IB10008: Science, Technology, and Medicine:
Issues Facing the 106th Congress, First Session

Richard Rowberg

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

July 16, 1999

CONTENTS

• SUMMARY
• MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
• BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
• Introduction
• Issues
• Research and Development Budgets and Policy
• Research and Development Budget Pressures
• Access to Federal R&D Data
• Science and Technology Education
• Cooperative R&D
• Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
• Biomedical Research and Applications
• NIH Research
• Stem Cell Research
• Public and Environmental Health
• Health Program Reauthorizations
• Medical Records Privacy
• Tobacco
• Global Change and Earth Sciences
• Energy
• Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
• DOE Science Programs
• Space
• Space Station
• NASA Oversight
• Launch Vehicles
• Global Positioning System
• Telecommunications and Computers
• Information Technology
• Cable Television Rate Regulation
• Satellite Home Viewer Act
• Intelsat Privatization
• Slamming
• Digital Television
• Federal Communications Commission
• Internet Issues
• Year 2000 (Y2K) Computer Problem
• Encryption technology
• Technology Development
• Intellectual Property
• Advanced Technology Program
• Technology Transfer
• Defense Research and Technology
• Department of Defense (DOD) R&D Issues
• Tritium
• Critical Infrastructures
• ASCI Program

SUMMARY

Science, technology, and medicine is playing an integral part in many of the policy issues that are coming before this Congress. Legislative action in certain areas directly affects the progress of science, technology, and medicine (STM). And advances in those areas can significantly affect broader public policy issues. This issue brief provides an overview of several of those issues and identifies CRS reports that treat them in more depth.

For FY2000, the Administration is re- questing $78.2 billion for R&D funding, 1.3% below the FY1999 level. Congressional adherence to the budget caps, however, might result in a larger decline from FY1999 levels. Legislation has been reported by the Senate Commerce Committee, however, calling for a doubling of basic research funding over the next 11 years.

The Administration is requesting $15.9 billion for NIH for FY2000, 2.1% above FY1999. Many believe the increase should be larger, but adherence to the budget caps will make that goal difficult to reach. Successful derivation of human embryonic stem cells in the laboratory has raised a host of ethical and legal issues. A recent announcement by NIH that it will fund embryonic stem cell research drew concerns from more than 75 Members. A Presidential advisory commission is recommending continuation of such research. The growing use of advanced information technology to process medical records has raised calls for greater privacy protection of those records.

For FY2000, the Administration is requesting $4.1 billion for programs directed at global climate change. Congressional concern is possible that those programs might constitute premature commitment to the Kyoto Protocol. The recent satellite launch failures have raised concern in Congress about the reliability of the nation's space launch system.

The Administration has launched a major information technology (IT) initiative focusing on research in computer science and applications. Congressional review is focusing on the merits of the research and possible overlaps among the programs and with the private sector. Legislation has been introduced providing comprehensive authorization of that research. In an attempt to inject more competition in the cable TV market, legislation, passed the House and being considered in the Senate, would amend the Satellite Home Viewer Act, addressing constraints it imposes on what can be broadcast by satellite TV and related issues. With the approach of the year 2000, Congress is reviewing public and private efforts to eliminate the Y2K computer problem, and passed legislation providing for liability protection in the event all efforts are not successful.

The Administration's FY2000 request for ballistic missile defense R&D is below the FY1999 level, although funding over the next 6 years would increase. The discovery of serious security problems at the Department of Energy's weapon's labs has resulted in congressional efforts to restructure the agency to improved security management.

MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

The Senate Commerce Committee reported legislation (S. 296) to encourage the doubling of federal funding for basic scientific, medical, and pre-competitive engineering research over the next 11 years. A study by the National Bioethics Advisory Commission on the federal role in embryonic stem cell research has been completed endorsing certain types of such research. Legislation has been introduced authorizing funding of all federal information research and development activities. Congress has sent legislation (H.R. 775) to the President on placing limits on liability of business for Y2K failures. Reports from Congress (the Cox report) and the Administration (the Rudman report) have pointed out serious security problems in the Department of Energy's weapons labs. Congressional action to address those problems through DOE restructuring is underway.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

Introduction

During the first session of the 106^th 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 issue brief provides an overview of scientific, technological, and medical aspects of several key policy issues of both types that are on the agenda of the 106^th Congress. The issue brief is organized by major topic area. Relevant CRS issue briefs and reports are cited in the text.

Issues

Research and Development Budgets and Policy

Research and Development Budget Pressures. The Administration requested $78.24 billion for research and development (R&D) in FY2000, 1.3% below the FY1999 estimated level of $79.27 billion. The request includes an increase for civilian R&D of 3% to $39.76 billion, and a decrease for defense R&D of 5.3% to $38.48 billion. This is the first time in over 20 years that the Administration's request for civilian R&D exceeds that for defense R&D. Under the Administration's request, funding would increase for basic research, 4.2% ($18.23 billion), and applied research, 0.2% ($16.17 billion). Including the FY2000 request, between FY1993 and FY2000 civilian R&D funding would increase 15%, in real terms, while concomitantly, defense R&D funding would decline 20%. The Administration estimates that between FY1993 and FY2000, federal support for university R&D will increase 16%, in real terms (Research & Development Funding: Fiscal Year 2000 CRS Issue Brief IB10018).

