Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Congressional research reportMay 5, 2021
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th
Congress
May 5, 2021
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R46787
SUMMARY
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th
Congress
The federal government supports scientific and technological advancement directly by funding
and performing research and development, and indirectly by creating and maintaining policies
that encourage private sector efforts. Additionally, the federal government regulates many
aspects of S&T activities. This report briefly outlines a key set of science and technology policy
issues that may come before the 117th Congress.
R46787
May 5, 2021
Frank Gottron,
Coordinator
Specialist in Science and
Technology Policy
Brian E. Humphreys,
Coordinator
Analyst in Science and
Technology Policy
Many of these issues carry over from previous Congresses, and represent areas of continuing
Member interest. Examples include policies on taxation, trade, intellectual property,
commercialization of basic scientific research and other overarching issues that affect scientific
and technological progress. Other issues may represent new or rapidly evolving areas affected by
the threats of pandemic diseases, climate change, and malicious cyber activities, among others.
Examples covered in this report include infectious disease modeling and forecasting, digital
contact tracing and digital exposure notification, hydrogen pipelines, and expansion of emerging information and
communications technologies such as 5G.
These and other S&T-related issues that may come before the 117th Congress are grouped into 10 categories.
Overarching S&T Policy Issues,
Biotechnology and Biomedical Research and Development,
Agriculture,
Climate Change and Water,
Defense,
Energy,
Homeland Security,
Information Technology,
Physical and Material Sciences, and
Space.
Each of these categories includes concise analysis of multiple policy issues. The material presented in this report should be
viewed as illustrative rather than comprehensive. Each section identifies CRS reports, when available, and the appropriate
CRS experts to contact for further information and analysis.
Congressional Research Service
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Contents
Overarching Science and Technology Policy Issues .............................................................. 1
Federal Science and Technology Policymaking Enterprise ............................................... 1
Federal Funding for Research and Development............................................................. 2
Adequacy of the U.S. Science and Engineering Workforce............................................... 2
Tax Incentives for Technological Innovation .................................................................. 3
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies .............................................................................. 4
Technology Transfer from Federal Laboratories ............................................................. 4
R&D Security ........................................................................................................... 5
The Role of Technical Standards in U.S. Trade Policy ..................................................... 6
Intellectual Property Law............................................................................................ 7
Agriculture..................................................................................................................... 8
Agricultural Research Funding .................................................................................... 8
Climate Change Science at USDA................................................................................ 9
ERS and NIFA Operations Following Their Relocation ................................................. 10
Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology ................................................................... 10
The National Bio and Agro-defense Facility ................................................................ 11
Cell-Cultured Meat .................................................................................................. 12
Biotechnology and Biomedical Research and Development ................................................. 13
CRISPR: Advanced Genome Editing .......................................................................... 13
Bioeconomy ........................................................................................................... 14
National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Biomedical Research......................................... 14
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Medical Product Innovation .......................... 15
Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests .................................................................. 16
Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine ....................................................................... 17
Infectious Disease Modeling and Forecasting............................................................... 18
Climate Change and Water ............................................................................................. 19
Climate-Related S&T Expenditures and Activities by the Federal Government ................. 19
Climate Change-Related Science ............................................................................... 20
GHG-Related Technology Research, Development, Demonstration, and Deployment ........ 21
Climate Change and Infrastructure ............................................................................. 22
Science and Technology for Adaptation and Resilience.................................................. 23
Carbon Capture and Sequestration.............................................................................. 24
Water..................................................................................................................... 26
Defense ....................................................................................................................... 28
Department of Defense Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation ............................. 28
Energy......................................................................................................................... 29
Biofuels ................................................................................................................. 29
Hydraulic Fracturing and Horizontal Drilling ............................................................... 30
Electricity Modernization and Decarbonization ............................................................ 31
Advanced Battery Energy Storage.............................................................................. 31
Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel ........................................................................... 32
Advanced Nuclear Energy Technology........................................................................ 33
Hydrogen Pipelines.................................................................................................. 34
Offshore Energy Development Technologies................................................................ 35
Homeland Security........................................................................................................ 36
Congressional Research Service
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Evolving Technology and the Debate over “Lawful Access”........................................... 36
Federal Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition Technology ................................... 37
Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience.............................................................. 38
Information and Communication Technology .................................................................... 39
Cybersecurity.......................................................................................................... 39
Artificial Intelligence ............................................................................................... 40
Big Tech and Social Media Policy and Regulation ........................................................ 41
Broadband Deployment and the Digital Divide ............................................................ 42
Deployment of the FirstNet Network .......................................................................... 43
5G Telecommunications ........................................................................................... 44
Access to Broadband Networks and the Net Neutrality Debate ....................................... 45
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program ................. 45
Quantum Information Science ................................................................................... 46
The Internet of Things .............................................................................................. 47
Digital Contact Tracing and Digital Exposure Notification ............................................. 48
Physical and Material Sciences........................................................................................ 49
National Science Foundation ..................................................................................... 49
Nanotechnology and the National Nanotechnology Initiative.......................................... 50
Space .......................................................................................................................... 51
NASA.................................................................................................................... 51
Commercial Space................................................................................................... 52
Earth-Observing Satellites......................................................................................... 53
Contacts
Author Information ....................................................................................................... 54
Congressional Research Service
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Overarching Science and Technology Policy Issues
This section provides an overview of the federal science and technology (S&T) policymaking
enterprise, followed by discussion of several issues that the enterprise currently addresses. These
issues include federal funding for research and development; the adequacy of the science and
engineering workforce; the role of tax incentives in promoting advancement of science and
technology; federal scientific integrity policies; technology transfer from federal laboratories;
research and development security; the role of technical standards in federal trade policy; and
intellectual property law.
Federal Science and Technology Policymaking Enterprise
The federal S&T policymaking enterprise is composed of an extensive and diverse set of
stakeholders in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The enterprise fosters, among
other things, the advancement of scientific and technical knowledge; science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education; the application of S&T to achieve economic,
national security, and other societal benefits; and the use of S&T to improve federal
decisionmaking.
Federal responsibilities for S&T policymaking are highly decentralized. Many House and Senate
committees have jurisdiction over important elements of S&T policy. In addition, congressional
appropriations committees provide funding for federal agency S&T programs. Congress also
enacts laws to establish, refine, and eliminate programs, policies, regulations, regulatory agencies,
and regulatory processes that affect science, technology, and engineering research and
development (R&D) or rely on S&T data and analysis. However, congressional authorities related
to S&T policymaking are diffuse. In addition, there are dozens of informal congressional
caucuses in areas of S&T policy such as R&D, specific S&T disciplines, and STEM education.
The President formulates annual budgets, policies, and programs for consideration by Congress;
issues executive orders and directives; and directs the executive branch departments and agencies
responsible for implementing S&T policies and programs. The Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP), in the Executive Office of the President, advises the President and other
Administration officials on S&T issues.
Executive agency S&T responsibilities are also diffuse. Some agencies have broad S&T
responsibilities (e.g., the National Science Foundation). Others use S&T to meet a specific federal
mission (e.g., defense, energy, health, space). Regulatory agencies have S&T responsibilities in
areas such as nuclear energy, food and drug safety, and environmental protection.
Federal court cases and decisions often affect U.S. S&T policy. Decisions can have an impact on
the development of S&T (e.g., decisions regarding the U.S. patent system); S&T-intensive
industries (e.g., the break-up of AT&T in the 1980s); and the admissibility of S&T-related
evidence (e.g., DNA samples).
For Further Information
John F. Sargent Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R43935, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): History and Overview, by
John F. Sargent Jr. and Dana A. Shea
Congressional Research Service
1
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Federal Funding for Research and Development
The federal government has long supported the advancement of scientific knowledge and
technological development through investments in R&D, which have led to scientific
breakthroughs and new technologies, from jet aircraft and the internet to communications
satellites and defenses against disease. Federal R&D funding seeks to address a broad range of
national interests, including national defense, health, safety, the environment, and energy security;
advance knowledge generally; develop the scientific and engineering workforce; and strengthen
U.S. innovation and competitiveness.
Between FY2008 and FY2013, federal R&D funding fell from $140.1 billion to $130.9 billion in
current dollars, a reduction of $9.3 billion (6.6%). The decline was a reversal of sustained growth
in federal R&D funding for more than half a century, and stirred debate about the potential longterm effects on U.S. technological leadership, innovation, competitiveness, economic growth, and
job creation. From FY2013 to FY2017, federal funding grew, rising to an all-time current dollar
high of $155.0 billion in FY2017.
A change in R&D accounting by the Office of Management and Budget to exclude certain latestage development activities (primarily at the Department of Defense and NASA) from total
federal R&D calculations obscures comparison of funding levels for FY2018 and later years to
funding from FY2017 and earlier years. As calculated by OMB, current dollar federal R&D
funding was $135.8 billion in FY2018, $140.1 billion in FY2019, and $156.0 billion in FY2020.
Concerns by some about the adequacy of federal R&D funding have been exacerbated by
increases in the R&D investments of other nations (China, in particular); globalization of R&D
and manufacturing activities; and trade deficits in advanced technology products, an area in
which the United States previously ran trade surpluses (most recently in 2001). In addition, R&D
funding decisions may be affected by differing perspectives on the appropriate role of the federal
government in advancing science and technology.
As the 117th Congress undertakes the appropriations process it may consider two overarching
issues: (1) the level of federal R&D investment and (2) how available funding will be prioritized
and allocated. Low or negative growth in the federal government’s overall R&D investment may
require movement of resources across disciplines, programs, or agencies to address priorities.
Congress continues to play a central role in defining the nation’s R&D priorities as it makes
decisions with respect to the size and distribution of aggregate, agency, and programmatic R&D
funding.
For Further Information
John F. Sargent Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R46341, Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding: FY2021, coordinated
by John F. Sargent Jr.
CRS Report R45715, Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding: FY2020, coordinated
by John F. Sargent Jr.
Adequacy of the U.S. Science and Engineering Workforce
The adequacy of the U.S. science and engineering (S&E) workforce has been an ongoing concern
of Congress for more than 70 years. Scientists and engineers are widely believed to be essential to
U.S. technological leadership, innovation, manufacturing, and services, and thus vital to U.S.
economic strength, national defense, and other societal needs. Congress has enacted many
programs to support the education and development of scientists and engineers. Congress has also
Congressional Research Service
2
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
undertaken broad efforts to improve science, technology, engineering, and math skills to prepare a
greater number of students to pursue S&E degrees. In addition, some policymakers have sought
to increase the number of foreign scientists and engineers working in the United States through
changes in visa and immigration policies.
Most experts agree that there is no authoritative definition of which occupations comprise the
S&E workforce. Rather, the selection of occupations included in any particular analysis of the
S&E workforce may vary depending on the objective of the analysis. The policy debate about the
adequacy of the U.S. S&E workforce has focused largely on professional-level computer
occupations, mathematical occupations, engineers, and physical scientists. Accordingly, much of
the analytical focus has been on these occupations. However, some analyses may use a definition
that includes some or all of these occupations, as well as life scientists, S&E managers, S&E
technicians, social scientists, and related occupations.
Many policymakers, business leaders, academics, S&E professional society analysts, economists,
and others hold differing views with respect to the adequacy of the S&E workforce and related
policy issues. These issues include the question of the existence of a shortage of scientists and
engineers in the United States, what the nature of any such shortage might be (e.g., too few
people with S&E degrees, mismatches between skills and needs), and whether the federal
government should undertake policy interventions or rely upon market forces to resolve any
shortages in this labor market. Among the key indicators used by labor economists to assess the
existence of occupational labor shortages are employment growth, wage growth, and
unemployment rates.
For Further Information
John F. Sargent Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R43061, The U.S. Science and Engineering Workforce: Recent, Current, and
Projected Employment, Wages, and Unemployment, by John F. Sargent Jr.
Tax Incentives for Technological Innovation
The 117th Congress may consider new federal policies to promote technological innovation,
considered a key contributor to long-term economic growth.
In general, companies are unlikely to invest as much in R&D as the resulting social benefits
might warrant because aggregate social benefits are often not realized as direct monetary returns
on R&D investment to companies. Economists regard underinvestment in R&D as a market
failure, which can be remedied through various kinds of government intervention.
One way many governments address this issue is to provide tax incentives for business R&D
investment. The federal government offers two such incentives. One is a research tax credit under
Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), and the other is an expensing allowance for the
full amount of qualified expenses under Section 174. There are two options for the credit: (1)
20% of qualified expenses above a base amount, or (2) 14% of qualified expenses above a
different base amount. Section 174 expensing is scheduled to expire at the end of 2021, and
starting in 2022, qualified research costs would have to be amortized over five years.
The loss of an expensing option for research expenses is likely to raise the user cost of capital for
R&D investments and reduce cash flow for firms investing in R&D. Critics of the current
research tax credit argue that it should be altered in two ways. First, they say the credit’s rate
should be increased so it might stimulate large, sustained increases in business R&D. Second, in
recognition of the key role played by young, small firms in the innovation process, critics
Congressional Research Service
3
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
advocate making the credit fully refundable for small research-intensive startup firms in their
early years, when many of them are likely to have operating losses, and thus no tax liability.
For Further Information
Gary Guenther, Analyst in Public Finance
CRS Report RL31181, Research Tax Credit: Current Law and Policy Issues for the 114th
Congress, by Gary Guenther
CRS Report R44829, Patent Boxes: A Primer, by Gary Guenther
Federal Scientific Integrity Policies
The results of research and development (R&D) help inform the decisions that policymakers and
the public reach on a wide range of issues, including human health and safety, the environment,
agriculture, energy, and transportation. For example, scientific information is essential to the
review and approval of drugs and medical devices and the setting of air quality standards. There
is broad agreement among policymakers and the scientific and engineering community about
ensuring the integrity of the conduct, communication, and management of R&D, and its use in
policy development and decisionmaking. However, some policymakers and others allege that
presidential administrations of both parties have violated principles of scientific integrity.
Assertions of such violations include weighting the membership of federal advisory committees
toward a particular viewpoint or constituency, targeting individual scientists for harassment or
adverse actions, appointing agency officials with significant conflicts of interest or antagonistic
views toward an agency’s mission or neutrality to science, improperly editing scientific
documents, and using the budget process to impede the implementation or formulation of sciencebased policies.
Following the guidance of a 2010 memorandum issued by the Office of Science and Technology
Policy, more than 20 federal departments and agencies have developed and implemented
scientific integrity policies. There is, however, no uniform definition of scientific integrity across
the federal government. Some experts have expressed concern over the variation in scope and
specificity of federal agency scientific integrity policies and recommended that Congress enact
scientific integrity legislation that would create a clear set of standards and mechanisms for
enforcement. The 117th Congress may consider such legislation. Additionally, Congress may
consider how agencies report and address alleged violations as well as potential strategies for and
improvements to interagency coordination of scientific integrity policies.
