# Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR47373 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** October 15, 2024 - **Citation:** R47373 ## Text Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress Updated October 15, 2024 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R47373 SUMMARY Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress The federal government supports scientific and technological advancement directly by funding and performing research and development (R&D) and indirectly by creating and maintaining policies that encourage private sector efforts. Additionally, the federal government regulates many aspects of science and technology (S&T) activities. Federal S&T support has led to scientific breakthroughs and new technologies, ranging from jet aircraft and the internet to communications satellites and defenses against disease. R47373 October 15, 2024 Nicole T. Carter, Coordinator Acting Section Research Manager Many S&T policy issues before the 118th Congress represent areas of continuing Member interest. Examples include crosscutting issues that affect scientific and technological progress, agricultural research, climate change, Department of Defense (DOD) research, earth science, space, and water. Other issues represent new or rapidly transforming areas such as biotechnology, energy, information technology and social media, financial technology, and telecommunications. Some of these S&T issue areas are described briefly below. Cross-Cutting Issues Issues that cut across multiple S&T disciplines include federal R&D funding, interagency S&T coordination, the role of patents and other intellectual property policies, and semiconductors. Agriculture The federal government funds billions of dollars of agricultural research annually. The 118th Congress may consider issues related to funding this research. Climate Change S&T considerations permeate deliberations on climate change topics: climate-change-related science and the ocean-climate nexus, decarbonizing the railroads, and carbon capture and sequestration. Biotechnology and Biomedical Research Recent advances in biotechnology and biomedical research hold the promise of longer and healthier lives and more productive industry while raising policy challenges. Some issues that the 118th Congress may face include those relating to the National Institutes of Health; the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology; oversight of engineering biology; regulation of laboratory-developed tests; monitoring of environmental DNA and RNA; and the convergence of biotechnology, digital data, robotics, and artificial intelligence. Defense Research and Development DOD relies on a robust R&D effort to develop new military systems and improve existing systems. Issues before the 118th Congress regarding DOD’s S&T activities include budgetary concerns and the effectiveness of programs to transition R&D results into fielded products and how DOD encourages innovation. Energy, Minerals, and Mining S&T issues related to energy, minerals, and mining that may come before the 118th Congress include biofuels, electricity transmission, offshore energy technologies, hydrogen, hydrogen pipelines, critical minerals and materials, and various types of mining technologies. Earth Sciences Earth-science-related issues before the 118th Congress include changes to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s S&T activities and improvements to weather observations, modeling, and forecasting. Congressional Research Service Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress Financial Technology Financial technology, or fintech, refers to a broad set of technologies being deployed across a variety of financial industries and activities, including those related to cryptocurrency, investor applications, and consumer finance applications. Information Technology and Social Media Rapid advancements in information technologies present several issues for congressional policymakers, including those related to artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, Big Tech and online platforms, social media, consumer data privacy, children on the internet, quantum information S&T, law enforcement use of information technologies and social media, and biometric technologies. Space and Aviation Congress has a strong interest in space policy and aviation issues. Issues before the 118th Congress include the funding and oversight of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the commercialization of space, Earth-observing satellites, and law enforcement use of drones. Telecommunications Telecommunications technologies present several issues for policymakers, including those related to 5G technologies, broadband deployment and the digital divide, undersea cables, federal spectrum auctions and allocations, and Federal Communications Commission and National Telecommunications and Information Administration spectrum programs. Water, Accessibility, and Use Water research and technology topics include issues relating to water data and aquatic ecosystem information, water infrastructure and water use, and water quality. Congressional Research Service Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1 Cross-Cutting Issues ........................................................................................................................ 1 Federal Funding for Research and Development ...................................................................... 1 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy ........................................................... 2 Federal Efforts to Boost Regional Innovation ........................................................................... 3 Commercializing the Results of Federal Research and Development Investments .................. 4 Patents and Innovation Policy ................................................................................................... 5 Intellectual Property (IP) Law ................................................................................................... 6 The U.S.-China Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement........................................... 7 China’s Science, Technology, and Industrial Policies ............................................................... 8 R&D Security ............................................................................................................................ 9 Semiconductors and the CHIPS Act.......................................................................................... 9 Agriculture......................................................................................................................................11 Agricultural Research Funding ................................................................................................11 Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology .............................................................................. 12 Biotechnology and Biomedical Research ...................................................................................... 13 National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Biomedical Research ............................................... 13 Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) .................................................. 14 Interoperability and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) ............................................................................................................... 15 Oversight of Engineering Biology .......................................................................................... 15 Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests (LDTs) ................................................................ 16 DNA as Data ........................................................................................................................... 17 Convergence of Biotechnology, Digital Data, Robotics, and Artificial Intelligence .............. 17 Climate Change ............................................................................................................................. 19 Climate-Change-Related Science and the Ocean-Climate Nexus ........................................... 19 Decarbonizing the Railroads ................................................................................................... 