The Administration stated that its FY2000 R&D budget request would exceed current discretionary spending caps by $17.8 billion. It proposed $17.8 billion in revenue offsets to comply with the caps. The Congressional Budget Office, however, estimated that the request would exceed caps by $33 billion. Congress has rejected the Administration's proposal, raising the issue of how the President will pay for new discretionary spending, including R&D. The Administration's FY2000 R&D budget request accounts for 14.1% of all requested discretionary spending. Given a projected $161 billion surplus in FY2000, some Members have suggested that the current caps should be raised. In fact, Senator Stevens and Representative Young, Chairmen of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees, have endorsed the idea of Congress approving a new budget agreement. In the meantime, both the House and Senate approved FY2000 Budget Resolutions (H.Con.Res. 68, S.Con.Res. 20) that maintain existing discretionary budget caps, which could result in deep cuts (an estimated 10%-12%) below FY1999 funding levels for civilian R&D.

Nevertheless, there appears to be support in Congress for increases in civilian R&D. On July 12, the Senate Commerce Committee approved S. 296, (S.Rpt. 106-106) the Federal Research Investment Act. This bill is intended to encourage "the doubling of the annual authorized amount of Federal funding for basic scientific, medical, and pre-competitive engineering research" over an 11-year period. The bill is very similar to one that passed the Senate in the last Congress. Representative Sensenbrenner, Chairman of the House Science Committee, however, has expressed strong reservations about S. 296. Furthermore, appropriations action thus far, indicate that meeting the goals of that bill will be difficult.

Access to Federal R&D Data. As part of the omnibus appropriations bill (P.L. 105-277), Congress approved language that could require researchers to release findings of their research, possibly including research notes, to individuals who file a Freedom of Information Request Act (FOIA) request. The legislation requires OMB to set rules to ensure a FOIA request is properly fulfilled. Comments on the proposed rule are due by April 5, 1999. There is great pressure within most of the scientific community to limit the potential consequences of such a change. Others strongly support the new law. Legislation has been introduced (H.R. 88) to repeal the law. It is expected that an amendment to the Treasury appropriations will be offered to delay implementation of the law and revision of OMB implementing Circular A-110 pending further study.

Science and Technology Education. During the 106^th Congress, the House Science Committee has held 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. Also discussed was the need to broaden graduate education in the sciences by preparing doctoral students for non-academic careers. In addition to the hearings, legislation (H.R. 210, H.R. 709, H.R. 1265, S. 1224, and S. 1266) has been introduced during the 106^th Congress in support of science and mathematics education (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 priority to math and science education. There is some concern that the waiver authority granted by the Act might lower that priority. The bill's sponsors maintain that most of the Eisenhower funds will still be used for improving math and science education (CRS Report 98-676).

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 facilitate such efforts, additional issues have arisen during the implementation of those mandates. Congress is expected to address 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 addressing cooperative research and development agreements (CRADAs). H.R. 209, the Technology Transfer Commercialization Act, passed by the House, would alter current practices about patents held by the federal government to make it easier for federal agencies to license such inventions. The bill also would allow licenses for existing government-owned patents to be included in CRADAs (Cooperative R&D: Federal Efforts to Promote Industrial Competitiveness CRS Issue Brief 89056). Similar measures include S. 804 and S. 999.

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The 106^th Congress is continuing oversight of federal agency compliance with GPRA. Agency performance plans, including those of the R&D funding agencies, submitted in conjunction with the FY2000 budget request, are receiving close congressional scrutiny. Of particular interest are the performance measures set by the R&D funding agencies to evaluate the results of their R&D programs. In the 105^th Congress, performance measure provisions and requirements were included in numerous public laws and committee reports, including those about R&D funding and performing agencies (CRS Report RS20257 (pdf) and CRS Report 98-1019; CRS, Performance Measure Provisions in the 105^th Congress: Analysis of a Selected Compilation, 49 p. Available from the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight at http://www.house.gov/reform/press/99_01_5.htm and on the home page of the Office of the House Majority Leader at http://freedom.house.gov/results/releases/pr990105.asp.). The House Committee on Government Reform held a hearing in July to examine the delay in initiating the required performance budgeting pilot projects.

The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommends that federal agencies evaluate the outcomes of basic research with qualitative measures and calls 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, which is to specify quantitative measures for administrative aspects of R&D. OMB is to promulgate a list of appropriate "alternative" methods for analyses of research based on the study recommendations. The bill includes provisions to automatically terminate "unsuccessful" federal research programs.