Further Information
Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R46614, Federal Scientific Integrity Policies: A Primer, by Marcy E. Gallo
Technology Transfer from Federal Laboratories
On an annual basis, approximately one-third of the federal government’s research and
development (R&D) spending has been obligated to federal laboratories, including federally
funded research and development centers, in support of agency mission requirements. The
technology and expertise generated by federal laboratories often has application beyond the
immediate goals or intent of the original R&D. Over the years, Congress has established various
mechanisms—primarily through the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (P.L.
Congressional Research Service
4
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
96-480) and subsequent legislation—to facilitate the transfer of technology and research from
federal laboratories to the private sector where it can be further developed and commercialized.
Congress is broadly interested in promoting the transfer of technology to address societal needs,
promote economic growth, and enhance national welfare and security. Technology transfer from
federal laboratories can occur in many forms. In some instances, it can occur through formal
partnerships and joint research activities between federal laboratories and private firms, including
through cooperative research and development agreements. In other cases, it can occur when the
federal government licenses its patent rights to a private firm.
Despite efforts to increase the effectiveness and frequency of technology transfer from federal
laboratories to the private sector, critics of current mechanisms maintain that working with
federal laboratories continues to be difficult and time-consuming. Proponents of current
mechanisms assert that federal laboratories are open and receptive to collaborating with private
firms, but it remains up to those firms to take advantage of federal laboratory technologies and
capabilities.
In April 2019, the National Institute of Standards and Technology released a green paper, titled
“Return on Investment Initiative for Unleashing American Innovation,” proposing various
strategies and actions to accelerate and improve the transfer of technology to the private sector.
Several of the proposed actions, including additional mechanisms for collaborating with the
private sector and modifying federal technology transfer policies and practices, would require
congressional approval and additional legislative authority to implement. The 117th Congress may
consider the actions contained in the green paper or other efforts to improve technology transfer.
Further Information
Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R44629, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDCs):
Background and Issues for Congress, by Marcy E. Gallo.
R&D Security
The federal government invests extensively in science and engineering R&D to achieve national
objectives, including economic competitiveness and national security. Many in Congress are
concerned about security vulnerabilities in the U.S. R&D enterprise and are interested in
protecting it against compromise by foreign competitors and potential military adversaries.
In general, U.S. policy for federally funded basic and applied research is to encourage openness
and broad dissemination of results (see National Security Decision Directive NSDD-189, 1985).
When openness would present a national security concern, however, the federal government can
use restrictions such as classification and export controls to prevent certain nations (e.g., Russia,
China, Iran, and North Korea) and their proxies from accessing certain results and technologies.
Some emerging fields may not yet be subject to these controls, so Congress enacted a provision in
the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (50 U.S.C. §4817) requiring the Bureau of Industry and
Security of the Department of Commerce to “establish appropriate controls, including interim
controls, on the export, reexport, or transfer (in country) of emerging and foundational
technologies.” Some Members may be interested in strengthening these protections.
Recently Congress has also focused on the security of U.S. R&D that is significant for economic
competitiveness, in light of organized efforts, both licit and illicit, by China and other nations to
access economically important U.S. R&D outputs to aid their defense and commercial sectors.
Classification and export controls were not designed to address commercial aspects of the R&D
Congressional Research Service
5
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
security threat. U.S. law enforcement and counterintelligence agencies have highlighted China’s
strategy of using espionage, intellectual property theft, direct and venture capital investment and
financial subsidies, corporate acquisitions, forced technology transfer, and talent recruitment to
gain access to U.S. R&D outputs.
Many in Congress have been concerned with co-option of U.S. citizen researchers through
foreign talent recruitment programs (such as China’s Thousand Talents program) and the use of
foreign nationals at U.S. universities and other institutions—such as students, faculty, visiting
scholars, and postdoctoral researchers—to acquire and report on research activities, progress, and
results. It has considered policy options to address these concerns, such as increasing threat
awareness among U.S. academic researchers, strengthening disclosure requirements for U.S.
researchers with foreign ties, and changing policies for foreign students at U.S. universities.
The 117th Congress may continue to monitor threats to the security of U.S. R&D, conduct
oversight to examine the progress of ongoing efforts to address those threats, and consider
additional measures that may enhance the ability of the United States to protect the results of
federally funded R&D.
For Further Information
Daniel Morgan, Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
John F. Sargent, Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Karen Sutter, Specialist in Asian Trade and Finance
Jill H. Wilson, Analyst in Immigration Policy
The Role of Technical Standards in U.S. Trade Policy
Industrial, technical, and agricultural standards, which often aim to achieve legitimate public
policy objectives, can become non-tariff trade barriers and limit economic opportunities for U.S.
exporters, depending on how those standards are designed and implemented. These issues are
becoming more central as trade expands and supply chains become more globally integrated.
Local or national standards that deviate significantly from recognized international standards or
favor domestic firms may make it difficult for U.S. firms to enter particular overseas markets.
The United States has historically promoted non-discriminatory and transparent standards through
its trade agreements, including through the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) agreement in the
World Trade Organization (WTO) and participation in international standards-setting institutions.
As countries make new breakthroughs in fields such as information and communications
technology, pharmaceuticals, and advanced manufacturing, the landscape of standards-setting is
becoming more competitive. U.S. partners and competitive rivals are actively pursuing
domestically-driven standardization strategies at the international level that may give their firms
an edge in certain strategic industries of interest to Congress, including fifth-generation wireless
technology (5G), machine learning, and “Internet of Things” protocols. The Chinese government
is pursuing an ambitious push to set international standards across a range of emerging
technologies as part of its forthcoming China Standards 2035 initiative. Additionally, China’s
representation in the leadership and administrative staff of international standards-setting
organizations is growing. The European Union (EU) is pursuing the concept of “digital
sovereignty,” often through new rules and technological standards based on EU values, such as
“ethical AI” or the EU’s fundamental right to privacy.
The U.S. standards-setting process is traditionally bottom-up, fed by industry innovation, rather
than top-down as in China or the EU. Some experts argue that without clear U.S. leadership in
Congressional Research Service
6
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
establishing international standards or providing sound U.S. alternatives that can be widely
adopted and supported by other countries, as well as more active U.S. government involvement in
standards-setting bodies as a national policy priority, other countries may imitate EU or Chinese
standards and regulations. This could create additional burdens for U.S. firms serving foreign
markets. Increased U.S. involvement in international standard setting could serve as an avenue for
ensuring the long-term competitiveness of U.S. firms, particularly in emerging technology
sectors. As competition in international standards-setting bodies has intensified, some Members
of Congress have expressed concern about the competitiveness of United States’ approach and
processes.
For Further Information
Michael D. Sutherland, Analyst in International Trade and Finance
Rachel F. Fefer, Analyst in International Trade and Finance
Intellectual Property Law
Intellectual property (IP) rights, including patents and copyrights, play a critical role in
encouraging innovation, creativity, and the dissemination of knowledge. Given activity on IP
issues during the prior Congress, the 117th Congress may consider legislation in several IP-related
areas.
Patents grant inventors the exclusive right to make, use, sell, and import their patented inventions
for a term of years. Patents play a particularly significant role in certain industries, such as
information technology and pharmaceuticals. Many recent bills have sought to increase
competition and reduce drug prices by limiting certain alleged pharmaceutical patenting practices
(e.g., patent “evergreening,” “thickets,” and “pay-for-delay” settlements). Following Supreme
Court decisions restricting patent availability in fields such as software and biomedical
treatments, the types of inventions that may be patented (“patent-eligible subject matter”) has also
received congressional attention.
Copyrights grant authors of original creative works (e.g., books, music, computer code) the
exclusive right to reproduce, perform, and sell their works. Changes to the Digital Millennium
Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA) is one area of potential copyright-related legislative action.
Among other things, the DMCA creates safe harbors to copyright liability for online
intermediaries. Whether the DMCA’s attempted balance between copyright holders and online
service providers requires updating has been the subject of congressional hearings.
Implementation of the CASE Act—originally introduced as H.R. 2426 in the 116th Congress and
subsequently enacted under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (P.L. 116-260)—
established an administrative forum to resolve certain lower-value copyright disputes, and as such
is another area of potential congressional interest.
Patent rights have also been of interest to Congress during the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic. Specifically, how patent rights affect affordability and access to COVID19 medical countermeasures (e.g., vaccines and treatments), especially those developed using
federal funds, was a topic of interest at several congressional hearings in the 116th Congress.
Another emerging issue is how copyright laws should adapt, if at all, to the increased use of
webcasting and e-book lending during the pandemic. For example, schools, libraries, and
religious groups have raised concerns about potential copyright liability for uses of copyrighted
works that would be permitted in person, yet may infringe copyrights when conducted over the
internet.
Congressional Research Service
7
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
For Further Information
Kevin Hickey, Legislative Attorney
Kevin Richards, Legislative Attorney
CRS Report R46525, Patent Law: A Handbook for Congress, by Kevin T. Richards
CRS Report R45666, Drug Pricing and Intellectual Property Law: A Legal Overview for the
116th Congress, coordinated by Kevin J. Hickey
CRS Report R46679, Drug Prices: The Role of Patents and Regulatory Exclusivities, coordinated
by Erin H. Ward
CRS Report R46741, Drug Pricing and Intellectual Property: The Legislative Landscape
for the 117th Congress, by Kevin J. Hickey, Kevin T. Richards, and Erin H. Ward
CRS Report R45918, Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Reform in the 116th Congress, by Kevin J.
Hickey
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10367, The CASE Act of 2019: Establishing a Small-Claims Process for
Copyright Disputes, by Kevin J. Hickey
CRS In Focus IF11478, Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) Safe Harbor Provisions for
Online Service Providers: A Legal Overview, by Kevin J. Hickey
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10422, COVID-19 Medical Countermeasures: Intellectual Property and
Affordability, by Kevin J. Hickey
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10440, Webcasting in the Time of COVID-19: Copyright Implications of
Remote Worship & Distance Learning, by Kevin T. Richards
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10453, COVID-19 and Libraries: E-Books and Intellectual Property
Issues, by Kevin T. Richards
Agriculture
The federal government funds billions of dollars of agricultural research annually. The 117th
Congress may consider issues related to funding this research as well as specific issues related to
climate change science at the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). Other issues of
topical interest include the operations of two USDA research agencies following their relocation
in 2019; the regulation of agricultural biotechnology; the National Bio and Agro-defense Facility
(NBAF); and cell-cultured meat.
Agricultural Research Funding
The USDA Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area consists of four agencies:
the Agricultural Research Service (ARS), the Economic Research Service (ERS), the National
Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture
(NIFA). Additionally, REE’s Office of the Chief Scientist (OCS) coordinates research programs
and activities across the department.
REE has the primary federal responsibility of advancing scientific knowledge for agriculture. Its
agencies conduct and fund research that spans the biological, physical, and social sciences related
broadly to agriculture, food, and natural resources. The REE mission area received approximately
$3.4 billion in FY2020 discretionary appropriations, and is authorized to receive approximately
Congressional Research Service
8
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
$215 million of mandatory funding per year. USDA administers nearly half of this federal
funding to states and local partners, primarily through grants.
The most recent farm bill (P.L. 115-334), the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018, enacted in
December 2018, reauthorizes many existing USDA research and education programs, and
authorizes new programs, through FY2023. Congress has not yet appropriated funding for some
of the new programs. For example, the 2018 farm bill authorized the Agriculture Advanced
Research and Development Authority (AGARDA) pilot program. AGARDA is intended to
operate under OCS to address long-term and high-risk research challenges in the agriculture and
food sectors. It is modeled on federal advanced research entities like the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy
(ARPA-E). AGARDA has not received an appropriation, and USDA has not established it.
The 117th Congress may consider reviewing AGARDA and other new programs established in the
2018 farm bill that have not yet received appropriations. The 2018 farm bill expires in 2023, and
Congress may begin to consider new programs or revisions to existing programs for the next farm
bill.
For Further Information
Genevieve Croft, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
CRS Report R40819, Agricultural Research: Background and Issues, by Genevieve K. Croft
CRS In Focus IF11319, 2018 Farm Bill Primer: Agricultural Research and Extension, by
Genevieve K. Croft
CRS Report R45897, The U.S. Land-Grant University System: An Overview, by Genevieve K.
Croft
CRS Report R45715, Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding: FY2020, coordinated
by John F. Sargent Jr.
Climate Change Science at USDA
The 117th Congress may be interested in research to address climate change and how USDA is
carrying out plans to address the needs of agricultural producers in the context of changing
climatic conditions. Some farmers and agricultural groups have called on USDA to increase its
engagement in helping farmers adapt to changing climatic conditions, which may include
increased instances of drought and extreme rainfall; historically unseasonable temperatures; and
changes in the dates of first and last frost. Agricultural research can identify best management
practices under different environmental conditions.
Some Members of Congress have raised concerns that, in recent years, USDA has not publicized
its climate change research and has not finalized or publicly released its 2017 USDA Climate
Resilience Science Plan. This plan identifies the science that USDA needs to pursue to meet
national needs. Some stakeholders have expressed concern that USDA is not meeting its
responsibilities to agricultural producers, who need this information to succeed under existing and
future climatic conditions. The 117th Congress may consider reviewing whether USDA research
programs and policies are meeting concerns about food security and production related to
climatic changes.
For Further Information
Genevieve Croft, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
Congressional Research Service
9
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
CRS Report R46454, Climate Change Adaptation: U.S. Department of Agriculture, coordinated
by Genevieve K. Croft
ERS and NIFA Operations Following Their Relocation
In October 2019, USDA relocated the majority of NIFA and ERS staff positions from their
headquarters in Washington, DC, to Kansas City, MO. About 75% of employees in these
positions (approximately 300, of about 400 whose positions were relocated) declined to relocate,
and left the agencies. NIFA administers approximately $1.7 billion in extramural agricultural
research and extension funding. ERS conducts its own economic and statistical analyses on topics
of interest to Congress, agricultural producers, and agriculture and food stakeholder groups.
Media reports indicate that ERS and NIFA have experienced challenges in recruiting and
retaining new employees since their relocation. In 2020, the NIFA director departed the agency
after less than two years of a six-year term. The 117th Congress may be interested in continuing
oversight of how NIFA and ERS are meeting their responsibilities now, with reduced workforces,
and in the future, as new staff are hired to work in Kansas City. The House Committee on
Appropriations, in its FY2021 agriculture appropriations bill report (H.Rept. 116-446), requested
that the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine conduct a symposium to
review the effects of the relocation on the agencies. The Senate Committee on Appropriations did
not request such a review in its FY2021 agriculture appropriations draft report.
For Further Information
Genevieve Croft, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
CRS In Focus IF11527, Relocation of the USDA Research Agencies: NIFA and ERS, by
Genevieve K. Croft
Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology
The 117th Congress may provide oversight of issues regarding the labeling of bioengineered foods
and the regulation of agricultural biotechnology in light of recent innovations in gene editing.
In 2016, Congress enacted P.L. 114-216, mandating the establishment of a national standard for
the mandatory labeling of foods containing bioengineered ingredients, which consumers may
recognize as genetically engineered (GE) or genetically modified organisms (GMOs). USDA
finalized the National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard (the Standard) in December 2018.
