Order Code RL30474
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Science, Technology, and Medicine:
Issues Facing the 106th Congress,
Second Session
March 16, 2000
Richard Rowberg, Coordinator
Senior Specialist
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜
The Library of Congress
ABSTRACT
This report presents a brief review and analysis of several important public policy issues that
are critically affected by and/or affect developments in science, technology, and medicine and
that might come before Congress this session. The report follows IB10008, now archived,
which covered these issues during the first session of the 106th Congress. The report is
intended for staff and Members wishing a broad overview of these issues. Links to CRS
reports and issue briefs that cover the issues in more detail are provided. The report will be
updated as the issues evolve during the year.
Science, Technology, and Medicine:
Issues Facing the 106th Congress, Second Session
Summary
Science, technology, and medicine (STM) play an integral part in many of the
policy issues that come before Congress. Much legislative action directly affects the
progress of science, technology, and medicine. And advances in those areas
significantly affect broader public policy issues. This report gives an overview of
several of those issues and identifies CRS reports that treat them in more depth.
For FY2001, the Administration has requested an increase of 3% for all R&D
funds compared to FY2000, including an increase of 7% for basic research. A key
issue will be availability of funds because R&D is within the discretionary portion of
the budget. Concerns have also been growing about shortages in the nation’s
technical workforce, and legislation is pending to increase permanently the number
of such workers that can immigrate to the United States.
Legislation to permit the acquisition of stem cells and the funding of stem cell
research by NIH is scheduled to be considered by the Senate. Legislative proposals
to block NIH funding of such research are also likely. Attempts may be made in
Congress to require that genetically modified foods be labeled as such in reaction to
concerns about the health effects of such foods. Proposals to include prescription
drugs in Medicare are raising concerns about drug pricing and possible price control.
The industry argues that current prices are justified to fund further R&D while others
claim that the prices charged to U.S. consumers are excessive. A related issue is a
proposal to extend the patent life of drugs, a move companies argue is needed
because of the growing cost of R&D. Others, however, claim such a move would
foster continued high prices by keeping lower cost generics off the market.
Legislation to ease the entry of the regional Bell telephone operating companies
into the long distance market is being considered. There are concerns that such easing
may be harmful to competition. Legislative proposals are being considered to force
cable TV companies to permit access to their cables by other companies providing
broadband internet access. Legislation is also being considered to permit legal
recognition of electronic signatures and ease the use of such signatures in electronic
commerce, but some oppose those proposals on privacy grounds. The rapid growth
of wireless services is putting a strain on FCC management of available frequency
spectrum. In addition, action is being urged by some in Congress to accelerate
development of standards for the next generation of wireless devices.
Growing concerns about ownership of intellectual property are complicating
cooperative R&D development involving government, industry, and academia.
Legislation and proposals for increased funding are emerging in an attempt to stem
an apparent increase in “cyber” threats to the nation’s critical infrastructure.
Department of Energy (DOE) implementation of the National Nuclear Security
Administration to manage DOE’s nuclear weapons programs is creating controversy
as to whether DOE is meeting statutory requirements.
Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Research and Development Budgets and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Research and Development Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Science and Technology Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Supply and Demand of the Technical Workforce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Access to Federal R&D Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Cooperative R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Biomedical Research and Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
NIH Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Stem Cell Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Public and Environmental Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Genetically Modified Foods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Health Information Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Prescription Drugs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Global Change and Earth Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Space Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
NASA Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Launch Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Commercial Satellite Exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Global Positioning System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Intelsat and Inmarsat Privatization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Telecommunications and Computers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Slamming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Federal Communications Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Bell Entry into Long Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act and Loan Guarantees . . . . 15
General Internet Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Broadband Internet Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Encryption technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Electronic Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Spectrum Management and Wireless Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Technology Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Intellectual Property/Patent Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Advanced Technology Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Technology Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Defense Research and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Department of Defense (DOD) R&D Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Critical Infrastructures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
DOE Nuclear Security Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Science, Technology, and Medicine:
Issues Facing the 106th Congress,
Second Session
Introduction
During the second session of the 106th Congress, many issues are being
addressed that will influence or be influenced by scientific, technological, and medical
advances. Those issues can be divided into two classes: those whose primary policy
focus is science, technology, and/or medicine, and broader public policy issues
concerning public health, economic growth, national security, and related subjects.
This report provides an overview of scientific, technological, and medical aspects of
several key policy issues of both types that are on the agenda of the 106th Congress.
The report is organized by major topic area. Relevant CRS issue briefs and reports
are cited in the text. Consult the CRS Home Page [http://lcweb.loc.gov/crs/] or call
CRS on 7-5700 to obtain the cited reports or identify material in the other areas.
Issues
Research and Development Budgets and Policy
Research and Development Budget. The National Science Foundation (NSF)
estimates that in 1999, the United States spent $247 billion on research and
development (R&D). Of that total, industry contributed about 69% and the federal
government 27%. The federal share was the lowest ever reported by NSF. In 1970,
federal R&D expenditures accounted for 57% of the nation’s total R&D effort. Given
the declining role of the federal government in the Nation’s R&D enterprise, Congress
may consider whether the Administration’s numerous R&D initiatives focus on long-
term high-risk research, as well as agency mission-related R&D, and do not duplicate
industries’ rapidly expanding R&D efforts.
The Administration has requested $85.33 billion for federal R&D budget
authority in FY2001, a 3% increase over the estimated $82.74 billion for FY2000.
Mirroring previous requests for R&D spending, the Administration is requesting a
significant increase for civilian R&D (6.2%, $43.27 billion), while defense R&D
funding (DOD plus DOE’s weapons R&D, $42.06 billion) would remain flat.
Between FY1993 and FY2000, federal civilian R&D has increased 27% in real
dollars, while concomitantly, defense R&D has declined almost 9%.
The President’s proposed $20.33 billion basic research budget represents a 7%
increase over FY2000. The budget reflects the Administration’s goal of obtaining a
CRS-2
“Balanced R&D Portfolio” by requesting significant increases in new or existing
multi-agency, multi-discipline initiatives. Federal support for university-based R&D
would increase 7.8%, reaching an estimated $17.83 billion in FY2001.
The budget highlights three initiatives, each built around a common theme. The
first is a $600 million increase for information technology (IT) research spread over
several existing IT R&D programs across 7 different agencies. The consolidated
request for those programs for FY2001 is $2.3 billion. The second is a $289 million
initiative in USDA and DOE aimed at converting “crops, trees, and other biomass into
a vast array of fuels and products.” The third is $495 million for the National
Nanotechnology Initiative, which would double current funding levels of several
separate agency programs for fundamental research at the nanoscale level.
The Administration has proposed new discretionary spending caps to
accommodate its FY2001 budget request. However, if Congress decides to retain the
current caps or sets new ones that are lower than those proposed by the
Administration, the FY2001 R&D budget request could experience major alterations.
During the first session of the 106th Congress, the Senate passed S.296, the
Federal Research Investment Act. A companion bill, H.R. 3161, has been introduced
in the House. This bill is intended to encourage “the doubling of the annual
authorized amount of Federal funding for basic scientific, medical, and pre-competiti-
ve engineering research” in 15 civilian agencies over an 11-year period.
Science and Technology Education. During the 1st session of the 106th
Congress, the House Science Committee held several hearings exploring ways to
improve the performance of U.S. students in science and mathematics and to increase
the number of students pursuing scientific disciplines in undergraduate and graduate
programs. The hearings covered issues such as inquiry-based instruction, teacher
training and preparation, classroom technology, college admissions, and the
establishment of partnerships between institutions of higher education and local school
districts. One area that received attention was funding of education research (about
0.1% of all education spending is for education research). Education research has
been described by some as fragmented and of questionable rigor, and many in
Congress believe national educational research efforts are inadequate.