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, the Administration is requesting $15.9 billion, 2.1% above FY1999. The Administration argues that an increase of that amount keeps NIH spending on target to grow 50% in 5 years after the 14.6% increase from FY1998 to FY1999. There appears to be significant congressional support, however, for a larger increase, although adherence to the budget caps might preclude and growth for FY2000. Another issue is how NIH sets research priorities, including questions on how it will incorporate more public input into the process, and how it will manage large appropriations increases (CRS Report 97-917). Reauthorization of some NIH programs might also be considered. Related topics that might be the subject of future legislation are clinical research, NIH administrative structure, research facilities, alternative medicine, establishment of a biomedical research trust fund, and research on women's health, bioengineering, genome sequencing, and prostate cancer (Immigration Fundamentals CRS Report 95-96).

Stem Cell Research. Two privately funded studies were published in November in which scientists reported, for the first time, successfully isolating and replicating human "pluripotent" stem cells in a laboratory dish (in culture). Such cells have the potential to reproduce themselves indefinitely and develop into many types of tissues in the human body. Biomedical researchers consider this advance to be a very important breakthrough. Many are anxious to do additional research on potentially valuable medical and scientific applications including regeneration of diseased-damaged tissue. Use of human stem cells for research purposes, however, has generated regulatory, ethical and social concerns, including those related to the source of stem cells. The cells in the two studies were derived in one case from human embryos and in the other from aborted fetuses.

A key question before Congress is 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 dead fetuses is not (CRS Report 95-910). 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 will fund such research. This action has sparked controversy in Congress. Several Members have written the HHS Secretary questioning the decision, and it has been the subject of hearings in both chambers. Congressional debate on this and related stem cell issues is likely to continue.

As a result of that concern, the Administration asked the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC) to study the issue. While it has not yet released its report, the Commission appears to be heading towards a recommendation that the law be changed to allow donation of "leftover embryos" to NIH as a source of stem cells for research. NIH, reportedly, is not willing to go that far and states that an adequate supply of embryonic stem cells should be available from the private sector.

Public and Environmental Health

Health Program Reauthorizations. Congress is expected to consider legislation to reauthorize certain programs of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR). While CDC does not require comprehensive reauthorization, authority for a number of individual programs had expired by the end of FY1998 (CRS Report 98-740 (pdf)). Some were extended in health bills passed at the end of the 105^th Congress, but others were not addressed or did not see final action. Expired CDC program authorities include the preventive health and health services block grant, and prevention programs with respect to injuries, prostate cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, and infertility. AHCPR's authorization expired on September 30, 1995. S. 326, the Patients Bill of Rights, contains provisions to reauthorize the AHCPR.

Medical Records Privacy. The ability to ensure privacy of health records increasingly is at risk due to several trends. These include the growing use of information technologies in health care and of information gathered from genetic testing, and structural changes in the health care delivery and payment systems. Existing legal safeguards to protect patient confidentiality appear limited. Concerns have been raised about the increasing number of parties who have routine access to personally identifiable health records in institutions involved in health care treatment, payment, oversight, and health research. The passage of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) placed a deadline on Congress to consider medical records privacy legislation. If it does not enact a privacy law by August 1999, the Act requires the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to promulgate regulations on privacy protection by March, 2000. No medical records privacy legislation passed the 105^th Congress (CRS Issue Brief 98002 and CRS Report 98-845). Comprehensive medical information confidentiality legislation has been introduced in this Congress (S. 573/H.R. 1057, S. 578, S. 881, and H.R. 1941). A number of bills (S. 6, S. 240, S. 300, H.R. 216, H.R. 358, H.R. 448) that would regulate health insurance through managed care plans also include provisions on medical information confidentiality.

Tobacco. The 105^th Congress failed to pass comprehensive tobacco-control legislation to implement the national tobacco settlement proposed in June 1997. Last November, 46 states signed a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) with the cigarette manufacturers, which agreed to pay $206 billion in part to reimburse states for the Medicaid costs of treating smokers. The MSA does not require federal action for implementation and lacks many of the tobacco-control provisions included in last year's proposed legislation.

The Medicaid statute requires states to return to the federal government its share of any Medicaid-related expenditures that states recover from liable third parties. However, state Governors and Attorneys General were strongly opposed to federal efforts to reclaim state tobacco settlement funds. With broad congressional support and over the objections of the White House, language was included in the FY1999 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-31, H.R. 1141) allowing states to keep all the MSA funds without any restrictions on how the money is spent. The MSA does not incorporate FDA's 1996 tobacco regulation. Implementation of most of the regulation's provisions has been delayed by legal challenges to FDA's authority over tobacco. The President and public health groups have urged Congress to pass legislation to give FDA the authority to regulate the manufacture, sale, and advertising of tobacco products. The President's FY2000 budget included a 55 cents-a-pack cigarette tax increase to help offset federal tobacco-related health care costs. Under the provisions of the MSA, however, if the federal government raises tobacco taxes and gives states a share of the revenue either as unrestricted funds or earmarked for health care programs, these funds would be subtracted from the annual settlement payments on a dollar-for-dollar basis (Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (1998): Overview CRS Report RL30058.