20 Carbon Capture and Sequestration .......................................................................................... 20 Defense Research and Development ............................................................................................. 21 Department of Defense (DOD) Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation...................... 21 DOD Innovation Capacity....................................................................................................... 22 Energy, Minerals, and Mining ....................................................................................................... 23 Biofuels ................................................................................................................................... 23 Electricity Transmission .......................................................................................................... 24 Offshore Energy Technologies ................................................................................................ 24 Hydrogen ................................................................................................................................. 25 Hydrogen Pipelines ................................................................................................................. 26 Fusion Energy ......................................................................................................................... 27 Critical Minerals and Materials ............................................................................................... 29 Land-Based Mining and Mineral Processing .......................................................................... 29 Seabed Mining ........................................................................................................................ 30 Earth Sciences ............................................................................................................................... 31 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Organic Act and S&T Activities .............................................................................................................................. 31 Weather-Related Science and Technology .............................................................................. 32 Congressional Research Service Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress Financial Technology, or “Fintech” ............................................................................................... 32 Cryptocurrency ........................................................................................................................ 33 Investment Activities ............................................................................................................... 33 Consumer Products ................................................................................................................. 34 Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Finance ....................................................... 35 Information Technology and Social Media ................................................................................... 36 Artificial Intelligence .............................................................................................................. 36 Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law .............................................................. 37 Cybersecurity .......................................................................................................................... 38 Big Tech and Online Platforms ............................................................................................... 39 Social Media Platforms ........................................................................................................... 40 Consumer Data Privacy........................................................................................................... 41 Children on the Internet .......................................................................................................... 41 Quantum Information Science and Technology ...................................................................... 42 Evolving Technology and the Debate over “Lawful Access” ................................................. 43 Federal Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition Technology ......................................... 44 Law Enforcement Use of Social Media .................................................................................. 44 Immigration: Biometric Entry-Exit System ............................................................................ 45 Web Accessibility .................................................................................................................... 46 Space and Aviation ........................................................................................................................ 46 NASA ...................................................................................................................................... 47 Commercial Space .................................................................................................................. 48 Civil Earth-Observing Satellites.............................................................................................. 49 Law Enforcement Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems .......................................................... 50 Telecommunications ...................................................................................................................... 51 5G Telecommunications Technologies.................................................................................... 51 Broadband Deployment and the Digital Divide ...................................................................... 52 Undersea Telecommunication Cables ..................................................................................... 53 FCC Spectrum Allocation and Interference Concerns ............................................................ 54 NTIA Federal Spectrum Issues ............................................................................................... 55 Water Availability, Accessibility, and Use ..................................................................................... 56 Water Data and Aquatic Ecosystem Information .................................................................... 56 Water Infrastructure and Water Use ........................................................................................ 57 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................... 58 Contacts Author Information........................................................................................................................ 59 Congressional Research Service Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress Introduction The federal science and technology (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. Not only are congressional authorities related to S&T policymaking diffuse, but also 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 (E.O.s) 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, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF). 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 breakup of AT&T in the 1980s), and the admissibility of S&T-related evidence (e.g., DNA samples). CRS experts have identified the issues below as particularly relevant to the 118th Congress. Each section serves as a brief introduction to the topic and identifies other CRS products and the appropriate CRS experts to contact for further information and analysis. Cross-Cutting Issues This section discusses issues that cut across multiple S&T disciplines. It addresses federal R&D funding, interagency S&T coordination, and federal efforts to boost regional innovation. It also addresses issues relating to the commercialization of results of federal R&D investments, the role of patents and other intellectual property (IP) policies, China’s S&T and industrial policies, and the security of U.S. research. 