Several pieces of legislation in support of science and mathematics education
— H.R. 210, H.R. 709, H.R. 1265, S. 1224, and S. 1266 — were introduced in the
last session. In addition, the House Science Committee asked the General Accounting
Office to conduct a survey of federal science and mathematics education projects that
develop comprehensive curricula support for students at the precollege level. The
results of that survey may serve as the basis for a hearing during the 2nd session of the
106th Congress. Also, it is anticipated that during the 2nd session, the House Science
Committee will examine teacher recruitment, preparation, retention, and professional
development (CRS Report 98-871 and CRS Info Pack IP518E).
The Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-25) extends the
authority of states to waive the requirements of certain federal regulations to all 50
states in return for greater accountability in educational achievement. One of the
affected programs is the Eisenhower Professional Development Program, which gives
CRS-3
priority to math and science education. There is some concern that the waiver
authority granted by the Act might lower that priority. The Act’s sponsors maintain
that most of the Eisenhower funds will still be used for improving math and science
education (CRS Report 98-676).
Supply and Demand of the Technical Workforce. Reports and anecdotal
accounts of the computer industry having trouble filling jobs are numerous. While
opinions differ in the scientific and technical community as to whether there is indeed
a shortage of information technology workers, many agree that the supply of
technically skilled workers is “tight”. A May 1999 report of the Computing Research
Association,
The Supply of Information Technology Workers in the United States,
[http://www.cra.org/reports/wits/it_worker_shortage_book.pdf] analyzed the claims
and concluded that the data are inadequate to determine if there is an imbalance
between supply and demand.
Many colleges and universities are reporting increased enrollments in their
undergraduate computer science and computer engineering departments. However,
simultaneously with these increased enrollments, many of these same institutions are
facing losses of departmental faculty. (See for example, Robin Wilson,
Computer
Scientists Flee Academe for Industry’s Greener Pastures, Chronicle of Higher
Education, September 24, 1999, p. A16). Faculty, both tenured and non-tenured, are
being lured away by the attractive salaries of the computer industry and the
opportunity to be engaged in the research and development of a startup company. A
report examining this issue entitled
Supply of Information Technology Workers,
[http://www.cra.org/reports/wits/exec_summary.html] stated that the competition for
university faculty by the private sector may threaten the health of university
departments, and with it the supply of future IT workers.
Industry leaders contend that because of the lack of skilled workers in the
scientific and technical fields, high technology companies have to rely more heavily
on foreign workers on H-1B visas. Increasing the number of skilled foreign workers
on temporary visas has and continues to be controversial (CRS Report 97-746).
Proponents charge that foreign workers fill the needs of the industry and help to
sustain growth. Critics maintain that industry should focus its energies and resources
on educating and retraining U.S. workers for U.S. jobs. The American
Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (Title IV, P.L. 105-277) changed
the number of H-1B workers from 65,000 to 115,000 in FY1999, 115,000 in
FY2000, 107,500 in FY2001, and 65,000 in FY2002 and thereafter. In June of 1999,
the annual allotment of H-1B visas was reached, three months before the end of the
fiscal year. High technology industries lobbied to have the cap raised further.
Legislation introduced during the 1st session would raise the H-1B cap permanently
to 200,000 annually for FY2000-FY2002 (S. 1440, H.R. 2698) (CRS Issue Brief
IB10044 and CRS Report RS20327).
Access to Federal R&D Data. The FY1999 omnibus appropriations bill (P.L.
105-277) required OMB to establish procedures whereby the public can obtain access
to data from federally funded research, through provisions of the Freedom of
Information Act. This was a major change from traditional practice. While permitted,
federal agencies typically have not required grantees to submit research data, and
CRS-4
pursuant to a 1980 Supreme Court decision, agencies, under FOIA, did not have to
give the public access to research data not part of agency records.
There has been considerable debate about this legislation. Opponents said that
FOIA is an inappropriate vehicle to allow wider public access arguing that: using it
will harm the traditional process of scientific research –- human subjects will refuse
to participate in scientific research, believing that the federal government might obtain
access to confidential information; researchers will have to spend additional time and
money preparing data for submission to the government, thereby interfering within
ongoing research; and government/university/industry partnerships will be
jeopardized, because data funded jointly would be made available under FOIA.
Proponents of the amendment say that “accountability” and “transparency” are
paramount: the public should have a right to review scientific data underlying research
funded by government taxpayers and used in making policy or setting regulations.
OMB released final revisions to Circular A-110, as directed by law, on September 30,
1999. OMB limited access under FOIA to selected research data that the federal
government cites or uses in actions having the force and effect of law. Legislation has
been introduced (H.R. 88) to repeal the law but was not acted on during the first
session. Court challenges may be raised to the circular, to the extent it represents a
narrow interpretation of the law (CRS Report RL30376).
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993, P.L. 103-62, (GPRA), encourages greater
efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in federal spending. It also requires
agencies to set goals and to use performance measures for management and,
ultimately, for budgeting. During the first session of the 106th Congress, agency
performance plans, including those of the R&D funding agencies, that were submitted
in conjunction with the FY2000 budget request, received close congressional scrutiny.
Of particular interest were the performance measures set by the R&D funding
agencies to assess the results of their R&D programs. The agencies will send
Congress their FY2001 performance plans with their budget requests and will submit
their first performance reports, for FY1999, by March 31, 2000. Both of those
documents are likely to receive attention in oversight, authorization, and
appropriations activities (CRS Report RS20257 and Congressional Research Service,
Performance Measure Provisions in the 105th Congress: Analysis of a Selected
Compilation, [http://www.house.gov/reform/press/99_01_5.htm]).
Because of the difficulty of using quantitative measures to evaluate research
outcomes, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has recommended that federal
agencies evaluate the outcomes of basic research using qualitative measures and other
data, and called for better interagency research coordination (
Evaluating Federal
Research Programs: Research and the Government Performance and Results Act,
1999.) S. 296, the Federal Research Investment Act, authorizes funding for an NAS
study on performance measures for research and specifies that the study evaluate the
use of quantitative measures for administrative aspects of R&D. OMB would
promulgate a list of appropriate “alternative” methods for analyses of research based
on the study recommendations. The bill, passed by the Senate, includes provisions to
automatically terminate “unsuccessful” federal research programs. A similar bill, H.R.
3161, has been introduced in the House.
CRS-5
Cooperative R&D. As R&D becomes more expensive, collaborative efforts
among government, industry, and academia continue to expand. While there are
various laws that encourage such efforts, additional issues have developed as a
consequence of the implementation of those laws. During its first session, the 106th
Congress addressed cooperative R&D within the context of patent reform, federal
R&D funding, the future of the research and experimentation tax credit, and
amendments to the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act concerning
cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs). In the last session,
changes were made in the patent laws and the research tax credit was extended. In
this session, some are interested in considering a review of collaborative R&D
particularly in relation to facilitating expansion of high-tech industries, including
pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, telecommunications, and computers. Critics,
however, believe the government should not fund research that supports development
of commercial products. Legislation (H.R. 209) passed by the House to expedite
procedures available to federal agencies for the licensing of government-owned
inventions may again be considered by the Senate (CRS Issue Brief IB89056).
Biomedical Research and Applications
NIH Research. Biomedical research, supported principally by the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), consumes over 40% of federal civilian R&D dollars. For
FY2000, Congress gave NIH its second consecutive increase of over 14%,
responding to widespread support for an effort to double the NIH budget over a five-
year period starting with FY1999. The appropriation brought the total NIH budget
to $17.8 billion, a $2.2 billion increase over FY1999. The Administration, preferring
a slower growth path of 40%–50% over five years, has requested $18.8 billion for
FY2001, an increase of $1 billion or 5.6%. During last year’s budget deliberations,
debate over adherence to the discretionary spending caps raised questions about
significant increases for NIH; the debate is expected to recur this year since the caps
currently in place are even tighter (CRS Issue Brief IB10018). In considering further
increases in NIH’s budget, Congress is likely to insist on a detailed accounting of how
the FY2000 funds are being spent, whether they are buying good science, and whether
additional large allotments are justified.