Voluntary compliance began in January 2020, and mandatory compliance begins in January 2022.
The 117th Congress may choose to monitor implementation of the new Standard in accordance
with its oversight authority. Areas of interest may include consumer perceptions about labeling a
food as bioengineered; the emerging views of food manufacturers, retailers, and importers on the
Standard; and how the Standard aligns with international labeling requirements.
The emergence of new biotechnology tools (e.g., genome editing), a 2020 update to the USDA
plant biotechnology regulations, and a proposed change in the regulation of genetically
engineered agricultural animals have raised concerns among some stakeholders. In May 2020,
USDA finalized the SECURE Rule for its regulation of GE organisms under the Plant Protection
Act (7 U.S.C. §7701 et seq.). This new rule exempts certain categories of modified plants,
including those consistent with many genome-edited plants, because they are “unlikely to pose an
increased plant pest risk compared to conventionally bred plants.” While some producer groups
viewed the new rule as supportive of innovation, some consumer and exporter groups criticized it
as providing too little oversight and transparency. In December 2020, USDA issued an Advanced
Congressional Research Service
10
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, proposing to transfer the regulation of agricultural animals
produced or modified with genetic engineering from the Food and Drug Administration to USDA.
Congress could consider whether to retain or revisit the 1986 framework that governs U.S.
biotechnology regulation (i.e., the Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology),
as plants and animals developed with new biotechnology tools become more common, and as
federal agencies reconsider their roles and responsibilities in protecting health and the
environment without impeding innovation.
For Further Information
Genevieve Croft, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
CRS Report R46737, Agricultural Biotechnology: Overview, Regulation, and Selected Policy
Issues, by Genevieve K. Croft
CRS Report R46183, The National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard: Overview and
Select Considerations, by Genevieve K. Croft
CRS In Focus IF11573, USDA’s SECURE Rule to Regulate Agricultural Biotechnology, by
Genevieve K. Croft and Tadlock Cowan
The National Bio and Agro-defense Facility
USDA and DHS are coordinating for the eventual transfer of operational responsibility of the
National Bio and Agro-defense Facility (NBAF) from DHS to USDA. NBAF is designed to
replace the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (PIADC) in New York and serve as a state-of-theart biocontainment facility for federal research on high-consequence foreign animal diseases (e.g.,
transboundary and zoonotic diseases). NBAF, located in Manhattan, KS, is expected to be the
first facility in the United States to provide biosafety level 4 (BSL-4) laboratories capable of
housing large livestock.
USDA managed PIADC and conducted research there until 2003, at which time Congress
transferred management to the newly established DHS. Following this change, USDA has
continued to conduct research at the facility. In 2007, DHS announced its intention to establish a
new facility to replace the outdated PIADC. Congress appropriated funds to construct this new
facility (NBAF), and directed DHS to be responsible for its construction. In 2018, DHS
announced its intention to transfer NBAF ownership and management to USDA (through the
Agricultural Research Service and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) upon
completion of construction and commissioning. USDA had expected completion of the facility
would occur in 2022, but reported in September 2020 that construction has been delayed by
approximately 2.5 months due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The 117th Congress may be interested
in the joint planning between USDA and DHS for managing this transfer, in USDA’s planning for
continued research and operations, as well as any future research coordination between the two
agencies. Additional areas of interest to Congress may include the ongoing construction,
equipping, staffing, and operations of NBAF.
For Further Information
Genevieve Croft, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
CRS In Focus IF11492, National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility: Purpose and Status, by
Genevieve K. Croft
Congressional Research Service
11
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Cell-Cultured Meat
Cell-cultured meat is grown in laboratories from animal cell-cultures. First developed in the early
2000s, improved technological efficiencies and reduced production costs have allowed cellcultured meat companies to scale up and, in some instances, move closer to commercial viability.
Some believe their products could be sold within a few years in certain markets and become
widely available in 10 years.
A debate surfaced in early 2018 about which federal agency—the Department of Health and
Human Services’ (HHS) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or the U.S. Department of
Agriculture’s (USDA) Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)—would have regulatory
jurisdiction over cell-cultured meat. Currently, FSIS regulates meat and poultry, catfish, and egg
products. FDA regulates game-meat, fish and seafood, processed meat products (containing 2%3% meat), and shell eggs.
FDA and FSIS often share overlapping responsibilities for some food products and have
developed “memoranda of understanding” to facilitate communication and division of
responsibilities between the two agencies. In February 2019, in the conference report
accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019 (H.J.Res. 31), Congress directed FDA
and USDA to establish a formal agreement that would delineate each agency’s responsibilities for
regulating cell-cultured meat. In response, in March 2019, FDA and USDA issued a joint
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) outlining the regulatory roles for each agency.
Under the MOU, FDA is to issue regulations or guidance on inspections for entities involved in
cell collection, cell lines, and the differentiation process. FDA is to ensure that entities follow
current Good Manufacturing Practices and preventive control regulations that ensure the
substances leaving the culturing process are safe and not adulterated. At the point of harvest, FDA
will transfer oversight to USDA. Entities harvesting cells for human food will be subject to FSIS
regulations on sanitation, Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point verification, and testing to
ensure the product is unadulterated, wholesome, and properly labeled under the Federal Meat
Inspection Act and the Poultry Products Inspection Act. To ensure label accuracy, FSIS is to
provide guidance and prior approval of labels for cell-cultured meat and poultry products.
Throughout the cell-cultured meat production process, the MOU affirms that FDA and USDA are
to share information and collaborate on regulation.
During the 116th Congress, three bills were introduced in the House and Senate that would have
addressed the regulatory framework that FDA and USDA issued in the March 2019 MOU. These
were the Cell-Cultured Meat and Poultry Regulation Act of 2019 (S. 1056), and the Food Safety
Modernization for Innovative Technologies Act (S. 3053 and H.R. 5728). The bills were referred
the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, and the House Committee on
Agriculture and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
For Further Information
Joel L. Greene, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
CRS In Focus IF10947, Regulation of Cell-Cultured Meat, by Joel L. Greene and Sahar
Angadjivand
Congressional Research Service
12
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Biotechnology and Biomedical Research and
Development
Advances in biotechnology and biomedical research and development underpin improvements in
medications and treatments. Some issues that the 117th Congress may face related to these areas
include advanced gene genomic editing, the bioeconomy, National Institutes of Health research,
the role the Food and Drug Administration in approving new medicines and laboratory tests, and
issues related to stem cell-based medicine and infectious disease modelling.
CRISPR: Advanced Genome Editing
Researchers have long searched for a reliable and simple way to make targeted changes to the
genetic material of humans, animals, plants, and microorganisms. To that end, scientists
developed a gene editing tool known as CRISPR—clustered regularly interspaced short
palindromic repeated DNA sequences—that offers substantial improvement over previous
technologies. The characteristics of CRISPR—easier to use, more precise, fewer unintended
edits, and less costly—have led many in the scientific and business communities to predict
significant advances across a broad range of areas—from medicine and public health to
agriculture and the environment.
While CRISPR offers a number of potential benefits, its use is also associated with risks and
ethical concerns. For example, in 2018 a Chinese researcher used CRISPR to create the first
genetically engineered human babies—renewing debate on the ethics of genetic engineering and
its potential applications in human embryos, especially those that alter heritable traits.
Additionally, some researchers are using CRISPR to reduce or eliminate mosquito populations
that serve as the primary vector for the transmission of malaria. While this has the potential to
save lives and substantially reduce medical costs, a 2016 report, “Gene Drives on the Horizon,”
from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine indicates that existing
mechanisms may be inadequate to assess the potential immediate and long-term environmental
and public health consequences associated with such a use of the technology.
In the 117th Congress, policymakers may examine the potential benefits and risks associated with
the use of CRISPR gene editing, including the ethical and social implications of CRISPR-related
biotechnology products. Congress may also consider whether and how to address CRISPR gene
editing and future biotechnology products with respect to regulation, research and development,
and economic competitiveness, including potentially harmonizing CRISPR-related policies of the
United States with those of other countries.
For Further Information
Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
John F. Sargent Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Amanda K. Sarata, Specialist in Health Policy
Genevieve Croft, Analyst in Agricultural Policy
CRS Report R44824, Advanced Gene Editing: CRISPR-Cas9, by Marcy E. Gallo et al.
CRS Report R46737, Agricultural Biotechnology: Overview, Regulation, and Selected Policy
Issues, by Genevieve K. Croft
Congressional Research Service
13
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Bioeconomy
Advances in the biological sciences—driven, in large part, by the integration of biology with the
physical sciences, engineering, and computational sciences—are likely to stimulate economic
growth and address societal challenges (e.g., food security and climate change). The McKinsey
Global Institute estimates the direct economic impact of bio-based products, services, and
processes (e.g., bio-plastics and genetically engineered crops)—often referred to as the
bioeconomy—at between $2 trillion and $4 trillion per year globally over the next 10 to 20 years.
With nearly 60 countries pursuing bioeconomy-related policies (e.g., increased research and
development funding, infrastructure investments, and tax subsidies), some aggressively so, U.S.
competitiveness and leadership in the future bioeconomy is uncertain.
Policy considerations for strengthening the role of the United States in the global bioeconomy
include the development and implementation of a national bioeconomy strategy; increased
funding for bioeconomy-related research and development; the development of a bioeconomy
workforce; facilitating demand for bio-based products; and efforts to improve public engagement,
awareness, and acceptance of the bioeconomy and bio-based products and services. In addition to
examining these policy considerations, the 117 th Congress might address risks associated with the
bioeconomy, including the misuse of bioeconomy technologies and products, the theft of
bioeconomy-related intellectual property, and the accuracy and integrity of federal biological
databases and information.
For Further Information
Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Biomedical Research
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the lead federal agency for medical, health, and
behavioral research. The agency has been provided with over $40 billion in regular appropriations
for each of FY2020 and FY2021 for basic, clinical, and translational research in NIH laboratories
as well as in research institutions nationwide. NIH represents about one fifth of total federal
research and development spending, and half of non-Department of Defense research and
development funding. From FY2016 through FY2020, NIH has seen funding increases of over
5% each year. NIH also received over $4.5 billion in coronavirus emergency appropriations in
FY2020 and FY2021.
NIH is a large and complex organization made up of 27 institutes and centers (ICs). Each research
IC sets its own research priorities and manages its research programs in coordination with the
Office of the Director (OD). Congress provides separate appropriations to each research IC and to
OD. Funding levels vary widely among the ICs—for example, the National Cancer Institute
(NCI) has the highest regular enacted funding level at $6.6 billion for FY2021 and the John E.
Fogarty International Center (focus on global health) has the lowest funding level at $84.0 million
for FY2021. IC funding levels reflect congressional priorities and inform the overall research
direction of the agency. Aside from setting funding levels for individual IC accounts, Congress
has not designated funding for specific disease or research areas, except in a few cases.
NIH has played a major role in the federal response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The agency has
supported related research, including major vaccine, treatment and diagnostic development
projects, and published and maintained treatment guidelines for patients. The National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director, Dr. Anthony Fauci, developed a significant
public profile as a source of health information. Other recent policy issues at the agency include
the role of NIH-funded research in the development of certain pharmaceutical drugs and
Congressional Research Service
14
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
subsequent pricing of those drugs; and undue foreign influence in NIH research, whereby foreign
governments facilitate the transfer of research and proprietary information from NIH-funded
projects to foreign institutions. In addition, new restrictions on human fetal tissue research by the
Trump Administration has drawn some congressional attention.
For Further Information
Kavya Sekar, Analyst in Health Policy
CRS Report R41705, The National Institutes of Health (NIH): Background and Congressional
Issues
CRS Report R43341, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding: FY1995-FY2021
CRS Report R46427, Development and Regulation of Medical Countermeasures for COVID-19
(Vaccines, Diagnostics, and Treatments): Frequently Asked Questions
CRS Insight IN11207, Foreign Interference in NIH Research: Policy Implications
CRS Report R44129, Human Fetal Tissue Research: Frequently Asked Questions
CRS Report R44720, The 21st Century Cures Act (Division A of P.L. 114-255)
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA): Medical Product
Innovation
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates the safety of foods, cosmetics, and radiationemitting products; the safety and effectiveness of medical products (i.e., drugs, biologics, and
medical devices); and public health aspects of tobacco products. To keep pace with changes in
science and emerging safety and security issues, FDA’s regulatory pathways have been subject to
modifications through legislation and administrative action.
The 21st Century Cures Act (P.L. 114-255), which FDA is in the process of implementing,
modified drug and device regulatory pathways to support innovation. The FDA Reauthorization
Act (P.L. 115-52) further modified regulatory pathways to expedite generic drug approval and
competition. It also reauthorized medical product user fees for five years, which are set to expire
at the end of FY2022. User fee legislation historically has been used to address related FDA
policy concerns, and the 117th Congress may consider additional modifications to the agency’s
regulatory framework, along with reauthorization of the medical product user fee programs.
In light of regulatory and supply chain issues highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic, the 117th
Congress may consider legislation to further support development and approval of medical
countermeasures (e.g., vaccines) for emerging infectious diseases, as well as to encourage use of
advanced manufacturing technologies to prevent medical product supply chain disruptions and
shortages.
Congress also may consider legislation related to medical devices, which are increasingly
connected to the internet, hospital networks, and other devices. While this allows for more
accurate disease diagnoses and enhanced health care delivery, the broad scope and rapidly
evolving domain of digital health—comprising software as a medical device (SaMD),
cybersecurity, health information technology (IT), and telemedicine, among other things —can
create regulatory challenges for FDA. To address some of these challenges, FDA launched the
Digital Health Center of Excellence to foster partnerships, knowledge sharing, and innovative
regulatory approaches. Some of FDA’s regulatory approaches—e.g., a precertification pilot
program for SaMD—may require additional statutory authority.
Congressional Research Service
15
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
For Further Information
Agata Bodie, Analyst in Health Policy, abodie@crs.loc.gov, 7-9455
Victoria Green, Analyst in Health Policy, vgreen@crs.loc.gov, 7-2415
Amanda Sarata, Specialist in Health Policy, asarata@crs.loc.gov, 7-7641
CRS Report R44720, The 21st Century Cures Act (Division A of P.L. 114-255), coordinated by
Amanda K. Sarata
CRS Report R44961, FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (FDARA, P.L. 115-52), coordinated by
Amanda K. Sarata
CRS Report R44750, FDA Human Medical Product User Fee Programs: In Brief , by Agata
Bodie et al.
CRS Report R46507, FDA’s Role in the Medical Product Supply Chain and Considerations
During COVID-19, by Victoria R. Green, Agata Bodie, and Kate M. Costin
CRS Report R46427, Development and Regulation of Medical Countermeasures for COVID-19
(Vaccines, Diagnostics, and Treatments): Frequently Asked Questions, by Agata Bodie et al.