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. Increased concentrations in the atmosphere of several so-called "greenhouse gases," such as carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels, may cause global warming. Such warming could potentially result in rising sea levels, changes in agricultural production, and adverse health effects, among other consequences. Recent government activity has focused on international negotiations responding to these concerns and U.S. funding of climate change programs.

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 Protocol has not yet received the required number of ratifications to enter into force. By previous agreement to certain terms of reference, the Kyoto negotiations exempted developing countries from binding emissions-reductions requirements, while the wealthier industrialized nations committed to taking the first steps. The United States committed to reduce its net average annual emissions of six greenhouse gases by 7% below baseline levels (1990 for carbon dioxide) during the first commitment reduction period, defined in the Protocol as covering the years 2008 to 2012. At present, U.S. emissions are above baseline levels.

In 1998 the parties met again in Buenos Aires, Argentina, to develop work plans for specific elements of the Kyoto Protocol, such as the structure of trading credits for emissions reductions among nations, funding for developing countries under the Clean Development Mechanism, and compliance and enforcement. These work plans are to be completed by 2000. 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 possible produce little environmental benefit." Also, it requested that the Administration analyze economic impacts of actions and regulations necessary to achieve the required emissions reductions. In addition, in 1998, Congress restricted some FY1999 funds directed at carbon-emission reduction efforts. Also, the FY2000 Budget Resolution adopted by Congress (H.Con.Res. 68, H.Rept. 106-91) expresses 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.

Congressional interest is 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 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 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.

Other questions relate to whether any environmental benefit would be achieved under the levels of greenhouse gas reductions mandated by the Protocol. Also, with the submission of a $4.1 billion request for domestic programs related to climate change in the President's FY 2000 budget, committees are looking at 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. Several bills were introduced in the Senate: two to stimulate voluntary actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to develop new technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (S. 547 and S. 882) and two dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and the American agricultural enterprise (S. 935 and S. 1066). Another bill introduced in the House would prohibit the use of federal funds to implement the Kyoto Protocol until it has been ratified by the Senate and would clarify the authority of federal agencies with respect to the regulation of emissions of carbon dioxide (H.R. 2221). Given that the Protocol will not be submitted in 1999 to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification and since it has not yet entered into force internationally, the view has been expressed among those critical of the Protocol in its present form that the climate change spending proposals might be a "backdoor" through which the Administration could begin to take action to implement the terms of the Protocol, without ratification. (Global Climate Change: Congressional Concern About "Back
Door" Implementation of the 1997 U.N. Kyoto Protocol CRS Report 98-664; Global Climate Change Treaty: The Kyoto Protocol CRS Report 98-2; Global Climate Change: Carbon Emissions and End-use Energy Demand CRS Issue Brief RL30036; Global Climate Change CRS Issue Brief 89005;  see also Global Climate Change Briefing Book .

Energy

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The President's State of the Union address expressed concern about possible global climate change and proposed "tax incentives and investment to spur clean energy technologies"... to help reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. This proposal is reflected in the Administration's FY2000 budget request, which employs the Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) as a vehicle for increased spending on energy efficiency and renewable energy (EERE) programs at the Department of Energy (DOE).

The CCTI includes a request for $646.5 million for DOE's Energy Efficiency R&D programs, 23% over FY1999, and $399 million for DOE's Renewable Energy Program, 18% over FY1999 (CRS Issue Brief 10020 and CRS Issue Brief IB10041). The Senate Appropriations Committee is recommending $527.9 million for Energy Efficiency R&D and the full Senate appropriated $306.8 million for Renewable Energy R&D. The House appropriated $565.8 million for Energy Efficiency R&D. Other proposed legislation, (S. 882) offers a 10-year, $2 billion accelerated R&D program for EERE, clean coal, nuclear power, and carbon sequestration to address carbon emissions for the long-term. There appears to be strong support in Congress for renewable energy and conservation research. Many Members, however, believe that much of the research funded by those programs should be the responsibility of the private sector, not the federal government. Further, concern that the funding for the CCTI would commit the United States to the Kyoto Protocol without proper Senate review might also be raised in connection with the large increase being requested for those programs.

DOE Science Programs. For FY2000, DOE is requesting $2.83 billion for basic research within the Office of Science. This is a 4.2% increase over FY1999. Two items, however, make up nearly all of the requested increase: $70 million for the scientific simulation initiative (SSI) and an increase of $84 million for continued construction of the spallation neutron source (SNS). Concerns have risen in Congress about whether the SNS can be built within its current estimate. Some Members have argued for major changes in the project's management. DOE recently made significant management changes and declares the project on track. The Senate appropriated $2.73 billion for DOE Science programs including most of the request for the SNS. It did not, however, provided funding for the SSI (Magnetic Fusion: The DOE Fusion Energy Sciences Program CRS Issue Brief 91039 and CRS Report RL30054 (pdf)).