With its increased budget, NIH plans to continue its initiatives in four areas of
research emphasis: genetic medicine and exploiting genomic discoveries;
reinvigorating clinical research; involving other disciplines (chemistry, physics,
mathematics, computer science, engineering) in medical research, especially
bioinformatics; and eliminating health disparities among racial, ethnic, and
socioeconomic subgroups domestically and reducing those disparities abroad. Some
of those research areas are also the subject of pending legislation or have attracted
oversight activity. Another ongoing issue is how NIH sets research priorities,
including its efforts to make the process more understandable and to incorporate more
public input (CRS Report 95-96).
Stem Cell Research. Two privately funded studies published in November,
1998, reported the first successful isolation and replication of human embryonic stem
cells in the laboratory (CRS Report RS20266). Such cells have the potential to
reproduce themselves indefinitely and to develop into many types of human tissues.
Scientists consider this advance to be a very important breakthrough. Many are
CRS-6
anxious to do additional research on various medical and scientific applications,
including the generation of healthy replacement cells for diseased-damaged tissue.
These stem cells, however, are derived from human embryo fetuses, and because of
this, stem cell research has sparked considerable controversy.
A key question before Congress this last session was whether stem cell research
should be funded by the federal government. While federal funding of research using
human embryos is currently prohibited, research using tissue from aborted fetuses is
not. NIH initially was unclear about whether federal funds could be used to support
research on stem cells derived from embryos. Acting on an HHS legal opinion,
however, NIH announced in January 1999 that it would fund such research. Several
Members wrote to the HHS Secretary questioning the decision, and it was the subject
of hearings in both chambers.
As a result of that concern, the Administration asked the National Bioethics
Advisory Commission (NBAC) to study the issue. NBAC released its report on
September 13, 1999. The Commission recommended that research on stem cells from
human embryos should be allowed to receive federal funding. The report stipulated
that federal funds should be restricted to research using embryos remaining from
infertility treatments involving in-vitro fertilization or from aborted fetuses. NBAC
is opposed to the use of federal funds for research involving embryos created solely
for scientific investigation. On December 2, NIH released proposed guidelines to
allow researchers to apply for NIH funding for studies involving stem cells obtained
from the private sector sources. The guidelines would permit federal funding for
research on stem cells but would exclude funding for derivation of such cells from
human embryos. This funding prohibition is a departure from the NBAC
recommendation. While greeted with support by patients advocates, others believe
the guidelines actually move NIH closer to supporting embryo research than at
present. Some in Congress state that the may be attempts to block implementation
of the proposed regulations this session. A vote appears likely on legislation (S.2051)
allowing NIH to fund both the use and isolation of embyronic stem cells for research.
Public and Environmental Health
Genetically Modified Foods. Questions were raised during the 1st Session of
the 106th Congress as to whether genetically modified or bioengineered foods were
safe, and whether they should be labeled. Bioengineered foods, or genetically
modified (GM) foods, refer to the use of recombinant DNA and related techniques
to alter the genetic makeup of living organisms. These techniques allow scientists to
identify and isolate genes of interest from any organism and put the genes into other
organisms. Currently, GM food crops planted and marketed by U.S. farmers include
canola, corn, potatoes, rice, soybeans, sunflowers, and tomatoes. All the food safety
agencies –- the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) –- are
involved in regulating GM foods (CRS Report RL30198).
Administration officials, scientists, and producer groups have all expressed
strong support for the safety of these foods. They all claim that GM foods have
environmental benefits because there is less need to use pesticides and farmers benefit
from lower input costs. They also say these foods have been carefully tested, and that
CRS-7
genetic engineering is more precise than traditional cross-breeding, a technique that
often transfers unwanted genes to the food plant. However, critics raised questions
about whether the agencies had scrutinized properly the long-term effects of these
products on human and environmental health. Critics and advocates of increased food
labeling also have demanded the “right-to-know” which foods have been
bioengineered. They want access to information on a label that would allow them to
identify these products and then, if they choose, they could avoid their purchase and
consumption.
In 1992, FDA determined that GM foods do not pose scientific and regulatory
issues that are substantially different from those for conventional food. Special
labeling may be required if the GM food significantly differs from its conventional
counterpart such that the common name would no longer apply, or if they contain
allergens.
The agency concluded that it was unnecessary to mandate labeling to
indicate the method by which a new variety of food was developed (e.g., that it was
genetically engineered). In response to growing public concerns, FDA solicited views
at three public meetings in November and December 1999 on the most appropriate
way to inform the public about GM foods. FDA currently is reviewing comments
received, and it says that those views will be used in evaluating and refining, as
necessary, its policies.
Three bills have been introduced that would either mandate labeling of GM
foods or regulate them as food additives. Similar bills with similar titles, “The
Genetically Engineered Food Right to Know Act” (H.R. 3377) and “The Genetically
Engineered Food Right-to-Know Act” (S.2080), would amend the FFDCA, the
Federal Meat Inspection Act, and the Poultry Products Inspection Act to require
labeling of foods that contain genetically engineered material. The Genetically
Engineered Food Safety Act (H.R. 3882) would mandate that all GM foods go
through FDA’s current food additive process to ensure their safety.
U.S. exports of GM bulk commodities and seed may have to be labeled as well.
On January 29, 2000, in Montreal, Canada, over 130 countries agreed to a “Biosafety
Protocol” under the auspices of the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity.
Although the United States is not a member of that convention, the terms of the
Protocol will affect how U.S. exported genetically modified commodities, particularly
corn and soybeans, are labeled. The Protocol, after it is ratified in May 2000 and
adopted by 50 countries, will cover all GM foods, feeds, and seeds. It states that all
traded GM food products must be clearly identified with two statements. The first is
that all GM foods and products must be identified with a label that states that they
“may contain” living modified organisms. The second must state that the GM foods
“are not intended for intentional introduction into the environment.” The label is
required to discourage farmers from planting the seeds from these products. Since
most of the countries importing U.S. commodities are likely to adopt this Protocol,
the United States will have to comply with these requirements for its exports.
Health Information Privacy. The public’s concern about the privacy of
individually identifiable health information has grown in recent years, with the rapid
transition to managed health care and the increased use of information technologies
to gather, process, and analyze health data. The growth of integrated health care
delivery systems has led to the development of large databases containing personal
CRS-8
health information, and the number of health care organizations handling patient data
has grown significantly. On October 29, 1999, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services proposed a regulation to protect the privacy of personally identifiable health
information that is maintained or transmitted in electronic form. The proposed health
privacy rule is one of several standards mandated by the Administrative Simplification
provisions of the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA,
P.L. 104-191, 42 U.S.C. 1320d).
The health privacy regulation covers only health plans, health care providers, and
health information clearinghouses (i.e., entities that facilitate and process the flow of
health information between providers and payers). Under the proposed rule, health
plans and providers are required to obtain a patient’s voluntary consent to disclose
information, unless the disclosure is related to treating an individual or paying for his
or her care. Patients are also given the right to inspect and amend their medical
records. Covered entities that fail to comply with the regulation would be subject to
civil and criminal penalties, but patients do not have a private right of action to sue
for violations of the law. The proposed rule does not preempt, or override, state laws
that are more protective of health information privacy.
The public comment period on the proposal ended on February 17. Although
the Secretary has not announced a date for issuing a final rule, the Administration has
indicated that the regulation will be finalized later this year. The Department of
Health and Human Services has announced plans to develop privacy and security rules
for paper records.
Health industry groups and privacy advocates continue to lobby Congress to
pass comprehensive health privacy legislation that would cover all types of
organizations that handle health information in both electronic and paper form. In
June 1999, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions failed
to mark up a health privacy bill. Some have indicated that Congress may attempt to
pass health privacy legislation this year. Several health privacy bills have been
introduced (S. 573/H.R. 1057, S. 578, S. 881, H.R. 1941, H.R. 2404, H.R. 2455, and
H.R. 2470). Several patients’ rights bills (e.g., S. 6, S. 326, H.R. 358, and H.R. 448)
also contain provisions on health information privacy (CRS Issue Brief 98002).