CRS In Focus IF11379, Medical Product Innovation and Regulation: Benefits and Risks, by
Agata Bodie, Amanda K. Sarata, and Victoria R. Green
Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests
Regulation of laboratory-developed tests (LDTs)—a class of in vitro diagnostic (IVD) devices
that is designed, manufactured, and used within a single laboratory—has been debated for many
years, driven in part by an increase in the number and complexity of LDT genetic tests. The Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) has traditionally exercised enforcement discretion over LDTs,
meaning that most have not undergone FDA premarket review; regardless, FDA has asserted
authority over certain LDTs that it considers to be higher risk. In 2014, FDA published draft
guidance outlining a comprehensive risk-based regulatory framework for LDTs. This was never
finalized, although FDA published a discussion paper summarizing the comments received on the
draft guidance, and presenting a modified proposed framework for an approach to LDT oversight.
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted issues around current FDA regulation of LDTs.
Specifically, although FDA generally exercises enforcement discretion over LDTs, most COVID19 LDTs had nevertheless been subject to Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) requirements in
the same way as other medical products, including other IVDs. To ease testing capacity issues,
FDA issued guidance which exempted certain subsets of COVID-19 LDTs from EUA
requirements entirely, and allowed others to be used clinically while the EUA submission was
under consideration by FDA. In August 2020, HHS announced that FDA was prohibited from
requiring premarket review of any kind for all LDTs without first undergoing notice-andcomment rulemaking. Pursuant to this announcement, FDA has halted review of COVID-19 LDT
EUA submissions, except for those voluntarily submitted to the agency.
Two bills addressing LDT regulation were introduced early in 2020 in response to the
longstanding debate and spurred by the COVID-19 pandemic: the VALID Act (H.R. 6102, S.
3404) which would have established a comprehensive regulatory scheme for all in vitro clinical
tests, and the VITAL Act (S. 3512), which would exclude LDTs from regulation by the FDA.
For Further Information
Amanda Sarata, Specialist in Health Policy
Congressional Research Service
16
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
CRS Insight IN11548, HHS Announcement on FDA Premarket Review of Laboratory-Developed
Tests (LDTs), by Amanda K. Sarata
CRS In Focus IF11389, FDA Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests (LDTs), by Amanda K.
Sarata
CRS In Focus IF11516, COVID-19 Testing: Key Issues, by Amanda K. Sarata
CRS Report R46261, Development and Regulation of Domestic Diagnostic Testing for Novel
Coronavirus (COVID-19): Frequently Asked Questions, by Amanda K. Sarata
CRS Report R43438, Regulation of Clinical Tests: In Vitro Diagnostic (IVD) Devices, Laboratory
Developed Tests (LDTs), and Genetic Tests, by Amanda K. Sarata and Judith A. Johnson
Stem Cells and Regenerative Medicine
Stem cells have the unique ability to become many types of cells in the body. Scientists are
exploring ways of using stem cells to create regenerative medicine therapies that repair damaged
or diseased organs and restore them to normal functioning. Stem cells may either be pluripotent
or multipotent. Pluripotent stem cells include embryonic stem cells or reprogrammed adult cells
that have the ability to become any of the more than 200 cell types in the adult body. Multipotent
stem cells have the capacity to become multiple (but not all) types of cells, usually within a
particular organ system such as the blood or nervous system. Most adult stem cells are
multipotent stem cells.
Congress has taken action to boost research and development of clinical applications for stem
cells, both pluripotent and multipotent. For instance, the 21 st Century Cures Act (P.L. 114-255)
authorized to be appropriated $30 million for FY2017 through FY2020 for regenerative medicine
research and a new designation at FDA for certain regenerative medicine therapies, eligible for
expedited review. The term “regenerative medicine therapy” includes cell therapy, therapeutic
tissue engineering products, human cell and tissue products, and combination products using any
such therapies or product. Clinical trials are underway for stem cell therapies to treat eye diseases,
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), Parkinson’s disease, traumatic brain injury, and others.
However, some therapies have shown safety concerns, including potential cancer risks.
There has also been a rise in the number of stem cell clinics offering unapproved and potentially
unsafe treatments to consumers. In response, FDA has issued guidance on the regulation of
therapies using human cells. FDA has also issued warning letters and taken enforcement actions
against certain stem cell clinics offering unapproved treatments. Similarly, the Federal Trade
Commission has filed complaints against marketing claims made by stem cell clinics.
The 117th Congress may consider actions to boost research and clinical development of stem cell
therapies, while ensuring the safety of such treatments. Policymakers may also consider
addressing the rising use of unapproved stem cell treatments.
For Further Information
Kavya Sekar, Analyst in Health Policy
Agata Dabrowska, Analyst in Health Policy
Amanda Sarata, Specialist in Health Policy
CRS Report R44720, The 21st Century Cures Act (Division A of P.L. 114-255), coordinated by
Amanda K. Sarata
Congressional Research Service
17
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
CRS Report RL33540, Stem Cell Research: Science, Federal Research Funding, and Regulatory
Oversight, by Judith A. Johnson and Edward C. Liu
Infectious Disease Modeling and Forecasting
Infectious disease models have played a notable role during the Coronavirus Disease 2019
(COVID-19) pandemic, informing policy responses such as the allocation of scarce resources at
the federal and sub-federal levels. These models may be confusing and are easily misunderstood,
due to various factors, including inherent scientific uncertainties; availability and quality of the
underlying data; differing methodologies and purposes for models; and misunderstandings about
how to interpret and use model outputs for decisionmaking. The pandemic highlighted
opportunities for innovation and better coordination across agencies; public and private
stakeholders have called for expanding research partnerships and supporting innovative
techniques—such as the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning—for data
management, modeling, and forecasting. In addition, some have called for greater transparency in
the ways that models were designed and used to guide key decisions during the COVID-19
response given the amount of discretion inherent in model design.
Models can illuminate the current and future spread of diseases, and the potential impacts of
public health interventions. However, the accuracy of model outputs is limited by the quality and
completeness of the inputs. Early in a disease outbreak, particularly with a novel pathogen such
as the COVID-19 virus, inputs such as transmission characteristics, risk factors, and other
features may be unknown. Modelers must estimate inputs in these situations, further affecting the
accuracy of outputs. As public health officials and researchers gather more information, models
are periodically revised to optimize their usefulness in informing public health decisions.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Health and Human
Services (HHS) Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the
National Science Foundation (NSF) , and the Department of Defense (DOD) all funded infectious
disease modeling and forecasting efforts—generally conducted by nonfederal research
institutions. CDC has maintained an “ensemble” forecast that combines over 20 models to
estimate new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths. The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reported in May 2020 (GAO-20-372) of a risk for overlap and duplication in agencies’ disparate
modeling efforts, as well as missed opportunities to improve and enhance such modeling based
on experience from prior infectious disease outbreaks.
Recent legislation has addressed infectious disease modeling and forecasting. In 2019, the
Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness and Advancing Innovation Act (P.L. 116-22) included
several relevant provisions, including (1) requiring the development of a multi-faceted public
health situational awareness network, in consultation with relevant federal agencies and
forecasting and modeling experts among others, that would coordinate and develop standards for
the collection and analysis of data in a public health emergency; and (2) a new CDC special
hiring authority for certain qualified individuals as specified, including experts in “prediction,
modeling, or forecasting.” Further, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (P.L. 117-2) provided
$500 million to CDC to modernize U.S. infectious disease data and forecasting capabilities.
Congress may assess implementation, determine if agencies have adequate resources, and
consider new reforms based on experience with the pandemic.
For Further Information
Kavya Sekar, Analyst in Health Policy
Congressional Research Service
18
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Laurie Harris, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
Climate Change and Water
Science and technology considerations permeate deliberations on climate change and may be
grouped into six interrelated topics:
federal expenditures on climate change S&T;
climate change science;
greenhouse gas (GHG)-related technology development and deployment;
investment in infrastructure;
anticipating, adapting to, and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate changes; and
carbon sequestration and utilization technology.
Additionally, Congress may face several issues related to ensuring reliable water quality and
quantity. Climate change may affect availability of water for drinking, farming, and industry, as
well as the overall health of ecosystems that support commercial fishing, recreation, and flood
protection. Congress therefore supports a wide array of water research initiatives related to
developing, using, and protecting water supplies and aquatic ecosystems.
Legislation regarding climate change and water were passed in the 116th Congress, providing a
new landscape for charting Congress’s priorities in these domains in the 117th .
Climate-Related S&T Expenditures and Activities by the Federal
Government
According to the most recent report of the Office of Management and Budget, in response to an
appropriations directive, federal funding and tax incentives for climate change-related S&T
reached almost $17 billion in FY2016. The funding data covered 16 reporting agencies, though
some related expenditures may not have been included. Of the S&T total, approximately $6.7
billion, about 42%, were tax incentives for technology deployment. Another 45% funded “clean
energy technology,” the large majority at the Department of Energy for R&D and deployment
programs. Approximately 15% funded climate change-related science, most of which supported
satellites and computing infrastructure. From FY2016 through FY2021, CRS estimates that
Congress increased appropriations for “clean energy” technology, while decreasing funding for
climate change science reported in the U.S. Global Change Research Program (see below). In the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Congress also extended tax incentives to deploy energy
efficiency and clean energy technologies by almost $700 million in FY2021, in addition to
approximately $10.3 previously enacted (preliminary CRS estimate based on budget and
appropriations documents). The 117th Congress faces the consideration of appropriations for
climate change-related programs and incentives.
For Further Information
Jane A. Leggett, Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
CRS Report R43227, Federal Climate Change Funding from FY2008 to FY2014, by Jane A.
Leggett, Richard K. Lattanzio, and Emily Bruner
CRS Report R46384, Energy and Water Development: FY2021 Appropriations, by Mark Holt and
Corrie E. Clark
Congressional Research Service
19
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
CRS Report RS22858, Renewable Energy R&D Funding History: A Comparison with Funding
for Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, Energy Efficiency, and Electric Systems R&D, by Corrie E.
Clark
CRS Report R44852, The Value of Energy Tax Incentives for Different Types of Energy
Resources, by Molly F. Sherlock
CRS In Focus IF11455, The Tax Credit for Carbon Sequestration (Section 45Q), by Angela C.
Jones and Molly F. Sherlock
CRS In Focus IF10225, Coastal Flood Resilience: Policy, Roles, and Funds, by Nicole T. Carter,
Harold F. Upton, and Francis X. McCarthy
Climate Change-Related Science
The Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is due to
be published in three volumes through 2021, potentially contributing to renewed congressional
examination of climate change science, impacts, and greenhouse gas mitigation technologies. The
IPCC assessments, and much of the observations and research on which they are founded, have
relied on decades of U.S. federal (and nonfederal) investment in global change science,
amounting cumulatively to tens of billions of dollars. The U.S. Global Change Research Program
(USGCRP) is an interagency mechanism, required by the Global Change Research Act of 1990
(P.L. 101-606), that coordinates and integrates global change research across 13 government
agencies. For FY2019, enacted appropriations for this purpose exceeded $2.2 billion, down from
more than $2.5 billion enacted for FY2016.
In 2017, USGCRP published the Climate Science Special Report, Volume I (CSSR) that found
that human-related emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) are accumulating in the atmosphere,
intensifying the natural greenhouse gas effect, and increasing acidity (decreasing alkalinity) of the
oceans. It concluded that the increase in GHG is driving global land and ocean warming and other
climate changes that are now unprecedented in the history of modern civilization. It also stated,
[B]ased on extensive evidence, that it is extremely likely [>95% likelihood] that human
activities, especially emissions of greenhouse gases [GHG], are the dominant cause of the
observed warming since the mid-20th century. For the warming over the last century, there
is no convincing alternative explanation supported by the extent of the observational
evidence.
The 2018 USGCRP report, the Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume II, found that humaninduced climate change is affecting U.S. communities across the country through extreme
weather events and generally warmer temperatures, more variable precipitation, and other
observed trends. The report anticipates continued and increasing disruption to infrastructure,
economic, and social systems, including economic disparities. Such impacts would not be
distributed evenly across the United States and globally. According to its assessment, projected
climate change impacts are affecting, and are virtually certain to increasingly affect, the U.S.
economy, trade, and other essential U.S. interests. Some stakeholders, including some Members
of Congress, consider that the resulting impacts of climate change in the United States and abroad
are and would be modest and manageable.
The 117th Congress may examine the scope and priorities for federal climate change science,
including the data and methods that increasingly support attribution of many observed changes
and extreme weather events to human-related GHG emissions and are used to project climate
change and understand associated uncertainties. Congress may express its priorities for further
scientific research. In light of the state of climate science, Congress may consider options for
Congressional Research Service
20
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
appropriations levels and distribution among federal climate-related science programs. For
example, deliberations may concern the balance between observations and analysis, between
science to increase knowledge and to support private and public decisionmaking, and between
physical and social sciences, as well as public access to federally supported information.
For Further Information
Jane A. Leggett, Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
CRS Report R45086, Evolving Assessments of Human and Natural Contributions to Climate
Change, by Jane A. Leggett
GHG-Related Technology Research, Development, Demonstration,
and Deployment
A large majority of federal climate change-related expenditures is aimed at advancing “clean
energy,” with additional programs aimed at technologies for agriculture, forestry, and industrial
sources of greenhouse gases. Most human-related GHG emissions come from production,
distribution, and combustion of fossil fuels, particularly for electricity generation and
transportation, and are primarily emitted as carbon dioxide (CO2 ) and methane (CH4 ). Most
scientists agree that halting GHG-induced climate change would require eventually reducing net
GHG emissions to near zero; the total amount of change would depend in large part on the
cumulative emissions on that pathway.
Many analysts see a decades-long path to stabilizing climate change as involving greater advance
and deployment of efficiency improvements, decarbonization, and electrification of the world’s
economies, along with additional options in multiple sectors. Many options could potentially
provide additional security and health benefits, while their costs may depend on public and
private investments in research, development, demonstration, and deployment (RDD&D), as well
as efforts to facilitate transitions in businesses, employment, and communities . Some see
potential carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS) technologies as key to preventing
CO2 emissions while preserving a large place for coal and other fossil fuels in the energy
economy (see below). Still others advocate for developing direct CO2 removal from the
atmosphere or geoengineering technologies, along with international governance regimes, to
intentionally and directly modify the climate, particularly should the climate change rapidly and
adversely. The capacity to reduce GHG emissions to near zero at affordable costs, while
maintaining U.S. economic growth and security, and alleviating energy poverty, would depend on
deployment of existing and demonstrated technologies supplemented by technological
breakthroughs.
Members may deliberate on the appropriate degree and means of federal support for advancing
and deploying new technologies. Choices the 117th Congress may address include:
whether any policies should be neutral or favor selected technologies (or fuels);
where federal intervention in the technology pipeline, through RDD&D, can be
most cost efficient and complement, not “crowd out,” private investment;
whether policies are most effective when aimed at pushing the supply of selected
technologies or incentivizing demand for low- or no-GHG technologies, or in
combination; and
how best to engage with the private sector and research institutions in
partnerships on RDD&D.
Congressional Research Service
21
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
RDD&D funding has not been evenly distributed across technology types, and those funded
include mature, commercialized technology types as well as emerging or novel technology types.