Space

Space Station. NASA's International Space Station (ISS) program continues to generate controversy even following the successful launches of its first two segments at the end of 1998. 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 20 attempts to terminate the space station program since 1991, but criticism of the program continues. Key questions for Congress are how to accommodate the program's substantial cost increases without harming other NASA programs and whether to transfer additional funding to Russia. For FY2000, NASA is requesting $2.483 billion for ISS out of a total NASA request of $13.578 billion. S. 342, the FY2000-2002 NASA authorization bill, as reported from committee (S.Rept. 106-77) reduces space station funding by $200 million in FY2000 and caps total development costs and launch costs. The House version, H.R. 1654, fully funds ISS and sets no caps (CRS Issue Brief 93017.)

NASA Oversight. NASA is carrying out a number of major management changes to streamline and improve its operations, and reduce the cost and development time of its space projects. These steps have generated controversy about whether they are meeting those objectives and how they are affecting the achievement of the agency's goals. In particular, the Consolidated Space Operations Contract (CSOC) designed to consolidate all NASA space communications operations, has not generated the savings anticipated to date, leading to delays in upgrades of key communications programs. Congress might review closely NASA's performance as it makes these changes (CRS Report RL30154).

Launch Vehicles. The failure of six U.S. launches (three for DOD and three for commercial companies) since August 1998 has sparked interest in the health of the U.S. launch industry and concern about the cost to the taxpayers of failed government launches. (CRS Report RS20248 (pdf)). Congress already had begun to focus on U.S. commercial space launch services for an unrelated reason: 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. The concerns raised by those allegations were investigated by a special House committee chaired by Representative Cox (CRS Report RL30231 (pdf)). One recommendation of the Cox committee was to increase U.S. space launch capacity to make the U.S. launch services industry more competitive with countries like China so customers will use U.S. launch services instead. A hearing was held by the Senate Commerce Committee May 20 on legislation (S. 469) to facilitate development of new launch vehicles by the U.S. private sector. Other bills would facilitate investment in new space launch sites or "spaceports" (H.R. 2289, S. 1239), or extend government indemnification of certain third party liability claims for commercial space launch companies (H.R. 1526, S. 832). Concerns about delays in the NASA-Lockheed Martin X-33 reusable launch vehicle technology program also are being addressed (CRS Issue Brief 93062).

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). Though the satellite system is funded and operated by DOD, it is used widely by the civilian community. The Department of Transportation (DOT) co-chairs 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. One would be used for non safety applications, while the other is for safety-of-life applications (such as aviation). Adding those signals would cost $400 million over 6 years. The Administration wants agencies to share the cost--$300 million from DOD and $100 million from DOT--but Congress has not agreed that this is a good use of DOT funds. For FY2000, the agencies are requesting $37 million and $17 million respectively, but the House and Senate Appropriations Committees denied DOT's $17 million in their reports on the DOT appropriations bill (H.R. 2084/S. 1143). They also had denied funding for a related initiative in FY1999 (CRS Issue Brief 92011).

Telecommunications and Computers

Information Technology. The Information Technology for the 21^st Century (IT²) initiative is a proposal by the Clinton Administration to provide federal funding for basic research in computer science, advanced computation research and applications, and research on the economic and social impacts of information technology (IT). The Clinton Administration has requested $366 million for the IT² proposal in FY2000, to be spread among six federal agencies. The IT² is intended to supplement the High Performance Computing and Communications initiative (FY2000 request of $1.46 billion), which includes as part of its program funding the Next Generation Internet program (FY2000 request of $100 million). On June 9, 1999 Representative Sensenbrenner, chairman of the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives, introduced legislation that will provide a separate authorization bill for federal information research and development. The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act (H.R. 2086) provides multi-year authorization for existing federal computing research programs, but does not provide a separate authorization for the proposed IT² initiative.

Cable Television Rate Regulation. Federal rate regulation for expanded cable television services expired on March 31, 1999. Whether such deregulation is premature and may result in significant increases in cable rates, or is unnecessary government regulation that should have expired, continues to be debated. To date Congress has chosen to focus on efforts to enhance the position of competitive services, such as direct broadcast satellite, as an alternative to extending rate regulation. The hope is that the growth of competitive alternatives to cable television will help to curtail any potential rate increases. If, however, cable rates take a significant increase in this post deregulation period, Congress may choose to revisit this issue (CRS Info Pack IP104).