Prescription Drugs. The debate over whether to add a prescription drug benefit
to Medicare is one of the central issues before the 106th Congress. Medicare, which
provides health insurance for 39 million elderly and disabled beneficiaries, generally
pays only for drugs dispensed during hospital and short-term nursing home stays.
Advocates for the elderly are pressing for Medicare drug coverage and measures to
contain the rising cost of medications. Once a minor component of health-care
spending, drug expenditures now take a substantial and rapidly rising share of health
expenditures, due to increasing drug prices and the growing use of drugs for
managing chronic diseases in an aging population. The high cost of drugs has drawn
intense political interest and is a key driving force in the debate over Medicare drug
coverage. Drug company executives argue price controls would limit the amount of
money the companies could invest in R&D for new drugs.
Pharmaceutical companies are also lobbying to secure additional patent
extensions, arguing, again, that the revenue is necessary to fund the high costs of drug
CRS-9
R&D. The patent-extension debate is expected to intensify because a series of patents
on popular brand-name drugs (e.g., Claritin, Vasotec, Prozac, Prilosec) with
combined sales of more than $40 billion are due to expire in the coming years. The
1984 Hatch-Waxman Act extended the patent life of many brand-name drugs, while
at the same time speeding the approval of generic versions once the patent expires.
Industry critics argue that industry already receives a substantial R&D subsidy. They
point out that the companies do not bear all of the costs for new drug development.
The federal government funds billions of dollars of basic biomedical research,
primarily through the NIH, that provides a substrate of fundamental knowledge upon
which the pharmaceutical companies rely. Federal policies also promote private
sector development and commercialization of the results of federally funded research,
often through cooperative ventures among government, industry, and academia (CRS
Report 94-375).
Although the debate over Medicare coverage and drug pricing has captured the
most attention, consumer groups and some public health experts have also voiced
concern over FDA’s prescription drug regulatory activities. The agency adopted
regulations in the early 1990s to give fast-track approval of new drugs for AIDS and
other life-threatening diseases. Congress passed the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee
Act (PDUFA), which allowed FDA to collect fees from drug companies to hire
additional personnel to accelerate the drug approval process. The 1997 FDA
Modernization Act reauthorized PDUFA and included several additional drug-related
provisions (CRS Report 97-604 and CRS Report 98-263). While drug-approval time
has been cut significantly, consumer advocates complain that FDA is compromising
drug safety in its rush to approve new products.
The issue of prescription drug safety is attracting much congressional attention,
both with respect to FDA regulation and in the broader context of Medicare reform
and patients’ rights. Last November’s Institute of Medicine report,
To Err Is
Human: Building a Safer Health System, concluded that medical errors—including
errors in prescribing, dispensing, and using prescription drugs—are a leading cause
of illness and death. On February 22, 2000, the President’s Quality Interagency
Coordination Task Force (QuIC) issued its own evaluation of the IOM study, along
with a set of recommendations for establishing a national medical-error reporting
system. Based on the QuIC’s recommendations (which largely mirror those of the
IOM), the President has announced a series of initiatives designed to reduce the rate
of medical errors nationwide. They include creating a federal Center for Patient
Safety, which has strong congressional support, and establishing a state-based
medical-error reporting system. Lawmakers have introduced medical-error legislation
and have held several hearings on the issue. At the center debate is whether reporting
should be mandatory or voluntary, and how best to get health care providers to report
errors given fear of legal liability.
Global Change and Earth Sciences
The Congress has maintained an active and continuing interest in the implications
of possible global climate change for the United States.
In 1997, the parties to
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) agreed
to the Kyoto Protocol to establish binding commitments for reductions in greenhouse
gases for the developed countries; however, the Kyoto Protocol has not yet received
CRS-10
the required number of ratifications to enter into force. If the Protocol were to enter
into force, the United States would be committed to reducing its net average annual
emissions of six greenhouse gases to 7% below baseline levels (1990 for carbon
dioxide) during the period covering the years 2008 to 2012. At present, U.S.
emissions are above baseline levels.
In November 1998, the United States signed the Protocol, but the Administration
has not yet submitted it to the Senate for advice and consent to ratification. This
delay responds to S.Res. 98, passed unanimously by the Senate in 1997, that stated
that the United States should not agree to a protocol that did not impose binding
requirements on developing countries or that would “result in serious harm to the
U.S. economy or possibly produce little environmental benefit.” Also, the FY2000
Budget Resolution (H.Con.Res. 68, H.Rept. 106-91) expressed the sense of Congress
that no funds should be used to put the Kyoto Protocol into effect prior to Senate
ratification of the treaty, as required by S.Res. 98.
In 1998 the parties met again to develop work plans for specific elements of the
Kyoto Protocol. The deadline set for completing the work plans and the Protocol is
the Sixth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP-6), now set for November
13–24, 2000, in The Hague. Negotiations continued at the Fifth Meeting of the
Conference of the Parties to the Convention (COP-5), held October 25–November
5, 1999, in Bonn, Germany. An aggressive schedule of work sessions was agreed to
in order to complete the details of the Protocol by the November 2000 deadline.
Interest in the 106th Congress has focused on the scientific evidence for global
warming and the uncertainties associated with future climate projections; performance
and results of the Administration’s climate change programs; conditions under which
the United States would ratify the Kyoto Protocol; the implications for the U.S.
economy of various options for complying with emissions reductions in the Protocol,
if ratified; the extent to which carbon dioxide is considered a “pollutant” and whether
the government has the authority to regulate it; the pros and cons of granting
American companies credit for early action to reduce their emissions of greenhouse
gases; and long-term research and development programs to develop new
technologies to help stabilize greenhouse gas emissions.
Of particular interest to policymakers is whether enacting measures that would
focus on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas reductions to meet the terms of the
Protocol could be achieved at little or no net cost to the national economy, as some
have suggested, or whether the Protocol might result in increased taxes, loss of jobs,
or a dramatic jump in energy costs for Americans, as others have suggested. Also,
with the submission of a $4.1 billion request in the President’s FY 2001 budget for
domestic programs related to climate change research, technology investments, and
tax incentives, congressional committees are poised to examine the details of those
spending proposals with an eye toward determining first, if they are worth the money,
and second, what portion of the request might constitute sound contingency actions
to deal with the potential of global climate change versus what portion might
prematurely commit the United States to the Kyoto Protocol. Congress included
provisions in FY 2000 appropriations prohibiting use of funds for implementing or
preparing to implement the Kyoto Protocol, unless it has been ratified by the Senate.
CRS-11
Debate in Congress over the prospect of global warming and what the United
States could or should do about it, produced legislation on both sides of the issue.
During the first session, bills were introduced to grant business and industry credits
for voluntary early actions that reduce greenhouse gas emissions (H.R. 2520, S. 547,
S. 882) and to promote R&D on biomass and biobased industrial products to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions (H.R. 2819, H.R. 2827, S. 935). Legislation was
introduced in the House that would bar the EPA from regulating carbon dioxide
without congressional approval (H.R. 2221). Two other House bills would
strengthen provisions, respectively, in the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and in the
Federal Non-Nuclear Energy Research and Development Act of 1974 with respect to
potential climate change (H.R. 3384, H.R. 3385). In the Senate, legislation was
introduced to provide for a $2 billion research, development, and demonstration
program over 10 years to generate new technologies to help stabilize greenhouse gas
emissions (S. 882). Another bill would revise U.S. energy policies in order to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, advance global climate science, promote technology
development, and increase citizen awareness (S. 1776). A companion bill would
amend the Internal Revenue Code to provide incentives for voluntary reductions of
greenhouse gas emissions and to advance global climate science and technology
development (S. 1777). Two other Senate bills (S. 1457 and S. 1055) deal with the
issue of carbon storage (CRS Report 98-664; CRS Report RL30036; CRS Issue Brief
IB89005; CRS Report 98-2; see also CRS Electronic Briefing Book on Global
Climate Change [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebgcc1.html/]).