Research has been intended to advance fossil fuel combustion, renewable energy, biofuels,
efficiency, storage, vehicles and their fuels, nuclear energy, the electricity grid, and direct capture
of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It also supports development of new technologies and
practices for agriculture, industry, and additional sectors. Some incentives focus on “supply-push”
of technologies (e.g., R&D funding), while others emphasize “demand-pull” (e.g., tax incentives
for purchasers). Numerous examples suggest that coordinated use of both supply and demand side
policies could be most effective. Technologies with less associated pollution can produce public
health benefits in addition to climate benefits, while shifts in the energy economy can pose
transitional challenges to workers and communities. The magnitude of federal expenditures for
climate change technologies, the performance of federally supported programs, and priorities for
policy tools and technologies may be topics for Congress, particularly in light of budget
objectives.
For Further Information
Jane A. Leggett, Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
CRS Report RS22858, Renewable Energy R&D Funding History: A Comparison with Funding
for Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy, Energy Efficiency, and Electric Systems R&D, by Corrie E.
Clark
CRS Report R45204, Vehicle Fuel Economy and Greenhouse Gas Standards: Frequently Asked
Questions, by Richard K. Lattanzio, Linda Tsang, and Bill Canis
CRS Report R42566, Alternative Fuel and Advanced Vehicle Technology Incentives: A Summary
of Federal Programs, by Lynn J. Cunningham et al.
CRS Report R45010, Public-Private Partnerships (P3s) in Transportation, by William J. Mallett
CRS In Focus IF10979, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks in U.S. Agriculture, by Renée
Johnson
Climate Change and Infrastructure
Leaders in both chambers of Congress express interest in federal investment in the nation’s
infrastructure. In evaluating options for infrastructure, tw o types of linkages with climate change
may be considered simultaneously (along with numerous other factors) to optimize investments:
infrastructure effects on long-term GHG emissions and potential effects of climate change on
long-term infrastructure-related costs and public health and safety. For example, decisions
regarding modernization of the electric grid may take account both of possible future policies to
reduce GHG emissions and effects on electricity reliability in the context of more extreme
weather events and an average increase in summer cooling demand.
The first linkage between climate change and infrastructure investment arises from the foundation
that infrastructure sets for certain technological choices, and consequently, levels of future U.S.
GHG emissions (and the costs of reducing them). Long-lived infrastructure may exert influence
on emissions for decades into the future; infrastructure can “lock in” or support flexibility for
certain technological options. Infrastructure choices could make adaption to new science,
technological advances, and policy priorities more or less expensive.
Infrastructure influence on GHG emissions is particularly strong for energy supply,
transportation, industry, buildings, and communities. For example, pipeline infrastructure would
be critical for deployment of CCUS technologies, particularly for industrial applications. In
Congressional Research Service
22
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
transportation, choices among transportation modes, and choices between energy types (e.g.,
gasoline or biofuels or electricity) would depend in part on the availability of the refueling or
charging infrastructure. Similarly, land use decisions—generally made by local governments and
maybe influenced by federal funding—affect transportation options, which can have long-term
impacts on fossil fuel consumption. For example, land use development patterns designed for
private automobiles are often not readily adaptable for installation of mass transit.
A second linkage between climate change and infrastructure investment is the ability of
infrastructure to avoid damages of climate changes and become more resilient to extreme weather
events that scientists expect to increase in frequency and strength. Because much infrastructure is
intended to last for decades, projected climate changes in 2030 or 2050 that seem far off for
current decisionmaking may have importance for future adequacy, safety, operating costs, and
maintenance of investments. Some federal (including military) infrastructure has been severely
damaged in recent extreme weather events, while nonfederal water, energy, transportation, urban,
and other systems have been disrupted or experienced sustained damage. Congress may consider
the merits of federal technical specifications or incentives to harden or increase the resiliency of
long-lived infrastructure financed by the federal government, potentially providing model code or
demonstrations to other decisionmakers. Policy choices could, on the one hand, increase nearterm costs of building infrastructure; on the other hand, climate-related benefits could include
avoiding future losses to life, damages to human health (including mental health), and higher
federal outlays that could occur with projected climate change.
For Further Information
Jane A. Leggett, Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
CRS Report R45156, The Smart Grid: Status and Outlook, by Richard J. Campbell
CRS Report R45105, Potential Options for Electric Power Resiliency in the U.S. Virgin Islands,
by Corrie E. Clark, Richard J. Campbell, and D. Andrew Austin
CRS Report R45350, Funding and Financing Highways and Public Transportation, by Robert S.
Kirk and William J. Mallett
CRS Report R46452, Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Climate Change: H.R. 2 and S.
2302, by William J. Mallett
CRS In Focus IF10702, Drought Response and Preparedness: Policy and Legislation, by Nicole
T. Carter and Charles V. Stern
CRS Report R40147, Infrastructure: Green Building Overview and Issues, by Eric A. Fischer and
Danielle A. Arostegui
Science and Technology for Adaptation and Resilience
Congress may review federal programs and funding for S&T to support adaptation or resilience to
observed and projected climate change in light of recent scientific assessments and federal
outlays for relief and recovery following extreme weather events, some of which have been
statistically linked to GHG-induced climate change. Some issues related to infrastructure
technology are discussed above, and there are additional science and technology issues associated
with adaptation and resilience. For example, technological R&D needs may include new crop
seed varieties suited to emerging climate conditions, better means to manage floodwaters,
advanced air conditioning technologies for buildings, wildfire management techniques, and
others. Further advances in climate forecasting, particularly at the local scale, could assist
Congressional Research Service
23
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
assessment of vulnerabilities and preparation for opportunities and risks. Increased research on
and improved forecasting of human behavior could assist adaptation and resilience.
Congress may address the federal role in supporting S&T that can facilitate effective state, local,
and private decisionmaking on adaptation and resilience to climate change. Federal roles, in
addition to funding for S&T, may include easing public access to scientific research, climate and
seasonal projections, impact assessments, and adaptation decision tools, as well as training to
make productive use of them. Congress may examine whether federal financial support for
disaster recovery encourages or discourages incorporation of vulnerabilities and adaptation in
private, state, and local adaptation decisionmaking, for example regarding flood risk mitigation or
agricultural risks. Congress may also review efforts already begun to incorporate climate change
projections into federal agency management of federal personnel, lands and waters, infrastructure,
and operations. The effectiveness of agency actions to promote adaptation and resilience would
depend on the adequacy and appropriate use of scientific information and available technologies.
For Further Information
Jane A. Leggett, Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
CRS Report R43915, Climate Change Adaptation by Federal Agencies: An Analysis of Plans and
Issues for Congress, coordinated by Jane A. Leggett
CRS Report R46454, Climate Change Adaptation: U.S. Department of Agriculture, coordinated
by Genevieve K. Croft
CRS Report R45017, Flood Resilience and Risk Reduction: Federal Assistance and Programs, by
Nicole T. Carter et al.
CRS Report R43407, Drought in the United States: Causes and Current Understanding, by Peter
Folger
CRS Report R44632, Sea-Level Rise and U.S. Coasts: Science and Policy Considerations, by
Peter Folger and Nicole T. Carter
CRS In Focus IF10728, After the Storm: Highway Reconstruction and Resilience, by Robert S.
Kirk
Carbon Capture and Sequestration
Carbon capture and sequestration (or storage)—known as CCS—involves capturing carbon
dioxide (CO2 ) at its source, storing it underground, or utilizing it for another purpose or product.
(CCS is sometimes referred to as CCUS—carbon capture, utilization, and storage.) CCS could
reduce the amount of CO2 emitted from the burning of fossil fuels at large stationary sources.
Carbon utilization recently has gained interest within Congress as a means for capturing CO 2 and
converting it into potentially commercially viable products, such as chemicals, fuels, cements,
and plastics. Direct air capture (DAC), a related emerging technology, is intended to remove
atmospheric CO2 directly from the atmosphere rather than capture the CO 2 emissions from an
industrial source. Some view DAC as an important method for achieving “net zero” GHG
emissions, given projections for fossil fuel use. Many legislative proposals aimed at supporting
CCS also include DAC. In many cases, carbon injection has also occurred for purposes of
enhanced oil recovery (EOR), with some permanent CO2 storage occurring as part of the process.
CCS includes three main steps: (1) capturing CO 2 ; (2) transporting CO2 ; and (3) injecting it into
the subsurface. Following injection, the CO2 would be monitored to verify that it remains
underground. Capturing CO2 is the most costly and energy-intensive step in the process (this is
Congressional Research Service
24
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
sometimes referred to as the energy penalty or the parasitic load). Globally, two coal-fired power
plants have been retrofit to capture CO2 in large quantities (i.e., over 1 million tons per year): the
Boundary Dam plant in Canada and the Petra Nova plant in Texas (which suspended CCS
operations in 2020). Both plants offset some of the capture costs by selling the captured CO 2 to be
used for nearby EOR operations.
Emerging technologies for carbon utilization and DAC have been promoted by some CCS
advocates. A challenge for utilization is whether the market for products and uses is large enough
so that the amount of carbon captured or removed has a measurable effect mitigating climate
change. The challenge for DAC is fairly straightforward—how to reduce the cost per ton of CO2
removed. Since FY2010, Congress has provided more than $6 billion total in annual
appropriations for DOE’s Fossil Energy Research and Development portfolio (FE R&D), the
DOE research arm conducting most federal CCS research activity. Congress provided $740
million to FE R&D in FY2019 and $750 million for FY2020. Several CCS-related bills were
introduced in the 116th Congress, with CCS-related provisions in more than 30 measures
introduced.
The 115th Congress enacted a tax provision (Title II, Section 41119 of P.L. 115-123, which
amended Internal Revenue Code, Section 45Q) to incentivize underground carbon injection,
including storage and EOR. The amendment increases the tax credit for underground carbon
sequestration, whether associated with EOR or injected solely for geologic sequestration. In 2020,
the Internal Revenue Service proposed new regulations that would establish 45Q requirements for
secure geologic storage of CO2 , DAC, and utilization for purposes of the tax credit. The 117 th
Congress may explore how the 45Q tax credit is being implemented and implications for CCS
project deployment.
In recent years, proponents of CCS and some Members of Congress have called for increased
federal support for building out infrastructure related to CCS. The federal role in development of
CCS-related infrastructure and associated legislative options may continue to be of interest in the
117th Congress.
For Further Information
Angela Jones, Analyst in Environmental Policy
Ashley Lawson, Analyst in Energy Policy
CRS Report R44902, Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States, by Peter
Folger
CRS In Focus IF11501, Carbon Capture Versus Direct Air Capture, by Ashley J. Lawson
CRS Report R46192, Injection and Geologic Sequestration of Carbon Dioxide: Federal Role and
Issues for Congress, by Angela C. Jones
CRS In Focus IF11345, Carbon Sequestration Legislation in the 116th Congress, by Angela C.
Jones
CRS In Focus IF11455, The Tax Credit for Carbon Sequestration (Section 45Q), by Angela C.
Jones and Molly F. Sherlock
CRS In Focus IF11639, Carbon Storage Requirements in the 45Q Tax Credit, by Angela C. Jones
Congressional Research Service
25
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Water
The reliable supply of high quality water in sufficient quantities supports the U.S. population and
economy, including public and ecosystem health, agriculture, and industry (e.g., energy
production, fisheries, navigation, and manufacturing). Federal research activities and facilities
span numerous departments, agencies, and laboratories. The federal government also funds water
research through grants to universities and other researchers. In recent years, federal agencies
have sponsored prize competitions for water data, science, and technologies and developed
cooperative arrangements with various entities. Drinking water contamination and recent
droughts, floods, and storms also have increased interest in innovative technologies and practices
(including approaches that mimic nature, often referred to as green infrastructure or nature-based
infrastructure). The 117th Congress may consider water research and technology topics, which can
be broadly divided into water and aquatic ecosystem information, water infrastructure and use,
and water quality.
Information on water and aquatic ecosystem information includes observations, forecasts, and
associated modeling. Science and research agencies collect data remotely and in situ; they use a
wide variety of traditional and new technologies and techniques that inform water-related
decisions for infrastructure, agriculture, and drinking water and wastewater services. Some of the
water and ecosystem information research topics that may be before the 117 th Congress include
the following:
water monitoring infrastructure and science programs, including water quality
monitoring, stream gauges, buoys, groundwater assessments, and modeling (i.e.,
the National Water Model and Next Generation Water Observing Systems);
water-related weather, climate, and earth system science including storm surge,
hurricane, rainfall, and drought forecasts and associated remote sensing
investments (see, for example, “Earth-Observing Satellites”);
water conditions in rivers and along coasts (e.g., relative sea-level rise rates);
altering the operation of existing reservoirs (e.g., using seasonal forecasts for
forecast-informed operations);
monitoring and management of invasive species and harmful algal blooms;
access to and use of water data (e.g., Integrated Water Availability Assessments);
and
coordination of the federal water science and research portfolio, including
partnerships with academic and private entities.
Water infrastructure research includes how to prolong and improve the performance of existing
coastal and inland water infrastructure as well as the development of next-generation
infrastructure technologies. Some infrastructure and water use research topics include:
water augmentation technologies and science to support their adoption, including
stormwater capture, water reuse, brackish and seawater desalination, as well as
groundwater recharge, storage, and recovery;
technologies and materials for monitoring and rehabilitating aging infrastructure,
such as materials selection, construction and repair techniques, and detection
technologies (e.g., structural health monitors and leak detection);
water efficiency technologies and practices; and
Congressional Research Service
26
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
gray and green technologies to enhance infrastructure resilience to droughts,
floods, hurricanes, and other natural hazards.
The quality of drinking water, surface water, and groundwater is important for public health,
environmental protection, food security, and other purposes. Technologies for preventing
contamination and for identifying and treating existing contamination is an ongoing research
topic for the federal government. Some research topics include:
analytical methods and treatment technologies to detect and manage emerging
contaminants (e.g., cyanotoxins associated with harmful algal blooms, per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances [PFASs], and microplastics);
technologies to prevent and manage contamination at drinking water treatment
plants and in distribution systems (e.g., real-time monitoring, treatment to
minimize disinfection byproducts, and lead pipe corrosion control); and
innovative technologies and practices to protect water quality (e.g., nature-based
or green infrastructure storm water management), including methods for
increasing resilience of drinking water systems against natural disasters and
protecting drinking water sources for public water system from contamination
(e.g., watershed management approaches and nonpoint source pollution
management).
For Further Information
Anna E. Normand, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Eva Lipiec, Analyst in Natural Resources Policy
Elena H. Humphreys, Analyst in Environmental Policy
Nicole T. Carter, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Laura Gatz, Analyst in Environmental Policy
CRS Report R45695, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Streamgaging Network: Overview and
Issues for Congress, by Anna E. Normand
CRS Report R43407, Drought in the United States: Causes and Current Understanding, by Peter
Folger
CRS Report R45259, The Federal Role in Groundwater Supply, by Peter Folger et al.