Satellite Home Viewer Act. The 1988 Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) permits satellite retransmission of network television programming only to homes that cannot receive such programming via an over-the-air antenna and have not subscribed to cable TV within 90 days. SHVA will expire at the end of 1999 if not extended by Congress. Many in Congress, dismayed by increases in cable TV rates, want to increase competition with cable and believe satellites offer the best hope, but SHVA weakens their competitive stance. Congress continues to debate whether SHVA should be revised to allow satellites to retransmit local network programming back into the same local area ("local-into-local), and if so, whether they should be subject to the same regulations as cable. At the same time, there is debate over the criterion, called a "Grade B contour," used to determine whether a home may receive network signals via satellite. Homes located within a local network TV station's Grade B contour may not receive network TV signals via satellite because they should be able to receive the local station using an over-the-air antenna. Broadcasters want to maintain Grade B as the standard by which eligibility for receiving network signals via satellite is determined. Satellite companies want a more flexible method. Other issues include whether to extend the compulsory copyright license for satellite providers, which will expire on December 31, 1999.

The House and Senate have each passed versions of H.R. 1554 to revise SHVA. Both versions permit local-into-local but require satellite service providers to transmit all local stations in a market area, as cable must do (the "must-carry" rule), by January 1, 2002. Both also extend the compulsory license for 5 years. There are substantive differences in the bills, too. For example, the House version requires the FCC to develop a new standard to replace the "Grade B" criterion while the Senate version keeps Grade B (CRS Report RL30224 and CRS Report 98-942).

Intelsat Privatization. Congress also is debating the privatization of the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (Intelsat) and the International Mobile Satellite Organization (Inmarsat), and the fate of the U.S. company, Comsat, that is the U.S. signatory to both. Inmarsat already has become a private company, and Intelsat has begun the transition with the creation of New Skies, a private company to which some Intelsat assets were transferred in 1998. Intelsat expects that, even with the advent of New Skies, it will continue to exist to serve primarily developing countries. However, some argue that these organizations enjoy privileges and immunities that give them unfair competitive advantages over other companies. These parties want to ensure the organizations privatize in a "pro- competitive" manner by using access to the U.S. market and Comsat's role as U.S. signatory as leverage. Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin wants to acquire Comsat. The 1962 Communications Satellite Act, which sets ownership limits on Comsat, must be changed to in order to permit the acquisition.

On July 1, the Senate passed S. 376, the Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications (ORBIT) Act, by unanimous consent. Most notably, this bill: requires the President to seek full privatization of Intelsat and Inmarsat by January 1, 2002; prohibits either organization's "direct access" to the U.S. market until July 1, 2001, or sooner if the FCC determines that the organization has achieved a pro-competitive privatization status; and, requires the FCC to ensure that privatization is implemented in a pro-competitive manner. S. 376 would allow Comsat's acquisition, though Comsat would lose some privileges or immunities it enjoys as signatory to Intelsat and Inmarsat. The bill, as passed, remains controversial. For example, some also want provisions that would require a "fresh-look" period, where companies with existing multi-year agreements with Comsat could renegotiate these contracts.

Slamming. Legislation to protect consumers against slamming, the unauthorized change in a subscriber's telephone service provider, passed both the House and Senate but failed to be enacted in the waning days of the 105^th Congress. Since then the FCC has issued new regulations to further curtail this practice. To date two measures (S. 58, S. 1084) to further strengthen slamming regulations have been introduced in the 106^th Congress. 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 (CRS Issue Brief 98027).

Digital Television. Concerns remain about potential problems with the transition to digital television. A rapid transition is necessary for the FCC to reclaim the spectrum from the preexisting television licenses and to meet revenue estimates set in the FY1998 Budget Act. Whether cable television systems should be required to carry both existing analog television stations and the new digital stations is one of a number of transition issues.

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. The FCC is in the process of developing a restructuring plan to streamline the Agency and a six-member panel of House Commerce Committee members has been established to study how to reform and streamline the FCC. However, FCC Chairman Kennard and some members of Congress have cautioned that the FCC restructuring process should not be used as a vehicle to rewrite telecommunications policy (CRS Issue Brief 98040).

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 as an amendment to H.R. 1501, the juvenile justice bill, while the Senate Commerce Committee ordered reported its version (S. 97) on June 23. The two versions are similar in concept, but different in specifics. (CRS Report RS20036 (pdf)). The Senate also passed language as part of its version of the juvenile justice bill (S. 254) requiring Internet Service Providers to provide filtering software to residential customers. Two other bills (H.R. 640, H.R. 1159) focus on protecting children from sexual predators on the Internet. Legislation passed the 105^th Congress addressing that issue (P.L. 105-314).

Protecting the privacy of personal information on the Internet has been another area of congressional interest. Congress passed legislation protecting children in 1998 (P.L. 105-314), but concerns about privacy for children and adults remains (CRS Report RS20035 (pdf)). Several bills have been introduced (H.R. 313, H.R. 367, H.R. 369, H.R. 1685, S. 809, and S. 854). Congress and the Administration both prefer industry self-regulation in this area, but there is frustration at industry's slow pace. Also under debate is the question of whether Congress should limit unsolicited commercial e-mail ("junk e-mail" or "spam"). Arguments include whether spam is a legitimate marketing technique and protected by the First Amendment, whether senders of such e-mail should be required to identify it as advertising and provide consumers with an "opt-out" option, or whether such e-mail should only be permitted if an established business relationship exists with the recipient (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). What organization should be responsible for issuing Internet domain names (CRS Report 97-868 (pdf)) and issues concerning the Next Generation Internet (CRS Report 97-521 (pdf)) are also being debated.

