America COMPETES 2010 and the FY2013 Budget

Heather B. Gonzalez
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

The 112th Congress faces several budget and appropriations decisions that may affect implementation of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (America COMPETES 2010, P.L. 111-358). Signed on January 4, 2011, this law seeks to improve U.S. competitiveness and innovation by authorizing, among other things, increased federal support for research in the physical sciences and engineering; and science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education. P.L. 111-358 reauthorizes the 2007 America COMPETES Act (America COMPETES 2007, P.L. 110-69), which authorized similar activities from FY2008 to FY2010.

The President’s FY2013 budget request seeks increased funding for many America COMPETES 2010 research-related activities but includes few specific requests for the law’s STEM education provisions. This approach is consistent with prior legislative and executive actions. One exception to this trend is the President’s request for an increase in the main education account at the National Science Foundation (NSF). The FY2013 request also seeks an overall increase of 4.1% for the so-called “doubling path” accounts at the NSF, Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Science, and National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST’s) core laboratory and construction. This growth rate is less than the authorized growth rate of 6.3% and equal to the FY2012 enacted growth rate (4.1%). Some legislators have expressed concerns about the feasibility of the doubling effort given the nation’s current fiscal challenges. In light of these challenges, stakeholders may perceive any increases in research funding to be a win for science.

As of June 27, 2012, the House and the Senate Committee on Appropriations had moved on two of three annual appropriations acts that typically contain funding for COMPETES Act provisions: Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) and Energy and Water Development (E&W). Table 1 includes the FY2013 funding status of selected provisions from the 2010 act.

In brief, the House and the Senate Committee on Appropriations would continue increasing funding for targeted doubling path accounts in FY2013, albeit at a lower rate than in prior years. Proposed growth rates for these accounts are 3.8% and 3.9% (House and Senate committee, respectively) or almost a 20-year doubling period. The House and the Senate Committee on Appropriations disagree about funding for ARPA-E. The House provides $200.0 million for the energy innovation program while the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommends the authorized level of $312.0 million.

As for STEM education, both the House and the Senate Committee on Appropriations propose the full request for the main education account at NSF. If passed, that account would receive its first increase in two years. On the other hand, the House Committee on Appropriations expresses concern about DOE education activities and recommends reduced funding—consistent with the request—for some programs. (It is not clear how these changes will affect COMPETES Act programs because DOE does not typically seek funds for educational activities under these laws.) Both the House and the Senate Committee on Appropriations would provide the requested funding level for the primary education and training account at DOE’s Office of Science.

Other COMPETES Act authorizations with funding provisions in the respective proposed FY2013 appropriations acts are the Regional Innovation Program, Loan Guarantees for Innovative Technologies in Manufacturing, and funding for NIST.


Date of Report: June 27, 2012
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: R42430
Price: $29.95
 
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
 
To Order:

R42430.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

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

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 10 broad areas (see “Selected Issues Addressed in Proposed Legislation” for an overview of how current legislative proposals would address issues in several of those areas):

•  national strategy and the role of government, 
•  reform of the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA), 
• protection of critical infrastructure (including the electricity grid and the chemical industry), 
• information sharing and cross-sector coordination, 
• 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 have proposed changes to current laws. Several of the bills specifically focused on cybersecurity have received committee or floor action, but none have become law.

Comprehensive legislative proposals on cybersecurity that have received considerable attention in 2012 are S. 2105, recommendations from a House Republican task force, and a proposal by the Obama Administration. They differ in approach, with S. 2105 proposing the most extensive regulatory framework and organizational changes of the three, and the task force recommendations focusing more on incentives for improving private-sector cybersecurity. An alternative to S. 2105, S. 3342 (a refinement of S. 2151), does not include enhanced regulatory authority or new federal entities, but does include cybercrime provisions.

Several narrower House bills have been introduced that address some of the issues raised and recommendations made by the House task force. Four passed the House the week of April 23:

• Cybersecurity Enhancement Act of 2011 (H.R. 2096), which addresses federal cybersecurity R&D and the development of technical standards; 
• Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (H.R. 3523), which focuses on information sharing and coordination, including sharing of classified information; 
• Advancing America’s Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Act of 2012 (H.R. 3834), which addresses R&D in networking and information technology, including but not limited to security; and 
• Federal Information Security Amendments Act of 2012 (H.R. 4257), which addresses FISMA reform. 

One was ordered reported out of the full committee but did not come to the floor:

• Promoting and Enhancing Cybersecurity and Information Sharing Effectiveness Act of 2011 or PRECISE Act of 2011 (H.R. 3674), which addresses the role of the Department of Homeland Security in cybersecurity, including protection of federal systems, personnel, R&D, information sharing, and public/private sector collaboration in protecting critical infrastructure; 

Together, those House and Senate bills address most of the issues listed above, although in different ways. All include proposed revisions to some existing laws covered in this report.


Date of Report: June 29, 2012
Number of Pages: 65
Order Number: R42114
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
 
To Order:

R42114.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

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

Chemical Facility Security: Issues and Options for the 112th Congress

Dana A. Shea
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has statutory authority to regulate chemical facilities for security purposes. The 112th Congress has extended this authority through October 4, 2012. The Obama Administration has requested a one-year extension of this authority until October 4, 2013. Congressional policymakers have debated the scope and details of reauthorization and continue to consider legislation establishing an authority with longer duration. Some Members of Congress support an extension, either short- or long-term, of the existing authority. Other Members call for revision and more extensive codification of chemical facility security regulatory provisions. Questions regarding the current law’s effectiveness in reducing chemical facility risk and the sufficiency of federal funding for chemical facility security exacerbate the tension between continuing current policies and changing the statutory authority.

