Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5) provided $7.2 billion primarily for broadband grant and loan programs to be administered by two separate agencies: the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of Commerce (DOC) and the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). The NTIA grant program is called the Broadband Technology Opportunity Program (BTOP). The RUS broadband grant and loan program is called the Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP).
As of October 1, 2010, all BTOP and BIP award announcements are complete. In total, NTIA and RUS announced awards for 540 projects, constituting $7.58 billion in federal funding. This included 233 BTOP projects (totaling $3.94 billion) and 307 BIP projects (totaling $3.64 billion). Of the $7.58 billion total announced, $6.26 billion was grant funding, and $1.32 billion was loan funding.
This report focuses on the distribution of ARRA broadband funding with respect to project category, broadband infrastructure technology deployed, and state-by-state distribution. Of all broadband infrastructure funding, a little more than half (51%) was awarded to middle mile projects and 49% was awarded to last mile projects. Deployment of broadband infrastructure can encompass a number of different types of technologies, including fiber, wireless, cable modem, DSL, satellite, and others. Projects involving fiber account for about two-thirds of all infrastructure projects.
Congress is likely to continue providing oversight on NTIA and RUS efforts to monitor funded projects. In the longer term, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC’s) National Broadband Plan has recommended a significant expansion of federal funding for broadband deployment in unserved areas. To the extent that Congress may consider whether broadband grant and loan programs should be expanded, the funding patterns and trends that emerged during Rounds One and Two, as well as the ultimate successes and failures of funded BTOP and BIP projects, could provide insights into whether and how such programs should be expanded, and if so, how these or similar programs might be fashioned within the context of a national broadband policy.
Date of Report: October 7, 2010
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: R41164
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.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Monday, October 11, 2010
Nanotechnology and Environmental, Health, and Safety: Issues for Consideration
John F. Sargent Jr.
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Nanotechnology—a term encompassing nanoscale science, engineering, and technology—is focused on understanding, controlling, and exploiting the unique properties of matter that can emerge at scales of one to 100 nanometers. A key issue before Congress regarding nanotechnology is how best to protect human health, safety, and the environment as nanoscale materials and products are researched, developed, manufactured, used, and discarded. While the rapidly emerging field of nanotechnology is believed by many to offer significant economic and societal benefits, some research results have raised concerns about the potential adverse environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of nanoscale materials.
Some have described nanotechnology as a two-edged sword. On the one hand, some are concerned that nanoscale particles may enter and accumulate in vital organs, such as the lungs and brains, potentially causing harm or death to humans and animals, and that the diffusion of nanoscale particles in the environment might harm ecosystems. On the other hand, some believe that nanotechnology has the potential to deliver important EHS benefits such as reducing energy consumption, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions; remediating environmental damage; curing, managing, or preventing diseases; and offering new safety-enhancing materials that are stronger, self-repairing, and able to adapt to provide protection.
Stakeholders generally agree that concerns about potential detrimental effects of nanoscale materials and devices—both real and perceived—must be addressed to protect and improve human health, safety, and the environment; enable accurate and efficient risk assessment, risk management, and cost-benefit trade-offs; foster innovation and public confidence; and ensure that society can enjoy the widespread economic and societal benefits that nanotechnology may offer. Congressionally-mandated reviews of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) by the National Research Council and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology have concluded that additional research is required to make a rigorous risk assessment of nanoscale materials.
Date of Report: September 29, 2010
Number of Pages: 40
Order Number: RL34614
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.
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Nanotechnology—a term encompassing nanoscale science, engineering, and technology—is focused on understanding, controlling, and exploiting the unique properties of matter that can emerge at scales of one to 100 nanometers. A key issue before Congress regarding nanotechnology is how best to protect human health, safety, and the environment as nanoscale materials and products are researched, developed, manufactured, used, and discarded. While the rapidly emerging field of nanotechnology is believed by many to offer significant economic and societal benefits, some research results have raised concerns about the potential adverse environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of nanoscale materials.
Some have described nanotechnology as a two-edged sword. On the one hand, some are concerned that nanoscale particles may enter and accumulate in vital organs, such as the lungs and brains, potentially causing harm or death to humans and animals, and that the diffusion of nanoscale particles in the environment might harm ecosystems. On the other hand, some believe that nanotechnology has the potential to deliver important EHS benefits such as reducing energy consumption, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions; remediating environmental damage; curing, managing, or preventing diseases; and offering new safety-enhancing materials that are stronger, self-repairing, and able to adapt to provide protection.