Space
Space Station. The National Aeronautic and Space Administration’s (NASA)
International Space Station (ISS) program continues to generate controversy.
Although its first two segments were launched at the end of 1998, no further
segments have been placed in orbit since then, because of delays in the launch of the
third segment, Russia’s Zvezda Service Module. Launch of that module is now
expected in late summer 2000. Continuing concerns about Russia’s ability to fulfill
its commitments and about NASA’s own cost overruns are the focus of the debate.
Congress has defeated 21 attempts to terminate the space station program since 1991,
but criticism of the program continues. Key questions for Congress are how to
accommodate NASA’s substantial cost increases for ISS without harming other
NASA programs, how to react to continuing delays in the launch of Zvezda, and
Russia’s recent decision to continue operation of its existing
Mir space station instead
of focusing its modest resources on ISS. H.R. 1654, the FY2000-2002 NASA
authorization bill, has passed the House and Senate; Senate conferees have been
named. The Senate version caps total development costs and launch costs. The
House version, H.R. 1654, sets no caps (CRS Issue Brief IB93017 and CRS Report
RL30154). For FY2001, NASA is requesting $2.1 billion for ISS, a reduction of
about $200 million from its FY2000 funding for the program, reflecting the expected
ramping down of program funding as hardware is completed.
NASA Budget. For FY2001, NASA is requesting $14.04 billion, 3.2% above
the FY2000 level. This is the first increase requested for NASA in 7 years. NASA’s
four priorities are building the space station, performing quality science, developing
new space transportation, and enhancing shuttle safety. The first priority is discussed
under space station (above). NASA’s space science program is requesting an increase
CRS-12
of $206 million for FY2001. Included is funding for a major initiative, Living With
a Star, whose aim is to increase our knowledge of how solar variability affects human-
made technology, humans in space, and the Earth’s climate. The projected 10-year
cost of this program, about $1.4 billion, is substantial, and its payoff is uncertain at
this time. Another space science concern is whether NASA’s “faster, better, cheaper”
policy for space missions needs revision in light of the two Mars mission failures last
year. The FY2001 request also proposes a major, five-year program to develop base
technology for the next generation reusable launch vehicle (RLV). This program is
projected to cost $4.47 billion over the next five years, with the hope that industry
will take over the project at that time to develop a commercial RLV capability for
which NASA will be a customer. The program is quite complex and it is possible that
NASA will have to bear all of the development costs. Shuttle safety also continues
to be a major concern in Congress. NASA is starting a five-year, $1.9 billion effort
to bring about major shuttle safety and operation upgrades. With some exceptions,
however, NASA has not yet set priorities for that program.
Launch Vehicles. Congress is debating space launch vehicle issues on several
fronts (CRS Issue Brief IB93062). The development of new space launch vehicles
by the government and the private sector has been the subject of congressional
attention for several years. It received new impetus in 1999 following an investigation
into allegations that certain U.S. satellite manufacturing companies may have
improperly transferred missile-related information to China in the course of launching
U.S.-built satellites on Chinese launch vehicles. A special House committee chaired
by Representative Cox investigated that and other issues concerning technology
transfer to China. Among the committee recommendations (CRS Report RL30231)
was that U.S. launch capacity be increased to make the U.S. launch services industry
more competitive with countries like China. NASA is responsible for developing new
reusable launch vehicles (RLVs, such as the space shuttle) while DOD is responsible
for expendable launch vehicles (ELVs, what most people call rockets). Because the
market for launch services is increasingly for commercial rather than government
satellites, NASA and DOD have each entered into new cost-sharing arrangements
with industry for developing new systems that require the companies to pay some of
the costs. Other private sector companies are proceeding without direct government
funding, although some are asking for government incentives. The focus is on loan
guarantees or tax incentives. Loan guarantee legislation (S. 469) is pending in the
Senate.
Other pending legislation (H.R. 2289, S. 1239) would facilitate investment in
new space launch sites or “spaceports,” or extend government indemnification of
certain third-party liability claims for commercial space launch companies (H.R. 1526,
H.R. 2607, S. 832). The FY2000 VA-HUD-IA appropriations bill (P.L. 106-74)
extended the indemnification for one year as a stop-gap measure (existing authority
would have expired on December 31, 1999), but the pending legislation would extend
it for 5 or 10 years and is expected to be debated this session.
Other space launch vehicle issues continue to be controversial. One concerns
whether the United States should negotiate new bilateral space-launch trade
agreements with Russia, China, and Ukraine. The existing agreements expire in 2000
or 2001. Administration policy is to allow these trade agreements, which set the
market terms under which those countries are permitted to launch U.S.-built satellites,
CRS-13
to expire in favor of free market policies as those countries move to market-based
economies. The policy does not specify what happens for the countries that have not
made that transition by the time the agreements end.
Commercial Satellite Exports. Another continuing debate is over the effect of
Congress’ decision to transfer responsibility from the Commerce Department to the
State Department for exporting commercial communications satellites in the wake of
issues about the technology transfer to China mentioned above. The U.S. aerospace
industry and, reportedly, the Department of Defense have criticized the effect of that
action because they argue it takes too long for the State Department to decide
whether to grant export licenses resulting in the loss of U.S. contracts to build
satellites or other products. Another concern is that insurance will become
unavailable for U.S.-built satellites because technical information regarding satellite
failures, for example, cannot be “exported” to foreign underwriters so they can
determine their liability, without a State Department license. Most satellite insurance
underwriters are outside the United States. Congress appropriated funds so the State
Department can hire additional export license examiners, but industry and government
concerns remain.
Global Positioning System. Debate is continuing on how best to use the
Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) Global Positioning System (GPS) of navigation
satellites for both military and civilian purposes (CRS Report 94-171). Although the
satellite system is funded and operated by DOD, it is used widely by the civilian
community. The Department of Transportation (DOT) cochairs with DOD an
interagency task force on use of the system and has sought funding to expand the
system’s capabilities to make it better for civilian purposes. Growing demand for
highly accurate GPS signals for purposes such as civilian air traffic control led the
Administration to decide to add two signals specifically for civilian use to future GPS
satellites at a cost of $400 million over 6 years. The Administration wants agencies
to share the cost, but Congress has not agreed that this is a good use of DOT funds.
For FY2000, DOT requested $17 million for its share, but Congress denied it in the
DOT appropriations act (P.L. 106-69). It also denied funding for a related initiative
in FY1999 (CRS Issue Brief IB92011).
Intelsat and Inmarsat Privatization. Congress is considering legislation
related to the privatization of two international satellite communications
organizations: the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (Intelsat)
and the International Mobile Satellite Organization (Inmarsat) (CRS Report
RL30439). While these intergovernmental treaty organizations have made initial
moves toward privatization, issues remain about their pace, the rules by which access
to certain markets is authorized, and the final organizational structure of each
privatized organization. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin wants to acquire the
Communications Satellite Corporation (Comsat), which serves as the U.S.
representative to both Intelsat and Inmarsat. Following approval in September 1999
by the Federal Communications Commission, Lockheed Martin purchased 49% of
Comsat’s shares. Because the
Communications Satellite Act of 1962 sets ownership
limits on Comsat, the Act must be changed if there is to be further acquisition.
Following activity in the 105th Congress, the Senate passed S. 376, the
Open-
market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications
CRS-14
(ORBIT) Act, in July 1999. The
Communications Satellite Competition and
Privatization Act, H.R. 3261, was introduced in November 1999. Shortly thereafter,
the House passed S. 376 by a voice vote with H.R. 3261 as an amendment in the
nature of a substitute. Though several controversial differences remained between the
bills, those differences were addressed in conference. The conference bill was
reported on March 2 (H.Rept. 106-509) and passed the Senate that day by unanimous
consent. The conference report has not yet reached the House floor.
