Technology Transfer: Use of Federally Funded Research and Development

Wendy H. Schacht
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

The federal government spends approximately one third of its annual research and development (R&D) budget for intramural work to meet mission requirements in over 700 government laboratories (including Federally Funded Research and Development Centers). The technology and expertise generated by this endeavor may have application beyond the immediate goals or intent of federally funded R&D. These applications can result from technology transfer, a process by which technology developed in one organization, in one area, or for one purpose is applied in another organization, in another area, or for another purpose. It is a way for the results of the federal R&D enterprise to be used to meet other national needs, including the economic growth that flows from new commercialization in the private sector; the government’s requirements for products and processes to operate effectively and efficiently; and the demand for increased goods and services at the state and local level.

Congress has established a system to facilitate the transfer of technology to the private sector and to state and local governments. Despite this, use of federal R&D results has remained restrained, although there has been a significant increase in private sector interest and activities over the past several years. Critics argue that working with the agencies and laboratories continues to be difficult and time-consuming. Proponents of the current effort assert that while the laboratories are open to interested parties, the industrial community is making little effort to use them. At the same time, State governments are increasingly involved in the process. At issue is whether incentives for technology transfer remain necessary, if additional legislative initiatives are needed to encourage increased technology transfer, or if the responsibility to use the available resources now rests with the private sector.


Date of Report: December 5, 2011
Number of Pages: 15
Order Number: RL33527
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Cooperative R&D: Federal Efforts to Promote Industrial Competitiveness

Wendy H. Schacht
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

In response to the foreign challenge in the global marketplace, the United States Congress has explored ways to stimulate technological advancement in the private sector. The government has supported various efforts to promote cooperative research and development activities among industry, universities, and the federal R&D establishment designed to increase the competitiveness of American industry and to encourage the generation of new products, processes, and services.

Collaborative ventures are intended to accommodate the strengths and responsibilities of all sectors involved in innovation and technology development. Academia, industry, and government often have complementary functions. Joint projects allow for the sharing of costs, risks, facilities, and expertise.

Cooperative activity covers various institutional and legal arrangements including industryindustry, industry-university, and industry-government efforts. Proponents of joint ventures argue that they permit work to be done that is too expensive for one company to support and allow for R&D that crosses traditional boundaries of expertise and experience. Such arrangements make use of existing, and support the development of new, resources, facilities, knowledge, and skills. Opponents argue that these endeavors dampen competition necessary for innovation.

Federal efforts to encourage cooperative activities include the National Cooperative Research Act; the National Cooperative Production Act; tax changes permitting credits for industry payments to universities for R&D and deductions for contributions of equipment used in academic research; and amendments to the patent laws vesting title to inventions made under federal funding in universities. Technology transfer from the government to the private sector is facilitated by several laws. In addition, there are various ongoing cooperative programs supported by multiple federal departments and agencies.

Given the increased popularity of cooperative programs, questions might be raised as to whether they are meeting expectations. Among the issues before Congress are whether joint ventures contribute to industrial competitiveness and what role, if any, the government has in facilitating such arrangements.


Date of Report: December 7, 2011
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RL33526
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

The Federal Communications Commission: Current Structure and Its Role in the Changing Telecommunications Landscape

Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent federal agency with its five members appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate. It was established by the Communications Act of 1934 (1934 Act) and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable. The mission of the FCC is to ensure that the American people have available—at reasonable cost and without discrimination—rapid, efficient, nation- and world-wide communication services, whether by radio, television, wire, satellite, or cable.

Although the FCC has restructured over the past few years to better reflect the industry, it is still required to adhere to the statutory requirements of its governing legislation, the Communications Act of 1934. The 1934 Act requires the FCC to regulate the various industry sectors differently. Some policymakers have been critical of the FCC and the manner in which it regulates various sectors of the telecommunications industry—telephone, cable television, radio and television broadcasting, and some aspects of the Internet. These policymakers, including some in Congress, have long called for varying degrees and types of reform to the FCC. Most proposals fall into two categories: (1) procedural changes made within the FCC or through congressional action that would affect the agency’s operations or (2) substantive policy changes requiring congressional action that would affect how the agency regulates different services and industry sectors. Nine bills have been introduced during the 112th Congress that would change the operation of the FCC.

Most of the FCC’s budget is derived from regulatory fees collected by the agency rather than through a direct appropriation. The fees, often referred to as “Section (9) fees,” are collected from license holders and certain other entities (e.g., cable television systems) and deposited into an FCC account. The law gives the FCC authority to review the regulatory fees and to adjust the fees to reflect changes in its appropriation from year to year. It may also add, delete, or reclassify services under certain circumstances.

The FY2012 budget is included in H.R. 2434, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act of 2012. The House Appropriations Committee reported the bill on July 7, 2011. For FY2012, the House Appropriations Committee approved $319,004,000 for agency salaries and expenses with no direct appropriation (all funding will be obtained through the collection of regulatory fees). This level is $16,790,000 less than FY2011 and $39,797,000 less than the request. Additional details of the budget can be found in CRS Report R41340, Financial Services and General Government (FSGG): FY2011 Appropriations.


