496
103rd (1993-1994)
Wil iam Clinton
Robert T. Watson
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Environment
PN758
103rd (1993-1994)
Wil iam Clinton
Jane M. Wales
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
National Security and
International Affairs
PN762
103rd (1993-1994)
Wil iam Clinton
Mary Rita Cooke
Confirmed
Greenwood

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Science
PN522
104th (1995-1996)
Wil iam Clinton
Ernest J. Moniz
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Science
PN1120
104th (1995-1996)
Wil iam Clinton
Jerry M. Melil o
Not Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy
Congressional Research Service

26

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

President
Confirmed/
Nomination
Issuing the
Nominee Name/
Not
Number
Congress
Nomination
Prospective Title
Confirmed
PN1115
104th (1995-1996)
Wil iam Clinton
Kerri-Ann Jones
Not Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy
PN108
105th (1997-1998)
Wil iam Clinton
Kerri-Ann Jones
Confirmed

Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
National Security and
International Affairs
PN107
105th (1997-1998)
Wil iam Clinton
Jerry M. Melil o
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Environment
PN674
105th (1997-1998)
Wil iam Clinton
Arthur Bienenstock
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Science
PN683
105th (1997-1998)
Wil iam Clinton
Duncan T. Moore
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Technology
PN1019
105th (1997-1998)
Wil iam Clinton
Rosina M. Bierbaum
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Environment
Congressional Research Service

27

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

President
Confirmed/
Nomination
Issuing the
Nominee Name/
Not
Number
Congress
Nomination
Prospective Title
Confirmed
PN1538
107th (2001-2002)
George W. Bush Kathie L. Olsen
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Science
PN1694
107th (2001-2002)
George W. Bush Richard M. Russell
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Technology
PN1829
109th (2005-2006)
George W. Bush Sharon Lynn Hays
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Science
PN150
111th (2009-2010)
Barack Obama
Sherburne B. Abbott
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Energy and Environment
PN426
111th (2009-2010)
Barack Obama
Aneesh Chopra
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director and
Chief Technology Officer
PN1120
111th (2009-2010)
Barack Obama
Philip E. Coyle, III
Not Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy
Congressional Research Service

28

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

President
Confirmed/
Nomination
Issuing the
Nominee Name/
Not
Number
Congress
Nomination
Prospective Title
Confirmed
PN1571
111th (2009-2010)
Barack Obama
Carl Wieman
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Science
PN1986
111th (2009-2010)
Barack Obama
Philip E. Coyle, III
Not Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy
PN100
112th (2011-2012)
Barack Obama
Philip E. Coyle, III
Not Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy
PN1510
112th (2011-2012)
Barack Obama
Patricia K. Falcone
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
National Security and
International Affairs
PN719
113th (2013-2014)
Barack Obama
Robert Michael Simon
Not Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy
PN743
113th (2013-2014)
Barack Obama
Jo Emily Handelsman
Not Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy
PN1066
113th (2013-2014)
Barack Obama
Jo Emily Handelsman
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

Associate Director for
Science
Congressional Research Service

29

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

President
Confirmed/
Nomination
Issuing the
Nominee Name/
Not
Number
Congress
Nomination
Prospective Title
Confirmed
PN1061
113th (2013-2014)
Barack Obama
Robert Michael Simon
Not Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy
PN563
116th (2019-2020)
Donald Trump
Michael J.K. Kratsios
Confirmed

Associate Director of the
Office of Science and
Technology Policy

U.S. Chief Technology
Officer
Source: Compiled by CRS using the Congressional Record and the “Nominations” col ection in Congress.gov and
the Congressional Record in ProQuest Congressional for the fol owing terms and phrases: associate director, Office
of Science and Technology Policy, nomination, and confirmation. Position titles noted in The U.S. Government Manual
and thus available only for confirmed nominees.
Note: Nominations are listed in reverse chronological order with the oldest first.