Year 2000 (Y2K) Computer Problem. Much computer software uses only two digits to record the year, making the year 2000 indistinguishable from 1900. Without modifications, this design problem could cause a variety of errors in computer databases or calculations, and in some cases, total system failures. The Senate Special Committee on the Y2K Technology Problem, the House Y2K Task Force, and many other committees, are investigating this issue. In 1998, Congress appropriated $3.35 billion for emergency federal Y2K conversion efforts. The Office of Management and Budget has allocated most of the funds, yet some are concerned that some agencies will not be able to make the necessary corrections in time. Supplemental emergency appropriations could become necessary. The President's FY2000 budget request for federal agency Y2K work was $433 million, which is expected to be provided in various appropriations bills. Legislation has been introduced (S. 174) to provide funding for states to correct Y2K problems in computers used to administer state and local programs.

In the private sector, concerns have been raised about potential Y2K impacts on critical infrastructures such as public utilities, telecommunications, banking and financial services, health care, and transportation industry sectors. The Administration is working with identified private sector groups to assess the progress of Y2K remediation in these sectors. The Year 2000 Information and Readiness Disclosure Act (P.L. 105-271) was enacted to encourage companies to disclose information on the status of their Y2K remediation efforts, thereby accelerating Y2K conversion among industry groups. More extensive liability protection legislation to limit the liability and damages for defendants in suits involving Y2K failures was advocated by several industry groups. That legislation, however, was opposed by consumer advocacy groups, trial lawyers, and others. The Year 2000 Readiness and Responsibility Act (H.R. 775) to set limits on lawsuits against businesses for Y2K failures passed Congress and was sent to the President on July 1.

Legislation has been enacted (P.L. 106-8) to establish a loan guarantee program to assist small businesses in their Y2K conversion costs. The law established a loan guarantee program to address Y2K problems of small businesses at slightly higher amounts and than the Small Business Administration's existing general business loan program. Other legislation (H.R. 179, S. 962) was introduced to assist small businesses in their Y2K efforts in other ways. Other legislation introduced would make January 3, 2000 an additional national holiday to provide an extra day to work on Y2K remediation (H.J.Res. 14), would allow small businesses to deduct Y2K conversion costs from their gross income for federal income tax reporting (H.R. 179), would establish a national Y2K test day for the coordinated end-to-end testing of federal and non-federal systems (H.R. 1447), and would seek to minimize disruptions of government and private sector operations caused by Y2K errors (H.R. 1502). Some Members are also interested in obtaining an assessment of the status of international aspects of the Y2K problem and related national security issues (CRS Report 98-867 and CRS Report 98-966; CRS Info Pack IP528Y.).

Encryption technology. Debate continues over U.S. policy on the use of encryption to ensure communication privacy and security, and over the level of access the government should have to the keys needed to decrypt encrypted information for law enforcement or national security purposes. The debate is focusing on export policies for strong encryption products and government access to the keys required for decryption through the use of "key recovery" technology among others (CRS Issue Brief 96039). Bills (H.R. 850, S. 798) have been introduced to affirm the rights of businesses and individuals to use and sell strong encryption and to relax export controls on strong encryption without key recovery. Other similar bills are likely to be introduced this year.

Technology Development

Intellectual Property. 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 this Congress as it addresses both technology transfer and patent reform (CRS Reports 97-599 and 98-862).

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 104^th Congress. Critics argue that the R&D aimed at the commercial marketplace should be funded by the private sector, not by the federal government. The Administration has included a 21% increase in support for ATP in its FY2000 budget. H.R. 1744 would authorize funding for the ATP at $190.7 million. As reported from the Senate Committee on Appropriations, S. 1217 recommends $226.5 million for the program, 15% above (CRS Issue Brief 91132).

Technology Transfer. As technology transfer activities between federal laboratories and the private sector becomes more widespread, additional issues are arising as to fairness of opportunity, dispensation of intellectual property, and the participation of foreign firms, among others. Legislation is expected to be reintroduced to facilitate the creation of Cooperative Research and Development Agreements (CRADAs). H.R. 209, passed by the House on May 6, 1999, is intended to promote the transfer of government generated technology through the expeditious licensing of federally-owned patents. Similar bills include S. 804 and S. 999 (Technology Transfer:
Use of Federally Funded Research and Development CRS Issue Brief 85031). Continued oversight of technology transfer at the Department of Energy laboratories by Congress might be expected given various controversies that Members have been following, such as foreign participation in a CRADA aimed at developing extreme ultraviolet lithography (CRS Report 98-81).