CRS Report R44632, Sea-Level Rise and U.S. Coasts: Science and Policy Considerations, by
Peter Folger and Nicole T. Carter
CRS Report R44871, Freshwater Harmful Algal Blooms: Causes, Challenges, and Policy
Considerations, by Laura Gatz
CRS Report R45998, Contaminants of Emerging Concern under the Clean Water Act, by Laura
Gatz
CRS Report R45793, PFAS and Drinking Water: Selected EPA and Congressional Actions, by
Elena H. Humphreys and Mary Tiemann
CRS Report R46416, Forecasting Tropical Cyclones: Overview and Issues for Congress, by Eva
Lipiec
Congressional Research Service
27
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Defense
Science and technology play an important role in national defense. The Department of Defense
(DOD) relies on a robust research and development effort to develop new military systems and
improve existing systems. Issues that may come before the 117th Congress regarding the DOD’s
S&T activities include budgetary concerns and the effectiveness of programs to transition R&D
results into fielded products.
Department of Defense Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation
The Department of Defense spends more than $100 billion per year on research, development,
testing, and evaluation (RDT&E). In FY2020, enacted RDT&E funding was approximately $109
billion. Roughly 80%-85% of this is spent on the design, development, and testing of specific
military systems. Examples of such systems include large integrated combat platforms such as
aircraft carriers, fighter jets, and tanks, among others. They also include much smaller systems
such as blast gauge sensors worn by individual soldiers. The other 15%-20% of the RDT&E
funding is spent on what is referred to as DOD’s Science and Technology Program. The S&T
Program includes activities ranging from basic science to demonstrations of new technologies in
the field. The goal of DOD’s RDT&E spending is to provide the knowledge and technological
advances necessary to maintain U.S. military superiority.
DOD’s RDT&E budget contains hundreds of individual line items. Congress provides oversight
of the program, making adjustments to the amount of funding requested for any number of line
items. These changes are based on considerations such as whether the department has adequately
justified the expenditure or the need to accommodate larger budgetary adjustments.
RDT&E priorities and focus, including those of the S&T portion, do not change radically from
year to year, though a few fundamental policy-related issues regularly attract congressional
attention. These include ensuring that S&T, particularly basic research, receives sufficient funding
to support next generation capabilities; seeking ways to speed the transition of technology from
the laboratory to the field; and ensuring an adequate supply of S&T personnel. Additionally, the
impact of budgetary constraints, including continuing resolutions, on RDT&E may be of interest
to the 116th Congress. Specifically, senior DOD officials have been describing the need to develop
and implement a strategy aimed at identifying new and innovative ways to maintain the
dominance of U.S. military capabilities into the future, which may require increased investment
in RDT&E.
In addition, as U.S. federal defense-related R&D funding’s share of global R&D funding has
fallen from about 36% in 1960 to about 3% in 2018, some have become concerned about the
ability of DOD to direct the development of leading technologies and to control which countries
have access to it. Today, commercial companies in the United States and elsewhere in the world
are leading development of groundbreaking technologies in fields such as artificial intelligence,
autonomous vehicles and systems, and advanced robotics. DOD has sought to build institutional
mechanisms (e.g., the Defense Innovation Unit) and a culture for accessing technologies from
nontraditional defense contractors. DOD’s ability to maintain a technology edge for U.S. forces
may depend increasingly upon these external sources of innovation for its weapons and other
systems.
For Further Information
John F. Sargent Jr., Specialist in Science and Technology Policy
Congressional Research Service
28
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R45403, The Global Research and Development Landscape and Implications for the
Department of Defense, by John F. Sargent Jr. and Marcy E. Gallo
CRS Report R44711, Department of Defense Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
(RDT&E): Appropriations Structure, by John F. Sargent Jr.
CRS Report R45110, Defense Science and Technology Funding, by John F. Sargent Jr.
CRS Report R46341, Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding: FY2021, coordinated
by John F. Sargent Jr.
Energy
Energy-related science and technology issues that may come before the 117th Congress include
biofuels; fracking; electricity modernization and decarbonization; hydrogen pipelines;
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel; advances in nuclear energy technology; and offshore energy
development technologies.
Biofuels
Biofuels—transportation fuels produced from biomass—are an alternative to conventional fuels.
Some see promise in producing fuels from a domestic feedstock that may reduce dependence on
foreign energy sources, improve rural economies, and lower greenhouse gas emissions. Others
regard biofuels as potentially more harmful to the environment (e.g., air and w ater quality
concerns), more land-intensive, and prohibitively expensive to produce. The debate about
biofuels is complex, as policymakers consider numerous factors (e.g., feedstock costs, timeframe
to reach commercial-scale advanced biofuel production, environmental impact of biofuels). The
debate can be even more complicated because biofuels may be produced using numerous biomass
feedstocks and conversion technologies.
Congress supported biofuels for decades, with most of its attention on “first-generation” biofuels
(e.g., cornstarch ethanol). Starting in 2002, the farm bills have contained an energy title with
several programs to assist biofuel production and R&D. In addition, the DOE Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) supports domestic biofuel production R&D. Congress
and the executive branch have debated the amount of USDA and DOE funding for biofuel
initiatives. While commercial-scale production of “first-generation” biofuels is well established,
commercial-scale production for some advanced biofuels (e.g., cellulosic ethanol) is in its
infancy.
In 2007, Congress expanded the main policy support for biofuel production—the Renewable Fuel
Standard (RFS), which requires U.S. transportation fuel to contain minimum volumes of different
classes of biofuels. The RFS is under scrutiny for various reasons, including concerns about
program implementation, advanced biofuel pathway approval, growth of advanced biofuel
production, and RFS compliance. These concerns, among others, create uncertainty for some
stakeholders.
The 117th Congress may consider whether to modify various biofuel promotional efforts, to
establish new biofuel initiatives, or to maintain the status quo. Other topics of congressional
interest include the development of a low-carbon fuel standard in lieu of an explicit renewable
fuel mandate, and R&D into sustainable fuels for aviation, shipping, and other applications.
Congressional Research Service
29
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
For Further Information
Kelsi Bracmort, Specialist in Natural Resources and Energy Policy
CRS Report R43325, The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): An Overview, by Kelsi Bracmort
CRS Report R46244, The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): Frequently Asked Questions About
Small Refinery Exemptions (SREs), by Kelsi Bracmort
CRS Insight IN11353, The 2020 Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): COVID-19 Impacts, by Kelsi
Bracmort
CRS Report R45943, The Farm Bill Energy Title: An Overview and Funding History, by Kelsi
Bracmort
Hydraulic Fracturing and Horizontal Drilling
Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, applied to horizontally drilled wells was one of the key
technological advancements at the beginning of the 21 st century (along with directional drilling of
long horizontal wells) that unlocked natural gas and oil resources from shale and other tight rock
formations (also known as unconventional formations). The oil and natural gas released by
fracking have catapulted the United States to the lead global producer of both fuels and have
made the United States relatively energy independent. Fracking has also made the United States
into the fastest growing exporter of both commodities.
As hydraulic fracturing became a more prominent form of production, it also raised
environmental concerns. These concerns centered initially on water quality issues, including
potential contamination of groundwater and surface waters. Concerns have since incorporated
other issues, such as water management practices (both consumption and discharge), methane
release, land use changes, endangered species impacts, induced seismicity, and air and noise
pollution. Other related concerns have centered on the potential long-term and indirect impacts
from a reliance on fossil fuels and the resulting greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
To many, fracking has become synonymous with anything related to extraction of natural gas and
oil from unconventional formations. However, fracking has been a part of the industry for
decades, emerging as an enhanced recovery method to boost production from nearly all
traditional wells in conventional formations. In unconventional formations, hydraulic fracturing is
not an optional or additional technique but a necessary one for production. Unconventional
resource recovery requires creating a huge connected fracture network leading to the wellbore in
order to achieve economic oil or gas recovery. Currently, no alternative to hydraulic fracturing in
these formations exists; nor does one appear to be on the horizon. During the 2020 presidential
election, fracking became a flash point of the debate, and it portends to be an issue in the 117 th
Congress.
For Further Information
Richard Lattanzio, Specialist in Environmental Policy or Michael Ratner, Specialist in Energy
Policy
CRS In Focus IF11036, U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Transformation and Effects, by Michael Ratner
et al.
CRS Report R43836, Human-Induced Earthquakes from Deep-Well Injection: A Brief Overview,
by Peter Folger and Mary Tiemann
Congressional Research Service
30
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
CRS Report R43152, Hydraulic Fracturing: Selected Legal Issues, by Adam Vann, Brandon J.
Murrill, and Mary Tiemann
CRS Report R41760, Hydraulic Fracturing and Safe Drinking Water Act Regulatory Issues, by
Mary Tiemann and Adam Vann
CRS Report R43148, An Overview of Unconventional Oil and Natural Gas: Resources and
Federal Actions, by Michael Ratner and Mary Tiemann
CRS Report R42986, Methane and Other Air Pollution Issues in Natural Gas Systems, by
Richard K. Lattanzio
Electricity Modernization and Decarbonization
Interest in the modernization of the electricity grid to improve its reliability and resilience is
increasing; so too is interest in reducing emissions of carbon dioxide from power generation. The
two goals are potentially compatible, as a grid that utilizes more zero-carbon emission electricity
resources also can benefit from modernization to move electricity more efficiently and could
bolster resilience.
To accommodate today’s more complex power flows, serve reliability needs, and meet future
projected uses, grid modernization is incorporating electronic intelligence capabilities for power
control purposes and operations monitoring. The “Smart Grid” is the name given to this evolving
intelligent electric power network. Given ideas for a grid based on renewable energy, an electric
power system able to potentially shift energy nationally from where it is generated to where it is
needed may require a level of real-time monitoring and control that does not currently exist.
Ensuring that the grid is always able to meet electricity needs will likely mean that resources
capable of generating power on demand will still be required, and enabling today’s natural gas
generation fleet to be able to use hydrogen as a power generation fuel is one option. Other
potential options may include nuclear power (both fusion and fission), and carbon capture with
sequestration and reuse. The projected need for this base load generating capacity may continue
even with advances in energy storage (as some utility executives have speculated we would need
to store energy on a seasonal basis—not just for hours or days—for goals approaching 100%
renewable energy). More affordable hydrogen could address some of the barriers to sustainable
energy. While hydrogen as a fuel for electric power generation does not directly result in carbon
dioxide emissions, hydrogen is expensive to produce, difficult to transport or store, and existing
combustion turbines would need to be modified for its use. All of these preceding areas are
subjects of federal R&D, particularly at the Department of Energy.
For Further Information
Richard J. Campbell, Specialist in Energy Policy
CRS Report R45156, The Smart Grid: Status and Outlook, by Richard J. Campbell
CRS Report R46436, Hydrogen in Electricity’s Future, by Richard J. Campbell
Advanced Battery Energy Storage
Advanced battery energy storage (ABES) technology has the potential to revolutionize the
nation’s electric power industry and the transportation sector. In 2019, plug-in hybrid- and
battery-electric vehicles (collectively plug-in electric vehicles or PEVs) made up 2% of all lightduty vehicle sales. If PEV use increases, as estimated by a 2018 study from the National
Congressional Research Service
31
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), energy load profiles might shift, creating additional
energy demand during work hours and a greater overnight demand once residents return home.
PEV batteries today are mostly based on lithium ion technology using liquid cells. These batteries
can be charged a number of times due largely to their high energy density and ability to undergo a
number of full power charging cycles. However, liquid cells have been associated with fire risk,
and the acquisition of cobalt, a mineral commonly used in PEV batteries, from its major source in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been associated with child labor and miner safety
issues. Research on dry lithium ion batteries, recycling of lithium ion battery components, and
alternate chemistries have been identified as keys to the greater deployment of PEV batteries.
With PEVs connected to the electric power grid, an opportunity might arise for vehicle batteries
to provide energy storage at low energy demand times when grid generation might be high, and
EV use might be low. This could help reduce the need for new power plants and reduce overall
atmospheric emissions from fossil fuels, if such a regime can be economically implemented.
In 2018, battery storage power capacity accounted for less than 1% of total U.S. large-scale
electricity storage, but its share is growing. ABES could not only improve grid reliability but also
enhance the attractiveness of wind and solar power, which may lead to lower electricity-related
emissions.
Greater electrification of the transportation sector will not only depend on PEV battery
capabilities and designs, but on the development of a national and interstate PEV charging
infrastructure that will economically enable large vehicles and trucks to begin to switch from
fossil fuels. Such a network could address concerns over the range of purely battery-electric
vehicles to meet the needs of the public and transportation industry.
In recent years, congressional action on ABES has focused on funding Department of Energy
R&D, and on incentives for deployment of PEVs and charging infrastructure.
For Further Information
Melissa N. Diaz, Analyst in Energy Policy
CRS Report R45980, Electricity Storage: Applications, Issues, and Technologies, by Richard J.
Campbell
CRS Report R45980, Electricity Storage: Applications, Issues, and Technologies, by Richard J.
Campbell
CRS Report R45747, Vehicle Electrification: Federal and State Issues Affecting Deployment, by
Bill Canis, Corrie E. Clark, and Molly F. Sherlock
Reprocessing of Spent Nuclear Fuel
Spent fuel discharged from commercial nuclear reactors contains most of the original uranium
that was used to make the fuel, along with plutonium and other highly radioactive nuclear
materials. A fundamental issue in nuclear policy is whether spent fuel should be “reprocessed” (or
“recycled”) to extract plutonium and uranium for new reactor fuel, or directly disposed of without
reprocessing. Proponents of nuclear power point out that spent fuel still contains substantial
energy that reprocessing could recover, and that reprocessing could reduce the long-term hazard
of radioactive waste. Reprocessed plutonium could also be used in nuclear weapons, raising
proliferation concerns.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the federal government expected that all commercial spent fuel would be
reprocessed to make new reactor fuel. Increased concern about weapons proliferation in the 1970s
Congressional Research Service
32
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
and the slower-than-projected growth of nuclear power prompted President Carter to halt
commercial reprocessing efforts in 1977. Subsequent administrations have had a wide range of
policies on the issue.
The George W. Bush Administration proposed that the Department of Energy (DOE) complete a
pilot reprocessing plant by the early 2020s. During the Obama Administration, plans for the pilot
plant were halted and DOE research was redirected toward development of technology options
for a wide range of nuclear fuel cycle approaches. FY2021 DOE funding related to reprocessing
and recycling R&D includes $25 million for nuclear material recovery and waste treatment and
$20 million for fuel cycle laboratory R&D (P.L. 116-260).
The level of potential controversy over plutonium fuel was illustrated by DOE’s now-terminated
Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility (MFFF) in South Carolina. MFFF would have produced
fuel for commercial nuclear reactors using surplus nuclear weapons plutonium, as part of an
agreement with Russia to reduce nuclear weapons material. Critics of the project contended that
MFFF would have subverted U.S. nonproliferation efforts by encouraging the use of plutonium
fuel. Because of the project’s steeply rising costs and other controversy, Congress agreed to stop
construction in FY2019 (P.L. 115-244).