Congressional Research Service

30

link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

Appendix B. NSTC Committees, Subcommittees,
Working Groups, and Other Sub-organizations
Authorized in Law or by Executive Order
(Current as of June 8, 2023)
EXECUTIVE ORDER OR
ENTITY
U.S. CODE OR PUBLIC LAW
PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
Committee on Sciencea
Subcommittee on
Quantum
Information
Science
Created by 15 U.S.C. §8813

Quantum
Networking
Group
Cre
ated b
y 1
5
U
.S
.
C.

§
8
8
1 3(h)

Workforce
Interagency
Working
Associated duties referenced at 42 U.S.C.
Group
§19261

Associated duties referenced at 42 U.S.C. §6601
note (Pub. L. 114–329, Title I, §106, Jan. 6,
Physical Sciences
2017, 130 Stat. 2985); also referenced at 42
Subcommittee
U.S.C. §18644

Subcommittee on Associated duties referenced at 42 U.S.C.
Open Science
§6623b

Subcommittee on
Social and
Behavioral
Associated duties derived from E.O. 13707,
Sciences

80 Federal Register 56365c
Committee on STEM Education
Created by 42 U.S.C. §6621
Federal

Coordination in
STEM Education
Subcommitteea

Interagency

Working
Group on
Inclusion in
STEM
Created by 42 U.S.C. §6626

Committee on Environmenta

Congressional Research Service

31

link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

EXECUTIVE ORDER OR
ENTITY
U.S. CODE OR PUBLIC LAW
PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
President assigned NSTC coordination duties
Interagency
for IARPC by Presidential Memorandum of
Arctic Research
July 22, 2010, Designation of the National
Policy
Science and Technology Council to Coordinate
Committee
Certain Activities Under the Arctic Research and
(IARPC)
Associated duties referenced at 15 U.S.C. §4106 Policy Act of 1984, 75 Federal Register 44063
Subcommittee on

Global Change
Research
Associated duties referenced at 15 U.S.C. §2934
Subcommittee on

Ocean Science
and Technology
Created by 33 U.S.C. §3703
Interagency

Working
Group on
Harmful
Algal Blooms
and Hypoxia
Created by 33 U.S.C. §4001d
Interagency

Working
Group on
Ocean
Acidification
Created by 33 U.S.C. §3703
Joint

Subcommittee on
Environment,
Innovation, and
Public Healtha

Contaminants

of Emerging
Concern
Strategy
Teame

Sustainable

Chemistry
Strategy
Team
Created by 15 U.S.C. §9301f
Per- and Poly-

fluoroalkyl
Substances
Research and
Development
Strategy
Team
Created by 15 U.S.C. §8963g

Committee on Technologya
Created by 42 U.S.C. §6622

Congressional Research Service

32

link to page 39 link to page 39 OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

EXECUTIVE ORDER OR
ENTITY
U.S. CODE OR PUBLIC LAW
PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
Subcommittee on
Advanced
Manufacturing
Associated duties referenced at 42 U.S.C. §6622
Nanoscale
Science,
Engineering and
Technology
Associated duties referenced at 15 U.S.C.
Subcommittee
§7501(c)

Subcommittee on
Microelectronics
Leadership
Created by 15 U.S.C. §4656

Select
Committee on
Artificial
Created by E.O. 13859, 84 Federal Register
Intelligence
Associated duties referenced at 15 U.S.C. §9413 3967

Committee on Homeland and National Securitya

Critical Minerals
Subcommittee
Created by 42 U.S.C. §18743(c)

Subcommittee on
the Economic
and Security
Implications of
Quantum Science Created by 15 U.S.C. §8814(a)

Space Weather
Operations,
Research, and
Mitigation
Created by E.O. 13744, 81 Federal Register
Subcommittee
Codified at 51 U.S.C. §60601(c)
71573

Committee on Science and Technology Enterprisea

Subcommittee on

Research and
Development
Infrastructure
Associated duties referenced at 42 U.S.C. §6619
Scientific

Collections
Interagency
Working
Group
Associated duties referenced at 42 U.S.C. §6624
Networking

Information
Technology
Research and
Development
Subcommittee Created by 15 U.S.C. §5511
Congressional Research Service

33

link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 link to page 39 OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

EXECUTIVE ORDER OR
ENTITY
U.S. CODE OR PUBLIC LAW
PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM
Artificial

Intelligence
Research and
Development
Interagency
Working
Group
Associated duties referenced at 15 U.S.C. §9413
Cyber

Security and
Information
Assurance
Interagency
Working
Group
Associated duties referenced at 15 U.S.C. §7431
Subcommittee on

International
Science and
Technology
Coordination
Created by 42 U.S.C. §6625h

Joint Committee on Research Environmentsa

Subcommittee on Associated duties referenced at 42 U.S.C.