The Administration has raised concerns about the conference agreement. Most
notably, the Administration contends that the legislation could result in restrictions to
consumers and reductions in U.S. market competition. In addition, the
Administration argues that the bill would interfere with presidential authority to
conduct diplomatic and foreign affairs, and potentially violate agreements with the
World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Telecommunications Union
(ITU). Finally, the Administration has raised concerns about the bill’s potential
impairment of critical national security communications, though some of these were
addressed in the conference report.
Telecommunications and Computers
Slamming. Slamming is the unauthorized change in a subscriber’s telephone
service provider. Two measures (S.58 and S.1084) to strengthen slamming
regulations issued by the FCC were introduced in the 106th Congress but have not
been acted upon to date. If FCC regulations do not result in a significant decrease in
the incidence of slamming, it is highly likely that Congress may revisit this issue during
the second session (CRS Issue Brief IB98027).
Federal Communications Commission. Congress has used the reauthorization
process as a vehicle to assess the FCC’s implementation of the 1996
Telecommunications Act and to examine proposals to restructure the agency.
Dissatisfaction by some over FCC efforts to implement parts of the Act, such as the
“schools-and-libraries” or “E-rate” program, as well as an increasing sentiment that
the FCC should be restructured to better address a changing telecommunications
environment, have given impetus to such efforts. As a “first step” in the
reorganization process, FCC Chairman Kennard announced the establishment of two
new bureaus (Enforcement and Consumer Information) that began operation on
November 8, 1999. Hearings to examine the FCC restructuring proposal were held
in October 1999 by the House Telecommunications Subcommittee. A six-member
panel of House Commerce Committee members was established to study both how
to reform the FCC and to present a proposal. That proposal is expected to stimulate
legislative initiatives to be introduced in this session. While many observers support
efforts to streamline the Agency, Chairman Kennard and some Members of Congress
have cautioned that the FCC restructuring process should not be used to rewrite
telecommunications policy (CRS Issue Brief IB98040).
Bell Entry into Long Distance. Present laws and regulatory policies applied
to the Bell operating companies (BOCs) restrict them from offering long distance
(interLATA) services within their service regions until certain conditions are met. The
BOCs seeking to provide such services must file an application with the FCC and the
appropriate state regulatory authority that demonstrates compliance with a 14-point
CRS-15
check list. The FCC, after consultation with the Justice Department and the relevant
state regulatory authority will determine whether the BOC is in compliance and can
be authorized to provide in region interLATA services. To date one BOC, Bell
Atlantic, has been authorized to provide such services in New York. Concerns have
been raised about whether such restrictions are overly burdensome and discourage
needed investment in and deployment of broadband services. Legislation has been
introduced in the 106th Congress that seeks to ease these regulatory restrictions as
applied to data transmission (S. 1043, H.R. 1685, H.R. 1686, H.R. 2420) and further
action on these measures is anticipated. Proponents of these measures feel that the
lifting of such restrictions will accelerate the deployment of and access to broadband
services, particularly in rural and under served areas. Opponents argue that such
restrictions are necessary to ensure the growth of competition in the provision of
telecommunications services and that the lifting of such restrictions will have an
adverse effect on a dynamic and growing broadband marketplace (CRS Issue Brief
IB10045, CRS Report RL30018).
Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act and Loan Guarantees. The
Satellite Home Viewer Improvement Act (SHVIA) was enacted in November 1999
to replace the 1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act. Under SHVIA (included in P.L. 106-
113, the consolidated appropriations act), satellite companies are now allowed to
retransmit local network television signals back into the same market from which they
originated (called “local-into-local”). Under the earlier law, only “distant” network
signals from another area could be retransmitted to satellite subscribers, and only if
they could not receive those signals via an over-the-air antenna and did not subscribe
to cable. The new law therefore permits more consumers to receive network
programming, in addition to programming (such as HBO or ESPN) traditionally
provided by satellite carriers. The law was intended, in part, to facilitate competition
with cable in response to consumer complaints about cable rate hikes.
However, the satellite carriers do not have sufficient capacity on their satellites
to carry all local programming for all communities in the nation. There are 1,600 local
television stations across the country. The two U.S. satellite television companies,
DirecTV and EchoStar, currently plan to offer local-into-local service only to the top
markets, meaning that small and rural markets will not benefit from this service.
There are 210 markets in the United States (as defined by Nielsen Media Research)
and only 33 would be covered by those companies. In response to concerns about
rural America being left out of this service, a provision was added to SHVIA as it was
being debated in conference at the end of 1999 that would have established a loan
guarantee program through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to help
companies provide local television to communities not served by Echostar or
DirecTV. The provision was included in the conference report on the bill (H.R. 1554,
H.Rept. 106-464) and passed the House, but Senator Gramm objected because it had
not been discussed in the House or Senate and had not been referred to the Senate
Banking Committee. Advocates of the provision agreed to remove it from the final
version of the bill (S. 1964) in exchange for commitments by the House and Senate
leadership to deal with the issue prior to March 31, 2000.
S. 1980, with language very similar to that which was removed from the
conference version of H.R. 1554, was introduced in November 1999 and referred to
the Senate Agriculture Committee. Senator Gramm has indicated that he plans to
CRS-16
draft a separate bill. Issues include whether a loan guarantee program is needed, who
should administer such a program, whether the program should be only for companies
that want to provide local television over satellites or whether it should be technology
neutral, what companies should be eligible for the loan guarantees, how large the
loans should be, and whether the government should guarantee 100% of the loan or
only part of it. The key issue, however, is whether the goal is to ensure that all
households in America can receive at least one local television station so they can
listen to local weather alerts and community news, or whether it is to ensure that all
households have alternatives to cable. According to the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC), cable is within reach of 97% of the households with television in
the United States, while about 5% are outside the reach of broadcast television. Thus
approximately 3-5% of those households cannot get local television now, and one
goal could be to make it possible for them to get at least one station in their vicinity.
Conversely, only 33 of the 210 markets will receive local-into-local from either
EchoStar or DirecTV. If the goal is to offer competition to cable in the other 177
markets, a different approach might be needed (CRS Report RS20425).
General Internet Issues. Despite a general reluctance to regulate the Internet,
Congress has been drawn into such regulation in response to concerns about a variety
of issues. Chief among them is how to prevent children’s access to unsuitable
material on the Internet, particularly pornography. Congress’s first attempt to deal
with the issue (the 1996 Communications Decency Act or “CDA”) was overturned
by the Supreme Court in 1997. In 1998, Congress passed the Child Online Protection
Act, which its sponsors hoped would survive court challenges, but a federal judge
issued a preliminary injunction against enforcement of major provisions of the Act in
February 1999; the Justice Department has filed an appeal (CRS Report 98-670).
Legislation that would require schools and libraries receiving “E-rate” universal
service funding to use filtering technology to screen out objectionable Web sites is
being debated. The House adopted language on this issue on June 24, 1999, as an
amendment to H.R. 1501, the juvenile justice bill, while the Senate Commerce
Committee reported its version (in S. 97) on August 5 (S.Rept. 106-141). The two
are similar in concept but differ in specifics (CRS Report RS20036). The Senate
approved language in its version of the juvenile justice bill (S. 254) requiring Internet
Service Providers to provide filtering software to residential customers.