For Further Information
Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy
CRS Report R42853, Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues, by Mark Holt
CRS Report RL34234, Managing the Nuclear Fuel Cycle: Policy Implications of Expanding
Global Access to Nuclear Power, coordinated by Mary Beth D. Nikitin
Advanced Nuclear Energy Technology
All currently operating commercial nuclear power plants in the United States are based on light
water reactor (LWR) technology, in which ordinary water cools the reactor and acts as a neutron
moderator to help sustain the nuclear chain reaction. DOE has long conducted research and
development work on other, non-LWR nuclear technologies that could have advantages in safety,
waste management, and cost. Much of the DOE R&D program focuses on small modular reactors
(SMRs), defined as having electric generating capacity no greater than 300 megawatts (compared
with 1,000 megawatts or more for standard commercial reactors), and microreactors with capacity
of about 10 megawatts or below. A growing number of private-sector firms are pursuing
commercialization of advanced nuclear technologies.
Non-LWR advanced nuclear energy technologies include high-temperature gas-cooled reactors,
liquid metal-cooled reactors, and molten salt reactors, among a wide range of other concepts.
Research on advanced reactor coolants, materials, controls, and safety is carried out by DOE’s
Advanced Reactor Technologies program, which was appropriated $46 million for FY2021 (P.L.
116-260). DOE’s Advanced Reactors Demonstration Program in FY2021 is providing $80
million apiece to support two demonstration projects and $40 million to prepare for five future
demonstrations.
Private-sector nuclear technology companies contend that a major obstacle to commercializing
advanced reactors is that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC’s) licensing process is
based on existing LWR technology. Development of a licensing and regulatory framework that
could apply to all nuclear concepts is required by the Nuclear Energy Innovation and
Modernization Act (P.L. 115-439), signed into law January 14, 2019. The DOE Advanced Reactor
Congressional Research Service
33
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Demonstration Program includes $15 million in FY2021 for national laboratories to work with
NRC in that effort.
Legislation to promote advanced nuclear power technologies, the Nuclear Energy Innovation
Capabilities Act of 2017 (NEICA, P.L. 115-248) authorizes the National Reactor Innovation
Center (NRIC) “to enable the testing and demonstration of reactor concepts to be proposed and
funded, in whole or in part, by the private sector.” NRIC was appropriated $30 million for
FY2021. NEICA also requires DOE to determine the need for a fast-neutron “versatile” test
reactor, for which $45 million was appropriated in FY2021.
For Further Information
Mark Holt, Specialist in Energy Policy
CRS Report R45706, Advanced Nuclear Reactors: Technology Overview and Current Issues, by
Danielle A. Arostegui and Mark Holt
CRS Report R42853, Nuclear Energy: Overview of Congressional Issues, by Mark Holt
Hydrogen Pipelines
Some in Congress have proposed hydrogen as an environmentally friendlier alternative to
conventional fossil fuels for vehicles, vessels, and electric power generation. Delivering hydrogen
to widely scattered power plants, industrial facilities, and regional distribution centers for
vehicular fuel could require the development of an expansive hydrogen pipeline network. The
House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis stated in its 2020 Solving the Climate Crisis
majority staff report,
To achieve wide use of hydrogen at a reasonable cost, industry will need infrastructure to
generate and transport hydrogen.... One option is to generate hydrogen at a small number
of large-scale facilities and then distribute it through a pipeline network to individual
industrial facilities.
Environmental advocates and other stakeholders likewise have identified hydrogen pipelines as
an essential component of a widespread hydrogen fuel strategy.
Shipping hydrogen by pipeline in the United States is not new, but the existing pipeline network
is small and located almost entirely along the Gulf Coast. The pipeline network required to
support a hydrogen-based U.S. energy strategy would be much larger with much broader
geographic reach. Establishing such a network could pose technical challenges due to the
chemical characteristics of hydrogen, an issue which has been, and could likely continue to be,
the subject of federally-funded research and development.
Hydrogen molecules are the smallest of all molecules, and therefore are more prone than methane
(the principal component of natural gas) to leak through joints, microscopic cracks, and seals in
pipelines and associated infrastructure. Hydrogen can also permeate directly through polymer
(plastic) materials, such as those typically used to make natural gas distribution pipes, four to five
times faster than methane does. Both hydrogen and methane are odorless and colorless gases. To
reduce the safety risks of methane leaks, odorants are generally added to natural gas in
distribution systems to aid in leak detection. Due to differences in end use (e.g., in fuel cells)
odorization of hydrogen has distinctive chemical requirements. Research is underway on potential
odorants that can be added to hydrogen transportation systems.
The presence of hydrogen can deteriorate steel pipe, pipe welds, valves, and fittings through a
variety of mechanisms, particularly embrittlement. Hydrogen embrittlement occurs when the
diffusion of hydrogen into a material decreases its ductility. The susceptibility of particular
Congressional Research Service
34
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
pipelines depends upon many factors, including hydrogen pressure, concentration, and
temperature, as well as the specific properties of the type of steel used and other operating
conditions. Pipeline companies may use specialty steels or may modify their infrastructure and
put other measures in place to manage embrittlement risks. Nonetheless, the potential for
hydrogen embrittlement is an important safety consideration in the design and operation of
hydrogen pipelines, or when hydrogen is present in pipelines designed to transport natural gas or
other materials.
The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis report recommended that Congress draft
legislation to facilitate the development of hydrogen transportation and related infrastructure, that
federal agencies create a hydrogen infrastructure development plan, and that the agencies review
and change their regulatory framework to support the plan. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations has considered fiscal funding for energy and water development, which would
include funding for large-scale hydrogen pipeline research and development.
Executive agencies, such as the Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, may fund hydrogen pipeline research under existing research grant
programs and may examine hydrogen pipeline technical issues through advisory committees and
industry partnerships. Such activities may advance hydrogen pipeline design, operations, or safety
research, and the development of standards, which could be incorporated into industry practices
or federal pipeline regulations.
For Further Information
Paul W. Parfomak, Specialist in Energy and Infrastructure Policy
CRS Report R46700, Pipeline Transportation of Hydrogen: Regulation, Research, and Policy, by
Paul W. Parfomak
Offshore Energy Development Technologies
Technological innovations are key drivers of U.S. ocean energy development. They may facilitate
exploration of previously inaccessible resources, provide cost efficiencies, address safety and
environmental concerns, and enable advances in emerging sectors such as U.S. offshore wind
energy. Private industry, universities, and government all are involved in ocean energy R&D. At
the federal level, both the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of the Interior (DOI)
support ocean energy research.
With respect to U.S. offshore oil and gas, developers and federal regulators have focused on
exploration and development in deepwater areas and in the Arctic region. Industry interest in
expanding deepwater activities, improving safety and efficiency, and reducing costs has prompted
improvements in drilling technologies and steps toward automated monitoring and maintenance.
For the Arctic, industry R&D has included work on technology to extend the drilling season
beyond the periods where sea ice is absent—for example, by developing ice-resistant drilling
units—and on oil spill response technologies for Arctic conditions. DOE and DOI undertake and
fund Arctic energy R&D, and in 2019 DOE reestablished an Arctic Energy Office. One focus of
federal efforts has been on safety improvements to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic oil spills.
DOI has revised safety regulations for offshore blowout preventer systems and other well control
equipment, as well as for Arctic exploratory drilling. Stakeholders have debated whether these
rules’ requirements are unnecessarily prescriptive or, conversely, not prescriptive enough to
achieve safety aims.
Among renewable ocean energy sources, only wind energy is poised for commercial application
in U.S. waters. In December 2016, the first U.S. offshore wind farm, off of Rhode Island, began
Congressional Research Service
35
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
regular operations, and in June 2020, a two-turbine offshore pilot project completed construction
off the coast of Virginia. In addition to identified resources in the Atlantic region, wind energy has
potential in the Great Lakes, offshore of the West Coast and Alaska, and offshore of the Gulf
Coast. Identified priorities for offshore wind R&D include (1) technology advancement of the
offshore wind plant; (2) improvements of resource and physical site characterization; and (3)
technology improvements in installation, operations and maintenance, and supply chain issues for
the U.S. market. For offshore wind plant technology advancement, identified opportunities
include optimizing performance, reducing costs of support structures, developing mooring and
anchoring technologies for floating wind structures in deeper water, and reducing costs and risks
of the transmission and distribution of electricity generated from offshore wind. For resource and
physical site characterization, identified opportunities include data collection and validation,
improving measurement methodologies, and validating analytical models.
For technology improvements, R&D opportunities include the development of innovative
deployment strategies, improved machine reliability, advanced maintenance strategies, and
development of critical supply chain elements. Such opportunities could reduce costs and risks
associated with transporting equipment and the dependence on heavy-lift vessels. A perennial
issue for Congress is whether and how to support or incentivize development of offshore wind
and other ocean renewables.
For Further Information
Laura B. Comay, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy
Corrie E. Clark, Analyst in Energy Policy
CRS Report R42942, Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Recent Activities and Ongoing Developments,
by Jonathan L. Ramseur
CRS Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress, coordinated by
Ronald O'Rourke
Homeland Security
The federal government spends billions of dollars supporting research and development to protect
the homeland. Some of the issues that the 117th Congress may consider include law enforcement
access to digital social media and messaging, and use of facial recognition technology. Congress
may also consider how the Department of Homeland Security addresses rapidly evolving natural
and manmade hazards to critical infrastructure.
Evolving Technology and the Debate over “Lawful Access”
The continual evolution of technology presents ongoing opportunities and challenges for U.S. law
enforcement. Some technological advances (e.g., social media) have arguably provided a wealth
of information for law enforcement investigators and intelligence analysts. Other changes have
presented unique hurdles for law enforcement. While some believe that law enforcement now has
access to more information than ever before, others contend that law enforcement investigative
capabilities are outpaced by the speed of technological change. These hurdles for law
enforcement include strong, end-to-end (or what law enforcement has sometimes called “warrantproof”) encryption; provider limits on data retention; bounds on companies’ technological
capabilities to provide specific data points to law enforcement; tools facilitating anonymity
online; and a landscape of mixed wireless, cellular, and other networks through which
Congressional Research Service
36
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
individuals’ information constantly pass. As such, law enforcement may have trouble accessing
certain information they otherwise may be lawfully authorized to obtain.
The tension between law enforcement capabilities and technological change—including
sometimes competing pressures for technology companies to provide data to law enforcement as
well as to secure customer privacy—has received congressional attention for several decades. For
instance, in the 1990s the “crypto wars” pitted the federal government against technology
companies, and this strain was underscored by proposals to build in vulnerabilities, or “back
doors,” to certain encrypted communications devices as well as to restrict the export of strong
encryption code. In addition, Congress passed the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act (CALEA; P.L. 103-414) in 1994 to help law enforcement maintain their ability
to execute authorized electronic surveillance as telecommunications providers turned to digital
and wireless technology. More recently, there have been questions about whether CALEA should
be amended to apply to a broader range of entities that provide communications services.
The debate over lawful access to information originally focused on data in motion, or law
enforcement’s ability to intercept real-time communications. However, more recent technology
advances have impacted law enforcement’s capacity to access not only real-time communications
but stored content, or data at rest. Some officials have urged the technology community to
develop a means to assist law enforcement in lawfully accessing certain data. At the same time,
law enforcement entities have taken their own steps to bolster their technology capabilities. In
addition, policymakers have been evaluating whether legislation that would further enable law
enforcement access to data may be an appropriate response to current law enforcement concerns
involving access to communications and data.
For Further Information
Kristin Finklea, Specialist in Domestic Security
CRS Report R44481, Encryption and the “Going Dark” Debate, by Kristin Finklea
CRS Report R44827, Law Enforcement Using and Disclosing Technology Vulnerabilities, by
Kristin Finklea
Federal Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition Technology
In the course of carrying out their law enforcement duties, various federal law enforcement
agencies may use facial recognition technology (FRT) for a variety of purposes. These purposes
can include generating investigative leads, identifying victims of crimes, helping sort faces in
photos that are part of forensic evidence, and helping verify the identity of inmates before they
are released from prison. For instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) operates two
programs that support law enforcement use of the technology: (1) the Next Generation
Identification–Interstate Photo System (NGI-IPS), largely supporting state and local law
enforcement; and (2) the Facial Analysis, Comparison, and Evaluation (FACE) Services Unit,
supporting FBI investigations. In addition, border officials use facial recognition for identity
verification purposes. For example, U.S. Customs and Border Protection is using FRT to confirm
travelers’ identities as part of its biometric entry and exit control system for noncitizen travelers
into and out of the country.
There are currently no federal laws specifically governing law enforcement use of facial
recognition technology. However, guidelines and recommendations regarding law enforcement
use of FRT have been produced by the Facial Identification Scientific Working Group
(FISWG)—one of the various scientific working groups that support the Organization of
Scientific Area Committees for Forensic Science (administered by the National Institute of
Congressional Research Service
37
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Standards and Technology (NIST), which facilitates standards development, including for FRT).
FISWG has published a number of FRT-related guidelines and recommendations for forensic
science practitioners. In addition, the FBI maintains a Policy and Implementation Guide for the
use of its NGI-IPS. Authorized law enforcement users are required to follow these policies as well
as certain FISWG standards.
Law enforcement use of FRT has been the subject of ongoing congressional attention. Some of
the concerns raised revolve around the accuracy of the technology, including potential race-,
gender-, and age-related biases; the process of collecting, retaining, and securing facial images;
public notification of the use of facial recognition and other image-capturing technology; and
policies or standards governing law enforcement agencies’ use of the technology. Some of these
concerns have manifested in actions such as federal, state, and city efforts to prohibit or bound
law enforcement agencies’ use of FRT. In addition, some companies producing facial recognition
software have placed new barriers to law enforcement using their technologies.
For Further Information
Kristin Finklea, Specialist in Domestic Security
CRS Report R46586, Federal Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition Technology,
coordinated by Kristin Finklea
CRS Report R46541, Facial Recognition Technology and Law Enforcement: Select
Constitutional Considerations, by Kelsey Y. Santamaria
CRS In Focus IF11634, Biometric Entry-Exit System: Legislative History and Status, by Abigail
F. Kolker
CRS Insight IN11143, Exposed Data Highlights Law Enforcement Use of Selected Technologies,
by Kristin Finklea
Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience
Critical infrastructure (CI) refers to the machinery, facilities, and information that enable vital
functions of governance, public health, and the economy. When Congress created the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, it directed the department to
identify, prioritize, and protect CI systems and assets.
In recent years, many stakeholders have advocated for an increased focus on the system-wide
resilience of CI functions. In 2019, the DHS Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
(CISA), created by Congress in 2018, identified 55 National Critical Functions, “so vital to the
United States that their disruption, corruption, or dysfunction would have a debilitating effect on
security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination thereof.”
The COVID-19 pandemic and other recent events have affected CI functions associated with
elections, government, education, health care, supply chains, and trade. Taken together, these
events demonstrate how the disruption of social relations, economic relations, and public trust can
disrupt critical functions—often without direct physical damage to CI systems and assets.
For example, election administration—an essential government function—requires both the
integrity of associated CI systems and assets and public confidence in the election process.