Date of Report: December 6, 2011
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RL32589
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Regulation of Broadcast Indecency: Background and Legal Analysis

Kathleen Ann Ruane
Legislative Attorney

Two prominent television events placed increased attention on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the broadcast indecency statute that it enforces. The airing of an expletive by Bono during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards, as well as the “wardrobe malfunction” that occurred during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, gave broadcast indecency prominence in the 109th and 110th Congresses, and resulted in the enactment of P.L. 109-235 (2006), which increased the penalties for broadcast indecency by tenfold.

Federal law makes it a crime to utter “any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication” (18 U.S.C. §1464). Violators of this statute are subject to fines and imprisonment of up to two years, and the FCC may enforce this provision by forfeiture or revocation of a broadcaster’s license. The FCC has found that, for material to be “indecent,” it “must describe or depict sexual or excretory organs or activities,” and “must be patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.” The federal government’s authority to regulate material that is “indecent” but not obscene was upheld by the Supreme Court in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, which found that prohibiting such material during certain times of the day does not violate the First Amendment.

In 1992, Congress enacted P.L. 102-356 (47 U.S.C. §303 note), section 16(a) of which, as interpreted by the courts, requires the FCC to prohibit “indecent” material on broadcast radio and broadcast television from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. Under P.L. 109-235, “indecent” broadcasts are now subject to a fine of up to “$325,000 for each violation or each day of continuing violation, except that the amount assessed for any continuing violation shall not exceed a total of $3,000,000 for any single act or failure to act.” Fines may be levied against broadcast stations, but not against broadcast networks. The FCC appears to have the statutory authority to fine performers as well (up to $32,500 per incident), but has taken the position that “[c]ompliance with federal broadcast decency restrictions is the responsibility of the station that chooses to air the programming, not the performers.”

The federal restriction on “indecent” material applies only to broadcast media. This stems from the fact that there are a limited number of broadcast frequencies available. The Supreme Court, therefore, interprets the First Amendment in a manner that allows the government to regulate speech via broadcast media to a greater extent than via other media. This report discusses the legal evolution of the FCC’s indecency regulations, and provides an overview of how the current regulations have been applied. Two recent cases have considered to what extent broadcast indecency can be regulated before First Amendment rights are impermissibly infringed. Fleeting expletives and images in the Bono and Super Bowl halftime show cases have been subject to government enforcement action, and those enforcement actions have been challenged as violations of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court in Pacifica left open the question whether broadcasting an occasional expletive, as in the Bono case, would justify a sanction. The Supreme Court has recently agreed to hear a case that may decide this question.


Date of Report: November 22, 2011
Number of Pages: 32
Order Number: RL32222
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.

Federal Laws Relating to Cybersecurity: Discussion of Proposed Revisions

Eric A. Fischer
Senior Specialist in Science and Technology

For more than a decade, various experts have expressed increasing concerns about cybersecurity, in light of the growing frequency, impact, and sophistication of attacks on information systems in the United States and abroad. Consensus has also been building that the current legislative framework for cybersecurity might need to be revised.

The complex federal role in cybersecurity involves both securing federal systems and assisting in protecting nonfederal systems. Under current law, all federal agencies have cybersecurity responsibilities relating to their own systems, and many have sector-specific responsibilities for critical infrastructure.

More than 50 statutes address various aspects of cybersecurity either directly or indirectly, but there is no overarching framework legislation in place. While revisions to most of those laws have been proposed over the past few years, no major cybersecurity legislation has been enacted since 2002.

Recent legislative proposals, including many bills introduced in the 111th and 112th Congresses, have focused largely on issues in ten broad areas: national strategy and the role of government, reform of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), protection of critical infrastructure (especially the electricity grid and the chemical industry), cross-sector coordination and information sharing, breaches resulting in theft or exposure of personal data such as financial information, cybercrime, privacy in the context of electronic commerce, international efforts, research and development, and the cybersecurity workforce. For most of those topics, at least some of the bills addressing them proposed changes to current laws. Several of the bills have received committee or floor action, but none have become law.

Three comprehensive legislative proposals on cybersecurity have been presented to the 112th Congress: S. 413, recommendations from a House Republican task force, and a proposal by the Obama Administration. They differ in approach, with S. 413 proposing the most extensive regulatory framework of the three, and the task force recommendations focusing more on incentives for improving private-sector cybersecurity.

All three proposals would revise the Homeland Security Act and increase the statutory responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the cybersecurity of federal information systems. They would address vulnerabilities in the information-technology supply chain, enhance public awareness efforts, and address personnel needs to improve the cybersecurity workforce, including providing DHS with broadened personnel authorities. All three would amplify federal efforts in cybersecurity research and development and improve international cooperation in cybersecurity. All would revise FISMA, giving DHS increased authority, stressing the importance of continuous monitoring of systems, and enhancing the compliance-enforcement authorities of agency officials responsible for information systems.


Date of Report: December 7, 2011
Number of Pages: 52
Order Number: R42114
Price: $29.95

Follow us on TWITTER at http://www.twitter.com/alertsPHP or #CRSreports

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To order, e-mail Penny Hill Press or call us at 301-253-0881. Provide a Visa, MasterCard, American Express, or Discover card number, expiration date, and name on the card. Indicate whether you want e-mail or postal delivery. Phone orders are preferred and receive priority processing.