The DHS is in the process of implementing the authorized regulations, called chemical facility anti-terrorism standards (CFATS). The DHS finalized CFATS regulations in 2007. No chemical facilities have completed the CFATS process, which starts with information submission by chemical facilities and finishes with inspection and approval of facility security measures by DHS. Several factors, including the amount of detailed information provided to DHS, effectiveness of DHS program management, and the availability of CFATS inspectors, likely complicate the inspection process and lead to delays in inspection. Policymakers have questioned whether the compliance rate with CFATS is sufficient to address this homeland security issue.

Key policy issues debated in previous Congresses contribute to the current reauthorization debate. These issues include the adequacy of DHS resources and efforts; the appropriateness and scope of federal preemption of state chemical facility security activities; the availability of information for public comment, potential litigation, and congressional oversight; the range of facilities that DHS identifies as chemical facilities; and the ability of inherently safer technologies to achieve security goals.

The 112th Congress might take various approaches to this issue. Congress might allow the statutory authority to expire but continue providing appropriations to administer the regulations. Congress might permanently or temporarily extend the statutory authority to observe the impact of the current regulations and, if necessary, address any perceived weaknesses at a later date. Congress might codify the existing regulations in statute and reduce the discretion available to the Secretary of Homeland Security to change the current regulatory framework. Alternatively, Congress might substantively change the current regulation’s implementation, scope, or impact by amending the existing statute or creating a new one. Finally, Congress might choose to terminate the program by allowing its authority to lapse and removing funding for the program. This last approach would leave chemical facility security regulation to the discretion of state and local governments.

Both appropriation and authorization legislation in the 112th Congress addresses chemical facility security. P.L. 112-74 extended the existing authority until October 4, 2012. Both FY2013 homeland security appropriations bills (S. 3216 and H.R. 5855, as passed by the House) would extend the existing authority until October 4, 2013. Authorizing legislation includes H.R. 225; H.R. 901, reported as amended by the House Committee on Homeland Security and referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; H.R. 908, reported as amended by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; H.R. 916; H.R. 2890; S. 473, reported as amended by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; S. 709; and S. 711.


Date of Report: June 11, 2012
Number of Pages: 37
Order Number: R41642
Price: $29.95
Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.

To Order:
 

R41642.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

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

Spectrum Policy in the Age of Broadband: Issues for Congress

Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy

The convergence of wireless telecommunications technology with the Internet Protocol (IP) is fostering new generations of mobile technologies. This transformation has created new demands for advanced communications infrastructure and radio frequency spectrum capacity that can support high-speed, content-rich uses. Furthermore, a number of services, in addition to consumer and business communications, rely at least in part on wireless links to broadband (highspeed/ high-capacity) infrastructure such as the Internet and IP-enabled networks. Policies to provide additional spectrum for mobile broadband services are generally viewed as drivers that would stimulate technological innovation and economic growth.

The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96, signed February 22, 2012) included provisions to expedite the availability of spectrum for commercial use. These include expediting auctions of licenses for spectrum designated for mobile broadband; authorizing incentive auctions, which would permit television broadcasters to receive compensation for steps they might take to release some of their airwaves for mobile broadband; requiring that specified federal holdings be auctioned or reassigned for commercial use; and providing for the availability of spectrum for unlicensed use. The act also includes provisions to apply future spectrum license auction revenues toward deficit reduction; to establish a planning and governance structure to deploy public safety broadband networks, using some auction proceeds for that purpose; and to assign additional spectrum resources for public safety communications.

Increasing the amount of spectrum available to support new mobile technologies is one step toward meeting future demand for mobile services. This report discusses some of the commercial and federal spectrum policy changes required by the act. It also summarizes new policy directions for spectrum management under consideration in the 112th Congress, such as the encouragement of new technologies that use spectrum more efficiently.


Date of Report: June 21, 2012
Number of Pages: 21
Order Number: R40674
Price: $29.95

Document available via e-mail as a pdf file or in paper form.
To Order:
 

R40674.pdf  to use the SECURE SHOPPING CART

e-mail congress@pennyhill.com

Phone 301-253-0881

For email and phone orders, 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.

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

Manufacturing Extension Partnership Program: An Overview

Wendy H. Schacht
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

The Hollings Manufacturing Partnership (MEP) is a program of regional centers that assist smaller, U.S.-based manufacturing companies in identifying and adopting new technologies. Operating under the auspices of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), centers in all 50 states and Puerto Rico provide technical and managerial assistance to firms. Federal funding is matched by non-federal sources. Existing resources in government, business, and academia are leveraged while the program endeavors to build on current state and local activities and industrial extension efforts.

The MEP program has, at times, been included in the discussion surrounding termination of government programs that provide direct federal support for industry. Questions have been raised in congressional debate as to the appropriateness of government funding for this program when the technologies are available in the marketplace. Instead of the government picking “winners and losers,” opponents argue, the marketplace should make decisions regarding firms worthy of investment. However, proponents of the program stress that, to date, no direct funding is available to companies through MEP and that assistance is technical, scientific, and/or managerial. The centers facilitate the adoption of new technologies that foster competition and promote innovation. As Congress continues to make appropriation decisions, support for manufacturing extension may be discussed in the context of the role of the federal government in facilitating research and technological advancement.


Date of Report: June 12, 2012
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: 97-104
Price: $29.95


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.

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