During the 2020 election cycle, CISA maintained a website to counter the online spread of
misinformation, while also assisting state elections administrators in securing systems and assets
against physical threats and cyber intrusions. Similarly, authorities responsible for COVID-19
vaccine development and deployment sought to secure R&D facilities and data, manufacturing
Congressional Research Service
38
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
infrastructure, and critical supply chains, while also seeking to counter vaccine misinformation
and coordinate distribution across multiple levels of government.
In the 117th Congress, the resilience of critical functions of supply—particularly for COVID-19
countermeasures—could continue to attract congressional attention. Congress may also examine
the security of the election infrastructure subsector in light of the large increase in remote voting
in 2020. More broadly, Congress may exercise oversight over CISA reorganization and CISA’s
institutionalization of a substantially revised risk management framework.
For Further Information
Brian E. Humphreys, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R46407, COVID-19: Remote Voting Trends and the Election Infrastructure
Subsector, by Brian E. Humphreys
CRS Report R45809, Critical Infrastructure: Emerging Trends and Policy Considerations for
Congress, by Brian E. Humphreys
Information and Communication Technology
The rapid pace of advancements in information and communication technologies presents several
issues for congressional policymakers, including those related to cybersecurity; artificial
intelligence; “Big Tech” and social media policy and regulation; broadband deployment; public
safety networks and emergency alerting; 5G networks; access to broadband networks and net
neutrality; federal networking R&D; quantum information science; and the Internet of Things;
digital contact tracing and exposure notification for COVID-19 and other contagious diseases.
Cybersecurity
Cybersecurity is not an end state. Rather, it is a risk management process that information
technology (IT) system owners and operators use to ensure that data, devices, systems and
networks:
maintain confidentiality to only authorized parties;
preserve the integrity of both the data and technology; and
are available when users desire.
Some cybersecurity issues persist across Congresses:
The confidentiality of internet-based communications (i.e., data security and
privacy) is continually assessed by Congress. The 116 th Congress held hearings;
legislation was not passed.
A way to achieve the integrity of technology is through cyber supply chain risk
management (C-SCRM). The adoption of fifth-generation mobile technologies
(5G) and the associated risks have renewed the focus on C-SCRM. The 116th
Congress required the President to produce a strategy on 5G security.
Because of a proven record of availability and meeting the organization’s
operational needs, many businesses and government agencies run legacy IT
systems. However, maintaining these technologies may create gaps where
vulnerabilities become pronounced and are exploited by malicious actors.
Congress created working capital funds for federal agencies to modernize (and
secure) their IT; these funds have not been fully implemented.
Congressional Research Service
39
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
Cyber risks continue to evolve. The 116th Congress examined new issues around the use of
information and communications technology (ICT) during the COVID-19 pandemic. The rapid
adoption of mobile computing technologies for both work and education raised concerns about
the resilience of the nation’s internet infrastructure, security of computing platforms (e.g., video
conferencing services), and the protection of data.
During the 116th Congress, the congressionally authorized Cyberspace Solarium Commission
released its report, which included more than 76 legislative proposals to improve the resilience of
the nation’s cyberspace and deter malicious actors’ operations. The FY2021 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) contained 26 of the recommendations, including recommendations to
improve the cybersecurity workforce, conduct national exercises, improve information sharing,
and investigate cyber risks from emerging technologies. The NDAA also extended the
authorization for the Commission, which is to continue to track the implementation of remaining
recommendations.
For Further Information
Chris Jaikaran, Analyst in Cybersecurity Policy
CRS In Focus IF10559, Cybersecurity: A Primer, by Chris Jaikaran
CRS In Focus IF10920, Cyber Supply Chain Risk Management: An Introduction, by Chris
Jaikaran
CRS In Focus IF11469, The Cyberspace Solarium Commission: Illuminating Options for Layered
Deterrence, by Chris Jaikaran
CRS In Focus IF10654, Challenges in Cybersecurity Education and Workforce Development, by
Boris Granovskiy
CRS Report R46536, Cybercrime and the Law: Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and the
116th Congress, by Peter G. Berris
CRS Insight IN11497, Cybersecurity: Recent Policy and Guidance on Federal Vulnerability
Disclosure Programs, by Chris Jaikaran
Artificial Intelligence
In recent years, both the Administration and Congress have been increasingly engaged in
supporting artificial intelligence (AI) research and development (R&D), investing in AI
technologies, and working to address policy concerns arising from AI development and use.
Congressional activities focused on AI increased substantially in the 115th and 116th Congresses,
including multiple committee hearings in the House and Senate, the introduction of numerous AIfocused bills, and the passage of AI provisions in legislation, such as numerous AI provisions in
the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (H.R. 6395). Activity related to AI
could continue in the 117th Congress.
The term AI is generally considered to mean computerized systems that work and react in ways
commonly thought to require intelligence, such as the ability to learn, solve problems, and
achieve goals under uncertain and varying conditions. It includes multiple methodologies and
application areas, such as machine learning, computer vision, natural language processing,
robotics, and autonomous vehicles. AI is employed across a variety of sectors, including
transportation, health care, energy, agriculture, manufacturing, and finance. Current AI
technologies are considered “narrow AI,” meaning that they are highly tailored to particular tasks.
In contrast, potential future AI systems that exhibit adaptable intelligence across a range of
Congressional Research Service
40
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
cognitive tasks, often referred to as “general AI,” are unlikely to be developed for at least
decades, if ever, according to most researchers.
There are several broad concerns related to AI spanning multiple sectors that Congress could
consider in current session. These include
the impact of AI and AI-driven automation on the workforce, including potential
job losses and the need for worker retraining;
the challenges of educating students in AI and using AI in the classroom;
the balance of federal and private-sector funding for AI;
international competition in AI R&D and deployment;
the development of standards and testing protocols for AI systems;
the need for and effectiveness of federal coordination efforts in AI; and
the incorporation of ethics, privacy, security, transparency, and accountability
considerations in AI systems, especially for such applications as facial
recognition technologies.
There are additional national security concerns about the potential use of AI technologies that
Congress could address, such as deep fakes to influence elections and erode public trust; the
balance of human and automated decisionmaking in military operations; and public concerns
about the use of AI in combat situations.
For Further Information
Laurie A. Harris, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy
CRS Video WVB00311, Artificial Intelligence: An Overview of Technologies and Issues for
Congress, by Laurie A. Harris
CRS In Focus IF10608, Overview of Artificial Intelligence, by Laurie A. Harris
CRS In Focus IF11333, Deep Fakes and National Security, by Kelley M. Sayler and Laurie A.
Harris
Big Tech and Social Media Policy and Regulation
Internet policy and regulation has attracted strong congressional interest since the mid-1990s. In
addition to net neutrality, broadband deployment, and the digital divide (treated elsewhere in this
report), the 117th Congress may address issues related to content providers (also known as edge
providers), or those that provide content, applications, or services over the internet. These issues
include antitrust actions, social media content moderation practices, the use of algorithms by
content providers, and foreign-owned content providers that operate in the United States.
Congressional interest in antitrust has focused on “Big Tech”—Alphabet (Google’s parent
company), Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Microsoft. Some Members of Congress have
expressed concern that these companies obtain and maintain market dominance using
anticompetitive conduct and have questioned whether current antitrust laws are sufficient.
Congressional interest in content moderation strategies among social media companies—such as
Facebook and Twitter—has, in recent years, focused largely on Section 230 of the
Communications Act of 1934. Section 230 protects interactive computer service providers and
their users from liability from publishing, and in some instances restricting access to, another’s
Congressional Research Service
41
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
content. Some Members of Congress have stated that Section 230 should be amended to allow
social media companies to be held liable for hosting or removing certain content.
The 117th Congress may address these issues and others related to content providers. The 116th
and 117th Congresses have held multiple committee hearings and introduced numerous bills
related to these issues, including bills to amend antitrust laws and Section 230, to require foreignowned software to include a disclaimer to consumers, and to ban the use of TikTok—an
application from a Chinese-owned social media company—on government-issued devices.
Activity related to Big Tech and social media is likely to continue in the 117th Congress, which
may introduce similar or new bills to address these issues.
For Further Information
Valerie Brannon, Legislative Attorney
Clare Cho, Analyst in Industrial Organization and Business
Patricia Moloney Figliola, Specialist in Internet and Telecommunications Policy
Jason Gallo, Section Research Manager Science and Technology Policy
CRS Report R46662, Social Media: Misinformation and Content Moderation Issues for
Congress, by Jason A. Gallo and Clare Y. Cho
CRS Report R46751, Section 230: An Overview, by Valerie C. Brannon and Eric N. Holmes
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10484, UPDATE: Section 230 and the Executive Order on Preventing
Online Censorship, by Valerie C. Brannon et al.
CRS Report R45650, Free Speech and the Regulation of Social Media Content, by Valerie C.
Brannon
CRS Report R45713, Terrorism, Violent Extremism, and the Internet: Free Speech
Considerations, by Victoria L. Killion
CRS Report R46739, Mergers and Acquisitions in Digital Markets, by Clare Y. Cho
CRS In Focus IF11692, Google and Competition: Concerns Beyond the DOJ’s Lawsuit, by Clare
Y. Cho
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10544, The Google Antitrust Lawsuit: Initial Observations, by Jay B.
Sykes
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10575, The Facebook Antitrust Lawsuits and the Future of Merger
Enforcement, by Jay B. Sykes
CRS Report R46207, Competition on the Edge of the Internet, by Clare Y. Cho
CRS Report R46543, TikTok: Technology Overview and Issues, by Patricia Moloney Figliola
Broadband Deployment and the Digital Divide
Broadband internet service is delivered through a variety of technologies and allows users to send
and receive data at volumes and speeds that support a wide range of applications. Broadband
technologies are currently being deployed throughout the United States, primarily by the private
sector. Although the overall number of broadband subscribers continues to grow, many rural,
tribal, and low-income areas are underserved—both in terms of deployment and the speed of
service—relative to higher-income urban and suburban areas. This gap is what is termed the
“digital divide.” Many policymakers, particularly in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, believe
Congressional Research Service
42
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
that disparities in broadband access may exacerbate adverse economic and social conditions for
those unable to adequately work or attend school remotely, and assert that the federal government
should play a more active role to address this gap.
The 117th Congress may consider a range of broadband-related issues as it attempts to address the
digital divide. These include continued funding for the Rural Utilities Service’s broadband
programs and oversight of the Universal Service Fund; infrastructure legislation that includes
funds and incentives for broadband buildout; the adequacy of the currently established benchmark
broadband speed; the optimal level of broadband data granularity for mapping; how new
broadband technologies may increase coverage; the role of municipalities as broadband
providers; and whether broadband should be classified as a public utility.
Support to address the digital divide could include supply-side subsidies, grants, and tax
incentives; demand-side incentives such as assistance to low-income households to obtain
broadband access and devices; and streamlining broadband deployment regulation.
For Further Information
Colby Leigh Rachfal, Analyst in Telecommunications Policy
CRS Report R46613, The Digital Divide: What Is It, Where Is It, and Federal Assistance
Programs, by Colby Leigh Rachfal and Angele A. Gilroy
CRS Report R46307, State Broadband Initiatives: Selected State and Local Approaches as
Potential Models for Federal Initiatives to Address the Digital Divide, by Colby Leigh Rachfal
CRS Report R46501, Rural Digital Opportunity Fund: Requirements and Selected Policy Issues,
by Colby Leigh Rachfal
CRS Insight IN11239, COVID-19 and Broadband: Potential Implications for the Digital Divide,
by Colby Leigh Rachfal
CRS Report R46108, Demand for Broadband in Rural Areas: Implications for Universal Access,
by Brian E. Humphreys
Deployment of the FirstNet Network
The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96) authorized the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) to allocate spectrum to public safety use. The act also
created the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet), an independent agency in the
Department of Commerce. Congress authorized FirstNet to establish a new, nationwide
broadband network for public safety, and provided $7 billion in funding for the network, to
enhance communications for public safety agencies at all levels of government.
Congress authorized FirstNet to enter into a public-private partnership to deploy the network.
Through a competitive bidding process, FirstNet selected AT&T as its partner. AT&T has been
deploying the network as specified in its contract and in state-specific plans, with 80% of the
network buildout completed. The FirstNet network supplements legacy voice systems by
providing advanced data and voice capabilities, public safety applications, and deployable assets
that can restore communications after disasters. Agencies are subscribing to and using the
network in emergencies, including the COVID-19 pandemic and wildfires. A remaining challenge
for public safety agencies is maintaining traditional land mobile radio systems, while integrating
new and emerging cellular technologies (e.g., FirstNet).
An ongoing concern for policymakers has been the transparency related to the buildout of the
FirstNet network. The FirstNet/AT&T contract and state plans contain detailed information on
Congressional Research Service
43
Science and Technology Issues in the 117th Congress
deployment; however, both are deemed proprietary and not available for public review. The
Government Accountability Office (GAO) called for a more reliable master schedule to gauge
progress; greater communication with public safety stakeholders; and measuring user satisfaction.
Additionally, some stakeholders have advocated for greater interoperability between FirstNet and
other systems. While this could increase coverage and coordination between agencies, it may also
affect the financial viability of the FirstNet network. Given the federal investment in the project
and the importance of the network, the 117th Congress may consider continuing its oversight of
FirstNet.
For Further Information
Jill Gallagher, Analyst in Telecommunications Policy
CRS Report R45179, The First Responder Network (FirstNet) and Next-Generation
Communications for Public Safety: Issues for Congress, by Jill C. Gallagher
5G Telecommunications
Wireless providers around the world are upgrading to fifth-generation (5G) telecommunications
networks to meet growing demands for mobile data and to support new applications. 5G promises
faster speeds, more bandwidth, and less lag time. 5G networks are expected to support new
services for consumers (e.g., virtual reality applications) and new systems for industrial users
(e.g., industrial control systems). When fully deployed, 5G is expected to accelerate development
of the Internet of Things (IoT)—systems of interconnected devices (e.g., smart homes, smart
factories)—and emerging technologies (e.g., remote surgery).
Many experts anticipate that 5G, like 4G, will generate significant economic gains. According to
a study by Accenture, 5G could potentially create up to 3 million U.S. jobs and increase U.S.
gross domestic product by $500 billion.
Congress has streamlined rules to speed deployment of 5G infrastructure, supported the allocation
of spectrum for 5G networks, and invested in R&D on 5G technologies. It supported policies to
ensure the security of 5G networks and to strengthen the U.S. position in the global 5G market by
supporting software-based technologies that capitalize on U.S. strengths in software development.
To address security concerns, it restricted the use of equipment made by the Chinese companies
Huawei and ZTE, supported policies encouraging allies to do the same, and authorized funding
for the replacement of Huawei equipment in U.S. networks.
The 117th Congress may continue to examine policies and programs that:
Make additional spectrum available for 5G and incentivize U.S. commercial
investment in 5G networks and technologies;
Ensure the security of global 5G networks and supply chains through policies and
programs that support the removal of untrusted 5G equipment in U.S. and
foreign networks, and promote the use of open architecture, interoperable
technologies in telecommunication networks globally
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.