Protecting the privacy of personal information on the Internet has been another
area of congressional interest. Congress passed legislation protecting children’s
privacy in 1998 (P.L. 105-314), but concerns about privacy both for children and
adults remain (CRS Report RS20035). Several bills have been introduced (H.R. 313,
H.R. 367, H.R. 369, H.R. 1685, H.R. 3560, S. 809, and S. 854). Congress and the
Administration both prefer industry self-regulation in this area, but there is concern
about the industry’s ability to police itself, in the wake of repeated media stories about
Web site operators not abiding by the terms of their own privacy policies. Also under
debate is the question of whether Congress should limit unsolicited commercial e-mail
(“junk e-mail” or “spam”) (CRS Report RS20037). S. 759, H.R. 1685, H.R. 1686,
and H.R. 2162 address the spam issue. Another issue is protecting consumers against
fraud, including over the Internet. Two bills focus particularly on protecting senior
citizens in this regard (H.R. 612, S. 699) while another (S. 1015) focuses on
investors. What organization should be responsible for issuing Internet domain names
CRS-17
(CRS Report 97-868) and issues concerning the Next Generation Internet (CRS Issue
Brief IB95051) are also being debated.
Broadband Internet Access. Broadband Internet access — via digital
subscriber line (DSL), cable modem, or other technologies — gives users the ability
to send and receive data at speeds far greater than current modem access over
conventional telephone lines. With deployment of broadband technologies beginning
to accelerate, the federal government is seeking to ensure fair competition among the
vendors of broadband service so that it will be available and affordable to all who
want it. Currently, debate in the 106th Congress centers on two proposed legislative
approaches. One (H.R. 1685, H.R. 1686. H.R. 2637) would compel cable companies
to provide “open access” to competing Internet Service Providers. The other (H.R.
1685, H.R. 1686, H.R. 2420, S. 877, S. 1043) would ease certain restrictions and
requirements, imposed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996, on incumbent
telephone companies who provide high speed data access (CRS Issue Brief IB10045).
Encryption technology. Debate continued concerning U.S. policy on the use
of encryption to ensure communication privacy and security, and the level of access
the government should have to the keys needed to decrypt encrypted information
(known as key recovery) for law enforcement or national security purposes.
Legislation was introduced (H.R. 850 and S. 798) to affirm the rights of businesses
and individuals to use and sell strong encryption without mandating key recovery, and
to relax export controls on strong encryption without key recovery. In the House, five
committees reported on H.R. 850, but no full House vote was taken. On September
16, 1999, the Administration announced changes to its encryption policy, making
encryption products of any key length exportable without a license, after a technical
review, to users in any country except seven “terrorist countries”.
The Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Export Administration issued
regulations to implement the new policy on January 12, 2000. According to the new
rules, exporters must report to the government on where the encryption product is
exported and provide the government with information about the product’s intended
use and its sales distribution channels. In addition, if source code (computer language
instructions) is made publicly available (under “open source” policies) and no royalty
is charged for its use, the code is not subject to export restrictions. Since the new
policy was announced, the momentum in the House for voting on any encryption
legislation has dwindled. In September, the Administration also transmitted to
Congress proposed legislation (called the Cyberspace Electronic Security Act) that
would ensure that law enforcement maintains its ability to access decryption
information stored with third parties. It would also authorize $80 million over four
years for the FBI Technical Support Center, which will serve as a technical resource
in responding to the use of encryption by criminals. That legislation was not
introduced during the first session (see CRS Issue Brief IB96039).
Electronic Signatures. Electronic signatures, a means of verifying the identity
of the user of a computer system to control access or authorize a transaction, are
increasingly being used in electronic commerce. Several technologies can be used to
produce electronic signatures, the most prominent being digital signatures, which use
cryptographic techniques to provide data integrity (verification that a message has not
been altered) and nonrepudiation (proof that the signature on an electronic document
CRS-18
is in fact signed by the person purported to sign it). Legislation has passed in the
House (H.R. 1714) and Senate (S. 761) to enable the legal recognition of electronic
signatures in interstate commerce, to establish requirements for government use of
electronic signatures to enable electronic filing of information, and to promote the use
of electronic signatures in electronic commerce. While industry groups support both
bills, the Administration and consumer rights groups oppose parts of the House bill.
A conference is expected early in the 2nd Session.
Spectrum Management and Wireless Technologies. In an effort to keep pace
with the rapid developments in wireless technologies and services, the FCC has
increased its activities in spectrum management rules and regulations. The wireless
telecommunications industry has been growing significantly for many years. It
accelerated since the FCC’s auctions in the mid-1990s of licenses for personal
communications services (PCS) to compete with existing cellular telephone services.
In the past year or so, several newer wireless services have grown to the point of
becoming economically viable to mass markets for both business and personal uses.
A burgeoning array of commercial wireless services are being offered or
developed to provide voice and/or data transmissions in analog and/or digital format.
(The number of subscribers of digital wireless services has steadily increased since
their inception, and is now greater than the number of analog subscribers.) In
addition to cellular telephone, and narrowband and broadband PCS services, other
wireless services include the following: enhanced paging, which allows subscribers to
send and receive text messages; specialized mobile radio (SMR), which was
traditionally used for public safety and dispatching services, but now offers mobile
services over the public switched telephone network (PSTN); Multichannel Multipoint
Distribution Service (MMDS), also known as “wireless cable,” originally conceived
to provide television broadcasts, but now provides two-way data services including
wireless Internet access, within a range of about 40 miles from each
transmitting/receiving antenna (called a base station); Local Multipoint Distribution
Service (LMDS), which provides high-frequency, high-bandwidth wireless services
and consists of an omnidirectional antenna serving customers within about two miles
of the base station; and satellite-based systems, which are being developed to provide
voice and data services over a broad geographic range by using a constellation of low
earth-orbiting satellites. Spurred by growth of e-mail and electronic commerce, many
companies offering wireless services (including wireless telephone services) are now
developing wireless Internet access services.
The FCC is working to accommodate the increasing demand for spectrum
created by this myriad of services. In November 1999, the FCC announced a set of
broad guiding principles for spectrum management, stating that “demand for spectrum
has increased dramatically as a result of explosive growth in wireless
communications.” In December 1999, the FCC met with its Technological Advisory
Council, a group of industry representatives, to discuss new technologies and
developments of wireless services and spectrum management options. Auctions are
planned to begin May 10, 2000, for spectrum previously occupied by TV-broadcast
channels 60-69, and many companies plan to these or existing spectrum licenses to
provide wireless Internet access. In addition, the FCC has made unlicensed spectrum
available for low-power applications, such as cordless telephones, garage door
CRS-19
openers, and wireless computing and connection to local area networks. The FCC
plans to provide additional spectrum for the operation of new wireless devices.
Another emerging issue concerning wireless services and spectrum management
is the development of standards for Third Generation wireless (3G) devices. (The first
generation of wireless services was the original cellular telephone systems first
deployed in the 1980s, and the second generation is embodied in the digital PCS
networks deployed in the mid-1990s.) The International Telecommunication Union,
part of the United Nations, is pursuing the adoption of 3G standards to integrate
various satellite and terrestrial wireless systems currently being deployed and
developed, to promote global service capabilities and interoperability for the future.
The ultimate goal is to enable mobile services subscribers to use the same service,
including the same handset, anywhere in the world with a minimal number of
additional operational modes embedded in the handset. Currently, the main competing
digital wireless technologies for the 3G standard are based on the most prevalent
existing modes: Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Global System Mobile
Communications (GSM), and Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA). While all of
these modes are used in the United States, GSM was adopted by the European Union
and is established as a ubiquitous standard in Europe. U.S. industry groups have
diverse opinions on how the 3G standard should be defined.
Several bills have been introduced in the 106th Congress addressing spectrum
management issues. One provision, enacted as part of the FY2000 Defense
Appropriations Act (P.L.106-79), requires the FCC to collect proceeds from the
auction of portions of TV channels 60-69 by September 30, 2000. Many wireless
industry developments and FCC considerations for managing spectrum may not
require legislation. Congress, however, may be interested in ensuring that these
developments and proceedings maximize competition and that all consumer and
industry groups are treated fairly. The radiofrequency spectrum is a limited, valuable
resource, and a delicate balance must be achieved to meet competing interests.