Stakeholders generally agree that concerns about potential detrimental effects of nanoscale materials and devices—both real and perceived—must be addressed to protect and improve human health, safety, and the environment; enable accurate and efficient risk assessment, risk management, and cost-benefit trade-offs; foster innovation and public confidence; and ensure that society can enjoy the widespread economic and societal benefits that nanotechnology may offer. Congressionally-mandated reviews of the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) by the National Research Council and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology have concluded that additional research is required to make a rigorous risk assessment of nanoscale materials.
Date of Report: September 29, 2010
Number of Pages: 40
Order Number: RL34614
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.
U.S. National Science Foundation: Major Research Equipment and Facility Construction
Christine M. Matthews
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account of the National Science Foundation (NSF) supports the acquisition and construction of major research facilities and equipment that are to extend the boundaries of science, engineering, and technology. The facilities include telescopes, earth simulators, astronomical observatories, and mobile research platforms. Currently, the NSF provides approximately $1.0 billion annually in support of facilities and other infrastructure projects. While the NSF does not directly design or operate research facilities, it does have final responsibility for oversight and management. Questions have been raised by many in the scientific community and in Congress concerning the adequacy of the planning and management of NSF facilities. In addition, there has been debate related to the criteria used to select projects for MREFC support.
The FY2011 request for the NSF is $7,424.4 million, approximately $551.9 million above the FY2010 estimate. Included in the requested funding is $165.2 million for MREFC, a 40.8% increase above the FY2010 estimate of $117.3 million. In FY2011, NSF anticipates construction of the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), at a cost of $20.0 million. The NEON will compile data on the effects of climate changes, land use changes, invasive species on natural resources, and biodiversity. In addition to the support of NEON, NSF will continue its support of four ongoing major construction projects—the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory ($23.6 million), the Atacama Large Millimeter Array ($13.9 million), the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope ($17.0 million), and the Ocean Observatories Initiative ($90.7 million).
On July 22, 2010, the Senate Committee on Appropriations approved S. 3636, Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill, FY2011 (S.Rept. 111-229). The Senate bill requests a total of $7,353.4 million for the NSF in FY2011, approximately $71.0 million below the Administration’s FY2011 request and $480.9 million above the FY2010 estimate. Included in the support for NSF is $155.2 million for MREFC, a 32.3% increase ($37.9 million) over the FY2010 estimate.
Date of Report: September 28, 2010
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: RS21267
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.
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction (MREFC) account of the National Science Foundation (NSF) supports the acquisition and construction of major research facilities and equipment that are to extend the boundaries of science, engineering, and technology. The facilities include telescopes, earth simulators, astronomical observatories, and mobile research platforms. Currently, the NSF provides approximately $1.0 billion annually in support of facilities and other infrastructure projects. While the NSF does not directly design or operate research facilities, it does have final responsibility for oversight and management. Questions have been raised by many in the scientific community and in Congress concerning the adequacy of the planning and management of NSF facilities. In addition, there has been debate related to the criteria used to select projects for MREFC support.
The FY2011 request for the NSF is $7,424.4 million, approximately $551.9 million above the FY2010 estimate. Included in the requested funding is $165.2 million for MREFC, a 40.8% increase above the FY2010 estimate of $117.3 million. In FY2011, NSF anticipates construction of the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON), at a cost of $20.0 million. The NEON will compile data on the effects of climate changes, land use changes, invasive species on natural resources, and biodiversity. In addition to the support of NEON, NSF will continue its support of four ongoing major construction projects—the Advanced Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory ($23.6 million), the Atacama Large Millimeter Array ($13.9 million), the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope ($17.0 million), and the Ocean Observatories Initiative ($90.7 million).
On July 22, 2010, the Senate Committee on Appropriations approved S. 3636, Commerce, Justice, and Science Appropriations Bill, FY2011 (S.Rept. 111-229). The Senate bill requests a total of $7,353.4 million for the NSF in FY2011, approximately $71.0 million below the Administration’s FY2011 request and $480.9 million above the FY2010 estimate. Included in the support for NSF is $155.2 million for MREFC, a 32.3% increase ($37.9 million) over the FY2010 estimate.
Date of Report: September 28, 2010
Number of Pages: 10
Order Number: RS21267
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.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
The Help America Vote Act and Elections Reform: Overview and Issues
Kevin J. Coleman
Analyst in Elections
Eric A. Fischer
Senior Specialist in Science and Technology
Since the November 2000 presidential election, previously obscure details of voting and vote counting have been the focus of ongoing public attention and legislative action at the state and federal levels. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) was enacted in October 2002, and the states have made additional changes to election laws and procedures since. Numerous bills to amend HAVA or otherwise reform the electoral process have been considered in the Congress as well, although none have been enacted. HAVA created a new federal agency (the Election Assistance Commission), set requirements for various aspects of election administration, and provided federal funding. However, the law did not supplant state and local control over election administration.
In the 111th Congress, the House recently passed H.R. 512 that would prohibit a state’s chief election official from actively participating in a federal election campaign, unless the official or an immediate family member was the candidate. The bill was passed on September 29, 2010. Congress also enacted a new military and overseas citizens voting law was approved and signed into law in October 2009 as part of the defense authorization act (P.L. 111-84). A number of election reform bills have been reported in the House as well. The reported bills would establish universal absentee voting (H.R. 1604), provide grants for voluntary absentee ballot tracking (H.R. 2510), and make improvements to military voting procedures (H.R. 2393).
For FY2011, the President’s budget request includes $16.8 million for the EAC but does not include new funding for election reform payments to the states. The Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 111-238) and the House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee recommended the same amount for the EAC, with no election reform payments to the states.
For FY2010, the President’s budget request included $16.5 million for the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and $106 million for election reform payments to states. The House and Senate bills (H.R. 3170, S. 1432) would have provided about the same amount for the EAC; the House bill would have provided nearly the same amount for election payments, while the Senate bill called for $52 million in election payments. The Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 3288), which was signed by the President on December 16, 2009, included $17.9 million for the EAC and $75 million for election reform programs.
In the 110th Congress, election reform issues included HAVA funding, paper audit trails for electronic voting systems, military and overseas voting, and deceptive practices and voter intimidation in elections. The House approved two bills and the Senate approved one, but none were enacted. The House passed H.R. 1281, the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007, on June 25, 2008, and H.R. 6625, the Veteran Voting Support Act, on September 17. The Senate passed S. 3073, the Military Voting Protection Act of 2008, on October 1, 2008.
Date of Report: October 1, 2010
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RS20898
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.
Analyst in Elections
Eric A. Fischer
Senior Specialist in Science and Technology
Since the November 2000 presidential election, previously obscure details of voting and vote counting have been the focus of ongoing public attention and legislative action at the state and federal levels. The Help America Vote Act (HAVA, P.L. 107-252) was enacted in October 2002, and the states have made additional changes to election laws and procedures since. Numerous bills to amend HAVA or otherwise reform the electoral process have been considered in the Congress as well, although none have been enacted. HAVA created a new federal agency (the Election Assistance Commission), set requirements for various aspects of election administration, and provided federal funding. However, the law did not supplant state and local control over election administration.
In the 111th Congress, the House recently passed H.R. 512 that would prohibit a state’s chief election official from actively participating in a federal election campaign, unless the official or an immediate family member was the candidate. The bill was passed on September 29, 2010. Congress also enacted a new military and overseas citizens voting law was approved and signed into law in October 2009 as part of the defense authorization act (P.L. 111-84). A number of election reform bills have been reported in the House as well. The reported bills would establish universal absentee voting (H.R. 1604), provide grants for voluntary absentee ballot tracking (H.R. 2510), and make improvements to military voting procedures (H.R. 2393).
For FY2011, the President’s budget request includes $16.8 million for the EAC but does not include new funding for election reform payments to the states. The Senate Appropriations Committee (S.Rept. 111-238) and the House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee recommended the same amount for the EAC, with no election reform payments to the states.
For FY2010, the President’s budget request included $16.5 million for the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) and $106 million for election reform payments to states. The House and Senate bills (H.R. 3170, S. 1432) would have provided about the same amount for the EAC; the House bill would have provided nearly the same amount for election payments, while the Senate bill called for $52 million in election payments. The Consolidated Appropriations Act (H.R. 3288), which was signed by the President on December 16, 2009, included $17.9 million for the EAC and $75 million for election reform programs.