Defense Research and Technology

Department of Defense (DOD) R&D Issues. The DOD Research, Development, Test and Evaluation (RDT&E) budget request for FY2000 is more than $3 billion below the FY1999 appropriation. Under the budget caps, defense spending can now be increased with offsets in domestic spending. And, pressure continues to build in Congress to increase DOD's top line. In each of the last four years, Congress has increased RDT&E spending above the President's request. It is prepared to do so again this year. The Science and Technology (S&T) portion of the RDT&E budget is also controversial. Last year Congress recommended that S&T funding increase 2% above inflation. While the Administration's request met that goal this year, the proposed budget fails to meet it in the out years.

Ballistic missile defense (BMD) is an issue again this year. The Administration's FY2000 budget request for BMD RDT&E is below the FY1999 appropriation. However, in its 6-year budget plan, the Administration has increased BMD funding, including $6.6 billion in additional funding for a National Missile Defense (NMD) system. A decision on whether to deploy a NMD is to be made next year, but testing of the NMD interceptor is being delayed due to technical problems. Meanwhile, Korea is apparently ready to test another 3-stage missile that is reportedly capable of reaching the United States. After failing six consecutive attempts, Theater High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system finally successfully intercepted a target missile in June. Another test is scheduled for July.

Tritium. Tritium is an important component of thermonuclear weapons. A long-term production source for tritium will be required by the United States by 2005 to maintain stockpiles allowed by either the START I or START II treaties. For the last 3 years, the Department of Energy (DOE) pursued two options for a long-term source: a commercial light water reactor (CLWR) that would produce tritium during its normal operation and the construction of a large, linear particle accelerator that would be dedicated to tritium production (APT). In December 1998, DOE selected the CLWR option at a Tennessee Valley Authority nuclear power plant. While the selection did not resolve all of the outstanding issues, particularly those dealing with separation of civilian and defense nuclear functions, Congress appears to have accepted the DOE choice. Both the House and Senate FY2000 defense authorization bills authorized the DOE decision, but directed DOE to continue work on the APT option (CRS Issue Brief 97002 and CRS Report RL30129 (pdf)).

Critical Infrastructures. There is growing interest in Congress about "cyber" threats to critical infrastructures. These are threats of infiltration to existing computer networks and facilities that could result in serious disruption of critical information processing. In May 1998, President Clinton issued Presidential Directive No. 63 (PDD-63). PDD-63 requires a set of actions by various agencies and interagency groups to determine what constitutes their critical infrastructure, to assess its vulnerability and to take measures to secure it, (CRS Report RL30153). The Directive also seeks the cooperation of the private sector to secure those critical infrastructures owned and operated by the private sector. The Administration claims that it is planning to spend $500 million in FY2000 on computer and network security research and development, in support of PDD-63. Much of this is spent in the National Security Agency and DOD. Those funds also support R&D at DOE, the NIST and the Department of Justice.

Activities promoted by the Directive fall into different committee jurisdictions. So, while Congress is interested in the issue, oversight and legislation occurs piecemeal. In July, Representative Sensenbrenner introduced H.R. 2413 that reinforces 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 1047 of the Senate defense authorization bill (S. 1059) establishes a DOD Information Assurance Initiative which, among other proposals, requires the Secretary to design an information assurance guidebook for DOD agencies and an information assurance test bed.

ASCI Program. The Accelerated Strategic Computer Initiative (ASCI) is at the heart of DOE's efforts to maintain the readiness of the nation's nuclear weapon stockpile in the absence of nuclear testing. It is an effort to develop very fast and powerful computer systems and associated software to carry out three-dimensional simulations of nuclear explosions in order to examine the effects of aging and component replacement on the stockpile. The ASCI program's budget has grown substantially over the past three years, but there remains significant uncertainty about its eventual success. Congress cut back on the Administration's requested increase for the program for FY1999. For FY2000, DOE is requesting $536 million for ASCI and related stockpile computer activities, a 12% increase over FY1999. A close review of the request by both authorization and appropriations committees is expected. A related issue is the role that ASCI will play in civilian computer activities by DOE including the scientific simulation initiative (see DOE Science Programs above).

A related issue is the security problem that has emerged at the DOE weapons labs. A report issued by Congress under the direction of Representative Cox found serious security breaches within the DOE weapons programs over the past two decades. These findings were reinforced by a study (chaired by former Senator Rudman) from the President's foreign Intelligence Advisory Board that DOE has a "dismal" security administration record while performing "superb" scientific and engineering work. Several proposals have emerged from Congress to improve DOE security. Most notable is a proposal to create an Agency for Nuclear Stewardship or Nuclear Security Administration (H.R. 2032) within DOE that reports directly to the Secretary. While initially opposing this proposal, DOE reportedly now will accept this plan. Others are concerned that restructuring could weaken DOE efforts on nuclear weapon's complex environmental cleanup, and create unnecessary barriers between DOE's civilian and defense scientific work (CRS Report RS20243).