Technology Development
Intellectual Property/Patent Reform. Interest in protection of intellectual
property has grown as its ownership becomes more complex because of increasing
joint public and private support of research. A particular focus of that concern is
cooperative R&D among the federal government, industry, and academia. Issues
continue to be raised regarding the right of drug companies to set prices on drugs that
were developed in part with federal funding or in conjunction with federal agencies.
Conflicts have surfaced over federal laboratories patenting inventions that each
collaborating party believes to be its own. For some federal agencies, delays continue
in negotiating cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs), because
of disagreements over the dispensation of any intellectual property. Problems have
been encountered by NIH in obtaining, for use in its research, new experimental
compounds that have been developed and patented by drug companies. The
companies are concerned that the effectiveness of the intellectual property will be
diminished if new applications are discovered by NIH. These and other issues are
expected to be explored as Congress addresses technology transfer (H.R. 209), drug
pricing, and/or the implications of patent reform legislation passed last session (CRS
Report 97-599 and CRS Report 98-862).
CRS-20
Advanced Technology Program. The Advanced Technology Program (ATP),
a key element in Administration’s efforts to promote economic growth through
technology development, has been targeted for elimination since the start of the 104th
Congress. Critics argue that R&D aimed at the commercial marketplace should be
funded by the private sector, not by the federal government. This controversy was
evident in the activities of the first session of the current Congress when the original
House-passed appropriations legislation contained no funding for ATP. The
legislation, as ultimately enacted, included FY2000 support for ATP that was 28%
below the previous year. During the upcoming authorization/appropriation debates,
similar questions may arise as to the appropriateness of federal government funding
of the Advanced Technology Program, as well as the broader issues associated with
a determination of the proper role of the federal government in technology
development (CRS Issue Brief 91132, CRS Report 95-36, and CRS Report 95-50).
Technology Transfer. As technology transfer activities between federal
laboratories and the private sector become more widespread, additional issues are
surfacing as to, among others, fairness of opportunity, dispensation of intellectual
property, and participation of foreign firms. H.R. 209 passed by the House in the first
session may be considered in the Senate. It would promote the transfer of
government-generated technology to the industrial community through the
expeditious licensing of federally-owned patents (CRS Issue Brief IB85031). There
also may be continued congressional oversight of technology transfer at the
Department of Energy laboratories as a result of various controversies surrounding
issues such as foreign participation in a CRADA aimed at developing extreme
ultraviolet lithography (CRS Report 98-81) and competing claims on intellectual
property arising from federally funded R&D.
Defense Research and Technology
Department of Defense (DOD) R&D Issues. The DOD Research,
Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) budget request for FY2001 is $37.9
billion. This is $300 million more than approved for FY2000 and $3 billion greater
than what the Administration had proposed for FY2001 in its FY2000 budget request.
The portion of the RDT&E budget that funds development of basic science and
technology (S&T) may again be an issue. In 1998, Congress recommended that S&T
funding increase 2% above inflation, from the FY1999 baseline. The FY 2001 request
for S&T support is about $200 million short of that goal. Total proposed S&T
spending to FY2005 would fall over $3 billion short. Last year, in the FY2000
authorization bill, Congress restated its intention that DOD meet these goals.
Ballistic missile defense (BMD) will likely be an issue this session. The primary
issue this year will be whether the Administration will go ahead with a decision mid-
year on whether or not to begin deployment of a National Missile Defense (NMD).
The decision was to be made based on three intercept tests and assessments regarding
cost, effectiveness, and diplomatic impact. The first of the tests (October 1999)
successfully intercepted the target, although not without some problems in the
functioning of major components. The second test, conducted in January, failed to
intercept the target, probably due to a failure in the infrared seekers’ cooling system.
In the event of a positive deployment decision, the Administration has included
procurement dollars in the NMD budget. Some funds could be obligated this year to
CRS-21
begin construction of missile sites. The goal remains to have an initial operating
capability by FY2005 against a small attack. The Administration plans to spend $10.4
billion on NMD between FY2001 and FY2005, including $1.9 billion in FY2001. The
total BMD RDT&E request for FY2001 is $3.9 billion.
Critical Infrastructures. There is continuing interest in Congress about “cyber”
threats to critical infrastructures. These are threats that infiltration into existing
computer networks and facilities could result in serious disruption of critical
information processing. In May 1998, Presidential Directive No. 63 (PDD-63) was
issued, which required a set of actions by various agencies and interagency groups.
The directive ordered those parties to determine what constitutes their critical
infrastructure, to assess its vulnerability, and to take measures to secure the
infrastructure (CRS Report RL30153). The Directive also seeks the cooperation of
the private sector to secure its own critical infrastructures. The Administration
released Version 1.0 of its National Plan in January 2000. The Administration is
requesting $621 million in FY2001 for computer and network security research and
development in support of PDD-63. This includes $50 million for an Institute for
Information Infrastructure Protection. The Institute would be an R&D fund, operated
at the National Institute for Standards and Technology, and not a research facility.
Most of the $621 million would be spent by the National Security Agency and DOD.
Activities promoted by the Directive fall into different committee jurisdictions.
In July, H.R. 2413 was introduced. It would reinforce both the role of NIST in setting
standards and guidelines for computer security technologies used in non-classified
federal systems and its role in helping the private sector set standards for encryption,
digital signatures, and electronic authentication technologies. Section 1043 of the
FY2000 defense authorization bill (P.L. 106-65) establishes a DOD Information
Assurance Initiative which, among other things, requires the Secretary to design an
information assurance guidebook for DOD agencies and an information assurance test
bed. S. 1998, introduced in December, 1999, would amend Chapter 35 of title 44
U.S. Code to specify activities and responsibilities for planning and implementing
computer security programs, consistent with other laws and OMB guidelines.
DOE Nuclear Security Programs. Operation of the National Nuclear Security
Agency (NNSA) started on March 1, 2000. This agency, established by the FY2000
defense authorization act (P.L. 106-65), includes most of DOE’s defense activities,
including all of its nuclear weapons programs. A prime motivation for the NNSA was
to enhance security and improve management at the DOE weapons labs. There are
significant concerns, however, about the new agency. Many in Congress believe that
DOE’s implementation is not in accord with law. They argue that the only manager
overlapping both the NNSA and DOE should be the Secretary of Energy. It was
Congress’s intent, they claim, to keep the current DOE management structure away
from the weapons program, because poor DOE management was the main reason for
the security problems. DOE, however, argues that there are some functions in both
agencies that should be under the same person, and that putting different individuals
in those positions would result in wasteful duplication and would limit the Secretary’s
authority to manage the new agency. Another concern is how barriers constructed
by the NNSA will affect scientific interaction between the DOE civilian and defense
R&D programs. There is now substantial collaboration among several such
programs, particularly inertial confinement fusion and high-performance computing,
CRS-22
and it is possible that the existence of NNSA will complicate future interaction (CRS
Report RL30445).
Last year, DOE related significant problems with construction of the National
Ignition Facility (NIF). In particular, assembly of the main laser beams would require
maintaining a degree of cleanliness in the assembly areas beyond the capabilities of
Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL). It would be necessary, therefore, to
contract with industrial engineering firms that had such capabilities — primarily in the
semiconductor industry — to work with LLNL in assembling the laser. This
requirement would add substantial sums — about 30 to 40% — to the total
construction cost and extend the time to completion. Further investigation of the NIF
project revealed serious management problems as well as some significant technical
uncertainties with the laser’s optics and target. The latter could result in a serious
degradation in the laser’s capabilities unless solved, although the R&D to resolve the
problems would not add substantially to the project’s overall cost. DOE has not
asked for additional funds for the project, stating that they will come from other parts
of the weapons program. Some in Congress, however, have stated that additional
funds might be needed if the rest of the stockpile stewardship program is not to be
compromised. A new cost baseline is not expected until May 2000, by which time
DOE appropriations hearings are likely to be over (CRS Report 97-464).