Research
§6601, note Pub. L. 116–92, div. A, title XVII,
Security
§
1
7
4
6,
Dec.
2
0
,
2
019, 133 Stat. 1843
Subcommittee on

Safe and Inclusive
Research
Associated duties referenced at 42 U.S.C.
Environments
§19195
Scientific
Created by January 27, 2021, Presidential
Integrity Fast-
Memorandum, Restoring Trust in Government
Track Action
Through Scientific Integrity and Evidence-Based
Committee

Policymaking, 86 Federal Register 8845i
Subcommittee on
Coordinating
Administrative
Requirements for Associated duties referenced at 42 U.S.C.
Research
§6604(d)

Industries of the Future Council
Created by 42 U.S.C. §6601 note (P.L. 116-283, Division H, Title XCIV, §9412, Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 4818)j
Source: CRS.
Notes: Compiled by CRS using the Lexis+ database and searching for federal statutes, executive orders (EOs),
and presidential memoranda (PMs containing the phrase “National Science and Technology Council” within 15
words of at least one of the fol owing terms: committee, subcommittee, working group, council, task force, and team).
In addition, CRS searched for instances that include the NSTC and titles of each of its sub-entities based on a list
of NSTC sub-entities provided by OSTP in email communication to CRS on October 28, 2022. CRS used
Congressional Research Service

34

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

wildcard characters to search for alternate spellings and variations of the root search terms to identify relevant
statutes, EOs, and PMs. The search yielded 72 citations in statute and 33 citations in EOs and PMs, which CRS
analyzed and narrowed to 32 relevant USC citations, four EOs, and two PMs. STEM = Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics. Note, the results reflect a search by the indicated keywords and may not be
comprehensive given the varied nature in which entities and their associated activities are codified in the U.S.
Code.
The search also resulted in two U.S. Code citations, enacted by P.L. 117-167, that directed OSTP to establish
two interagency working groups: 42 U.S.C. §19195(a) and 42 U.S.C. §19251(a). These interagency working
groups are not included in the above table as they were not included in the list of NSTC sub-entities that OSTP
provided to CRS on October 28, 2022. As such, CRS is unable to determine whether the two interagency
working groups cited above have been established as of June 2023. For reference, 42 U.S.C. §19195(a) relates to
the creation of an interagency working group for the purpose of “coordinating Federal research agency efforts to
reduce the prevalence of sex-based and sexual harassment involving award personnel”; and 42 U.S.C. §19251(a)
relates to the creation of an interagency working group to coordinate a number of specified activities including
federal-wide research efforts in support of “key technology focus areas.”
a. Committee/Subcommittee included as an organizational reference point for a sub-organization established in
law or by Executive Order or Presidential Memorandum
b. Creates a working group
c. Creates a Social and Behavioral Sciences Team (SBST)
d. Creates an Inter-Agency Task Force on Harmful Algal Blooms and Hypoxia
e. Associated duties referenced in S.Rept. 115-139 to P.L. 115-141
f.
Creates an “interagency entity”
g. Creates an interagency working group
h. 42 U.S.C §6625(g) states that the Subcommittee wil terminate 10 years after January 6, 2017
i.
Creates an interagency task force
j.
“(6) Sunset.—The Council shall terminate on the date that is 6 years after the date of the enactment of this
Act [January 1, 2021].”

Congressional Research Service

35

OSTP: Issues for the 118th Congress

Author Information

Emily G. Blevins
Rachael D. Roan
Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
Senior Research Librarian

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
R47635 · VERSION 2 · NEW
36

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jul. 26, 2023

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Foreign Affairs

National Defense

Science and Technology Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON