The Corporation for Public Broadcasting: Federal Funding and Issues

Glenn J. McLoughlin
Section Research Manager

Mark Gurevitz
Information Research Specialist

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) receives virtually all of its funding through federal appropriations; overall, about 15% of all public television and radio broadcasting funding comes from the federal appropriations that CPB distributes. CPB’s appropriation is allocated through a distribution formula established in its authorizing legislation and has historically received two-year advanced appropriations. Congressional policymakers are increasingly interested in the federal role in supporting CPB due to concerns over the federal debt, the role of the federal government funding for public radio and television, and whether public broadcasting provides a balanced and nuanced approach to covering news of national interest.

It is also important to note that many congressional policymakers defend the federal role of funding public broadcasting. They contend that it provides news and information to large segments of the population that seek to understand complex policy issues in depth, and in particular for children’s television broadcasting, has a significant and positive impact on early learning and education for children.

On December 23, 2011, President Obama signed the final Continuing Resolution (CR) of federal funding for FY2012 into law (H.R. 2055, P.L. 112-74). This bill sustained the advanced appropriations for CPB, but with a recission of 0.189%. The final CPB FY20101 appropriations is $441 million.

On March 15, Representative Lamborn introduced H.R. 1076, To Prohibit Federal Funding of National Public Radio and the Use of Federal Funds to Acquire Radio Content. Among its provisions, the bill would end direct federal funding of NPR Inc. as well as prohibit member stations from using federally appropriated funding to purchase broadcasting content from NPR Inc. The bill, without committee hearings or markup, was considered on the floor of the House of Representatives on March 17, 2011, and passed the same day (228-192). It has been referred to the Senate, where to date no further action has been taken.


Date of Report: February 3, 2012
Number of Pages: 12
Order Number: RS22168
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.

Internet Domain Names: Background and Policy Issues

Lennard G. Kruger
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

Navigating the Internet requires using addresses and corresponding names that identify the location of individual computers. The Domain Name System (DNS) is the distributed set of databases residing in computers around the world that contain address numbers mapped to corresponding domain names, making it possible to send and receive messages and to access information from computers anywhere on the Internet. Many of the technical, operational, and management decisions regarding the DNS can have significant impacts on Internet-related policy issues such as intellectual property, privacy, Internet freedom, e-commerce, and cybersecurity.

The DNS is managed and operated by a not-for-profit public benefit corporation called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Because the Internet evolved from a network infrastructure created by the Department of Defense, the U.S. government originally owned and operated (primarily through private contractors) the key components of network architecture that enable the domain name system to function. A 1998 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between ICANN and the Department of Commerce (DOC) initiated a process intended to transition technical DNS coordination and management functions to a privatesector not-for-profit entity. While the DOC played no role in the internal governance or day-today operations of the DNS, ICANN remained accountable to the U.S. government through the MOU, which was superseded in 2006 by a Joint Project Agreement (JPA). On September 30, 2009, the JPA between ICANN and DOC expired and was replaced by an Affirmation of Commitments (AoC), which provides for review panels to periodically assess ICANN processes and activities.

Additionally, a contract between DOC and ICANN authorizes the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to perform various technical functions such as allocating IP address blocks, editing the root zone file, and coordinating the assignment of unique protocol numbers. Currently, negotiations are ongoing over the renewal of the IANA contract between DOC and ICANN, which is due to expire on March 31, 2012.

With the expiration of the ICANN-DOC Joint Project Agreement on September 30, 2009, the announcement of the new AoC, and the renewal of the IANA contract, the 112th Congress and the Administration are likely to continue assessing the appropriate federal role with respect to ICANN and the DNS, and examine to what extent ICANN is positioned to ensure Internet stability and security, competition, private and bottom-up policymaking and coordination, and fair representation of the global Internet community. Meanwhile, controversies over new generic top level domains (gTLDs) and the addition of the .xxx domain have led some governments to criticize the ICANN policymaking process and to suggest various ways to increase governmental influence over that process. How these and other issues are ultimately addressed and resolved could have profound impacts on the continuing evolution of ICANN, the DNS, and the Internet.


Date of Report: February 3, 2012
Number of Pages: 22
Order Number: 97-868
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.

Online Copyright Infringement and Counterfeiting: Legislation in the 112th Congress

Brian T. Yeh
Legislative Attorney

The global nature of the Internet offers expanded commercial opportunities for intellectual property (IP) rights holders but also increases the potential for copyright and trademark infringement. Piracy of the content created by movie, music, and software companies and sales of counterfeit pharmaceutical drugs and consumer products negatively impact the American economy and can pose risks to the health and safety of U.S. citizens. Although rights holders and law enforcement agencies currently have some legal tools to pursue domestic infringers, they face difficult challenges in enforcing IP laws against actors located abroad. Many websites trafficking in pirated copyrighted content or counterfeit goods are registered and operate in foreign countries. These foreign “rogue sites” sell subject matter that infringes U.S. copyrights and trademarks to U.S. consumers, yet the website operators remain beyond the reach of U.S. courts and authorities.

Some believe that legislation is necessary to address the jurisdictional problem of holding foreign websites accountable for piracy and counterfeiting. On May 12, 2011, Senator Leahy introduced S. 968, the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act (PROTECT IP Act), that would allow the Attorney General to seek an injunction from a federal court against a domain name used by a foreign website that engages in, enables, or facilitates infringement; such court order may then be served on U.S.-based domain name servers, Internet advertisers, search engines, and financial transaction providers, which would be required to take actions such as preventing access to the website or suspending business services to the site. IP rights holders may also sue to obtain a cease and desist order against the operator of an Internet site dedicated to infringement (whether domestic or foreign) or the domain name itself.

On October 26, 2011, Representative Lamar Smith introduced H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA). SOPA is similar to the PROTECT IP Act yet is broader in scope by including several provisions not found in S. 968, such as those that increase the criminal penalties for online streaming of copyrighted content, create criminal penalties for trafficking in counterfeit drugs, and require the appointment of dedicated IP personnel in U.S. embassies.

There has been considerable public debate about the PROTECT IP Act and SOPA. Critics claim these measures amount to “Internet censorship” and that they would impair free speech. There are also concerns that the legislation will disrupt the technical integrity of the Internet. Supporters of the bills argue that in order to reduce digital piracy and online counterfeiting, new enforcement mechanisms are vital for U.S. economic growth and needed to protect public health and safety. After intense lobbying against the legislation, Senator Reid on January 20, 2012, postponed a cloture vote that had been scheduled for the PROTECT IP Act, and Representative Smith announced that the House Judiciary Committee would similarly postpone consideration of SOPA, until a compromise could be reached between supporters and opponents of the legislation.

An alternative to these bills is the Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN Act; S. 2029, H.R. 3782) that would authorize the International Trade Commission (ITC) to investigate foreign websites that allegedly engage in willful IP infringement. The ITC may issue a cease and desist order against the infringing foreign website; such an order may be used by the rights holder to oblige financial transaction providers or Internet advertising services to stop doing business with the website. Unlike the PROTECT IP Act and SOPA, the OPEN Act does not apply to domestic websites and also would not require search engines or domain name servers to block access or disable links to foreign websites.


Date of Report: January 20, 2012
Number of Pages: 35
Order Number: R42112
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 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act: Innovation Issues

Wendy H. Schacht
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

John R. Thomas
Visiting Scholar

Following several years of legislative discussion concerning patent reform, the Congress enacted P.L. 112-29, signed into law on September 16, 2011. The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act makes significant changes to the patent system, including:

•         First-Inventor-to-File Priority System. The America Invents Act shifts the U.S. patent priority rule from the current “first-to-invent” system to the “firstinventor- to-file principle” while allowing for a one-year grace period. 

•         Prior User Rights. The legislation establishes an infringement defense based upon an accused infringer’s prior commercial use of an invention patented by another. 

•         Assignee Filing. Under the America Invents Act, a patent application may be filed by the inventor’s employer or other entity to whom rights in the invention are assigned. 

•         Post-Grant Review Proceedings. The America Invents Act changes the current system of administrative patent challenges at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) by establishing post-grant review, inter partes review, and a transitional program for business method patents. 

•         Public Participation in USPTO Procedures. The legislation allows members of the public to submit pertinent information to the USPTO concerning particular applications both before and after patent issuance. 