In the 110th Congress, election reform issues included HAVA funding, paper audit trails for electronic voting systems, military and overseas voting, and deceptive practices and voter intimidation in elections. The House approved two bills and the Senate approved one, but none were enacted. The House passed H.R. 1281, the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2007, on June 25, 2008, and H.R. 6625, the Veteran Voting Support Act, on September 17. The Senate passed S. 3073, the Military Voting Protection Act of 2008, on October 1, 2008.
Date of Report: October 1, 2010
Number of Pages: 14
Order Number: RS20898
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.
Monday, October 4, 2010
The FCC’s Broadcast Media Ownership Rules
Charles B. Goldfarb
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC or Commission) broadcast media ownership rules are intended to foster the three long-standing goals of U.S. media policy—competition, localism, and diversity of voices. The FCC has the statutory obligation to review these rules every four years to determine if they continue to serve the public interest or should be modified or eliminated. The Commission currently is undertaking that quadrennial review through a proceeding for which public comments already have been filed.
In December 2007, the FCC adopted an order that modified only one of its broadcast media ownership rules—the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule—and left the other rules intact. Under the new rule, it would be presumptively “not inconsistent with” the public interest, in the 20 largest local markets, for an entity to own both a major daily newspaper and a single television or radio station, so long as the television station is not among the four highest-rated stations in the market and after the transaction there are at least eight independently owned and operating major media voices. Otherwise, in most situations newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership in a local market would be presumptively inconsistent with the public interest. Each proposed combination, however, would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and proposed combinations in smaller markets could be approved. Fifteen parties have appealed the new rule; the challenges have been assigned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Implementation of the rule initially had been stayed by the court, but on March 23, 2010, the court lifted its stay.
In its previous quadrennial review, in June 2003, the FCC modified five of its broadcast media ownership rules, easing restrictions on the ownership of multiple television stations (nationally and in local markets) and on local media cross-ownership, and tightening restrictions on the ownership of multiple radio stations in local markets. Those rules have never gone into effect. Sec. 629 of the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199) instructed the FCC to modify its new National Television Ownership rule to allow a broadcast network to own and operate local broadcast stations that reach, in total, at most 39% of U.S. television households. In June 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Prometheus Radio Project vs. Federal Communications Commission, found that the FCC did not provide reasoned analysis to support its specific local ownership limits, and also that the FCC failed to address the impact of it new rules on minority ownership of broadcast stations, and therefore remanded portions of the new local ownership rules back to the FCC and extended its stay of those rules. Thus, the rules in effect prior to June 2003 remain in effect.
Date of Report: September 23, 2010
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: RL34416
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.
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
The Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC or Commission) broadcast media ownership rules are intended to foster the three long-standing goals of U.S. media policy—competition, localism, and diversity of voices. The FCC has the statutory obligation to review these rules every four years to determine if they continue to serve the public interest or should be modified or eliminated. The Commission currently is undertaking that quadrennial review through a proceeding for which public comments already have been filed.
In December 2007, the FCC adopted an order that modified only one of its broadcast media ownership rules—the newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule—and left the other rules intact. Under the new rule, it would be presumptively “not inconsistent with” the public interest, in the 20 largest local markets, for an entity to own both a major daily newspaper and a single television or radio station, so long as the television station is not among the four highest-rated stations in the market and after the transaction there are at least eight independently owned and operating major media voices. Otherwise, in most situations newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership in a local market would be presumptively inconsistent with the public interest. Each proposed combination, however, would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and proposed combinations in smaller markets could be approved. Fifteen parties have appealed the new rule; the challenges have been assigned to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Implementation of the rule initially had been stayed by the court, but on March 23, 2010, the court lifted its stay.
In its previous quadrennial review, in June 2003, the FCC modified five of its broadcast media ownership rules, easing restrictions on the ownership of multiple television stations (nationally and in local markets) and on local media cross-ownership, and tightening restrictions on the ownership of multiple radio stations in local markets. Those rules have never gone into effect. Sec. 629 of the FY2004 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-199) instructed the FCC to modify its new National Television Ownership rule to allow a broadcast network to own and operate local broadcast stations that reach, in total, at most 39% of U.S. television households. In June 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Prometheus Radio Project vs. Federal Communications Commission, found that the FCC did not provide reasoned analysis to support its specific local ownership limits, and also that the FCC failed to address the impact of it new rules on minority ownership of broadcast stations, and therefore remanded portions of the new local ownership rules back to the FCC and extended its stay of those rules. Thus, the rules in effect prior to June 2003 remain in effect.
Date of Report: September 23, 2010
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: RL34416
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