•         USPTO Fees. The new law stipulates fees for USPTO patent services and allows the agency to adjust the fees in order to cover its costs. It also requires that fees collected above the amount provided for in the appropriations process be used only for the USPTO. 

•         Patent Marking. The America Invents Act limits lawsuits challenging patent owners with false patent marking and allows for virtual, Internet-based marking. 

•         Patentable Subject Matter. The America Invents Act prevents patents claiming or encompassing human organisms and limits the availability of patents claiming tax strategies. 

•         Best Mode. The statute maintains the requirement that patents describe the best mode, or superior way for practicing the claimed invention, but eliminates failures to do so as a basis for invalidating the patent.

The America Invents Act introduces a number of additional changes to the patent law, including changes to the venue statute, the introduction of supplemental examination, and a clarification of the law of willful infringement.

Although the America Invents Act arguably makes the most significant changes to the U.S. patent statute since the 19th century, the legislation does not reflect all of the issues that were the subject of legislative discussion including the assessment of damages during infringement litigation and the publication of all pending patent applications prior to grant.


Date of Report: January 24, 2012
Number of Pages: 23
Order Number: R42014
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 Research and Development Funding: FY2012

John F. Sargent Jr., Coordinator
Specialist in Science and Technology Policy

President Obama has requested $147.911 billion for research and development (R&D) in FY2012, a $772 million (0.5%) increase from the FY2010 actual R&D funding level of $147.139 billion. Congress will play a central role in defining the nation’s R&D priorities, especially with respect to two overarching issues: the extent to which the federal R&D investment can grow in the context of increased pressure on discretionary spending and how available funding will be prioritized and allocated. Low or negative growth in the overall R&D investment may require movement of resources across disciplines, programs, or agencies to address priorities.

Congress incorporated all the regular appropriations acts into two bills, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-55) and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 (P.L. 112-74). P.L. 112-55, incorporating three regular appropriations acts—the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Act; Commerce, Justice, State and Related Agencies Act; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Act—was passed by Congress on November 17, 2011 and signed into law two days later. P.L. 112-74, incorporating the nine remaining regular appropriations acts, was passed by Congress on December 17, 2011 and signed into law by President Obama on December 23, 2011.

Prior to enactment of these bills, Congress had continued government operations into FY2012 through a series of continuing appropriations acts. P.L. 112-33 provided agency funding initially through October 4, 2011. P.L. 112-36 extended funding for all agencies through November 18, 2011. P.L. 112-55 extended funding through December 16, 2011 for agencies not covered under its provisions. For more than a decade, federal R&D has been affected by mechanisms used to continue appropriations in the absence of enactment of regular appropriations acts and to complete the annual appropriations process. Completion of appropriations after the beginning of a fiscal year may cause agencies to delay or cancel some planned R&D and equipment acquisition.

At the time the President’s FY2012 budget was released, action had not been completed on FY2011 full-year funding. In the absence of FY2011 appropriations data, the President’s budget compared his FY2012 request to FY2010 appropriations. On April 15, 2011, the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (P.L. 112-10) was signed into law. Division A of the act provided FY2011 appropriations for the Department of Defense; Division B provided full-year continuing funding for FY2011 for all other agencies at their FY2010 levels unless otherwise specified in the act. With respect to federal R&D funding overall and to several agencies in particular, it is not possible yet to assess the level of funding provided under the act. Therefore this report compares the President’s FY2012 funding request to FY2011 levels, where possible, and to FY2010 levels elsewhere. This report will be updated as additional information about FY2011 R&D funding becomes available. Comparison of the President’s request to enacted funding levels is complicated by several factors, including the omission of congressionally directed spending from the President’s FY2012 budget request.

President Obama’s request included increases in the R&D budgets of the three agencies targeted for doubling over 7 years by the America COMPETES Act, and over 10 years by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 and by President Bush under his American Competitiveness Initiative, as measured using FY2006 funding as the baseline. Although President Obama supported a 10-year doubling in his FY2010 budget, his FY2012 budget was intentionally silent on a timeframe.


Date of Report: January 26, 2012
Number of Pages: 61
Order Number: R41706
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.