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 Congressional Research Service 1 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress 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 $155.0 billion in FY2017. A change in R&D accounting by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to exclude certain late-stage development activities—primarily at the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)—from total federal R&D calculations obscures comparison of funding levels for FY2018 and later years with funding from before FY2018. As calculated by OMB, current dollar federal R&D funding was $135.8 billion in FY2018 and has risen annually to an estimated $194.6 billion in FY2024. Concerns by some about the adequacy of U.S. 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 (reaching an all-time high in 2022)—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 S&T. As the 118th 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. The CHIPS and Science Act (P.L. 117-167) authorized increases in the budgets of several leading federal R&D agencies, though the realization of these authorization levels still requires appropriations. Conversely, 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 Laurie Harris, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy CRS Video WVB00700, FY2025 Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding CRS Video WVB00604, Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding in President Biden’s FY2024 Budget CRS Report R47564, Federal Research and Development (R&D) Funding: FY2024 White House Office of Science and Technology Policy Congress has a long-standing interest in the development and implementation of S&T policies across the federal government as well as the effective coordination of multiagency R&D initiatives. To ensure a permanent source of S&T-related advice and policy coordination within the White House, Congress established OSTP within the Executive Office of the President through the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-282). Congressional Research Service 2 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress In addition to OSTP, the White House S&T advisory structure includes two councils, for which OSTP provides operational and administrative support: the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST). Established in 1993 by E.O. 12881, the NSTC is composed of representatives from departments and agencies with significant S&T responsibilities and is charged with coordinating S&T policy across the federal government. Established in 1990 by E.O. 12700, PCAST is an independent Federal Advisory Committee composed of external experts who advise the President on matters involving policy affecting science, technology, and innovation as well as on matters involving S&T information needed to inform public policy in other areas. OSTP is statutorily charged with advising the President on S&T matters; coordinating the implementation of S&T priorities across the federal government; and engaging with external partners in industry, academia, civil society organizations, and other governmental bodies. Accordingly, several issues related to the activities and focus of OSTP (as well as the advisory bodies it supports, the NSTC and PCAST) are of potential interest to the Congress, including staffing practices and potential conflict-of-interest concerns, workplace culture and past congressional oversight activity, persistent vacancies of Senate-confirmed leadership positions within OSTP, the stature and influence of PCAST, and the efficacy of federal S&T coordination efforts. For example, Congress has charged the NSTC with specific statutory duties related to the coordination of multiagency R&D initiatives. The 118th Congress might consider the efficacy of NSTC coordination efforts in the congressionally mandated areas of quantum information science and artificial intelligence (AI) R&D. In doing so, Congress may consider issues and options related to potential resource constraints as well as the adequacy of the NSTC’s organization and current authorities to maintain continuity across presidential Administrations. For Further Information Emily G. Blevins, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy CRS Report R47635, The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy: Issues and Options for the 118th Congress CRS Report R47410, The Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP): Overview and Issues for Congress CRS Video WVB00602, The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy: Issues for the 118th Congress Federal Efforts to Boost Regional Innovation The geographic concentration of interconnected companies and institutions in a specific industry can provide opportunities to leverage talent, infrastructure, supply chains, and other spillover effects that are advantageous to companies and economic growth. For decades, state, local, and regional stakeholders have pursued cross-sector, multidisciplinary approaches to economic development through the facilitation of such industry clusters. Industry clusters are generally designed to address structural or institutional challenges related to entrepreneurship and innovation, access to capital, infrastructure, and workforce needs and may be implemented in concert with programs that provide direct assistance to individual firms. Research suggests that firms in innovation-based industries particularly benefit from the advantages of a regional innovation ecosystem, including more quickly understanding consumer demand and access to feedback from other entrepreneurs. Congressional Research Service 3 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress Recent executive and legislative branch actions indicate increased federal interest and support for regional innovation efforts. For example, Congress required the establishment of several new regional innovation programs in the CHIPS and Science Act (P.L. 117-167), including the Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs Program at the Economic Development Administration (EDA), the Regional Innovation Engines Program at NSF, and the Regional Clean Energy Innovation Program at the Department of Energy (DOE). EDA and NSF have started making awards under their programs and initial projects and activities are beginning. The 118th Congress may examine the implementation of these new programs, including the coordination of federal programs and place-based resources; the scale, scope, and duration of federal involvement; the long-term sustainability of supported efforts; ensuring inclusive innovation and economic growth; and institutional capacity-building and small business engagement, among others. A related congressional issue may be the level of funding needed for both new and existing regional innovation programs. For Further Information Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy Julie M. Lawhorn, Analyst in Economic Development Policy Adam G. Levin, Analyst in Economic Development Policy Emily G. Blevins, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy CRS Report R47495, Regional Innovation: Federal Programs and Issues for Consideration Commercializing the Results of Federal Research and Development Investments Inventions resulting from research conducted at federally owned laboratories or with federal funding (e.g., research grants) often have application beyond the scope and goals of the original research. Without further investment and sufficient private sector incentives, however, the potential commercial value of federally funded inventions may not be fully realized. Current mechanisms to encourage the commercialization of federal R&D results are governed by two main pieces of legislation from the 1980s, as amended: the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (35 U.S.C. §§3710 et seq.) and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 (35 U.S.C. §§200 et seq.). Significant changes in the global S&T landscape, economic conditions, and national security posture have led some policymakers and analysts to ask whether aspects of these laws may need reevaluation. For example, critics point to loopholes in the Bayh-Dole Act’s “Preference for U.S. Industry” provision (35 U.S.C. §204) that have allowed federally owned IP and covered inventions to be manufactured abroad. These critics argue that the ability of competitor nations to access U.S.-developed technology—especially emerging technologies—poses an economic and national security threat. Proponents of maintaining the current laws argue that exceptions that permit foreign manufacturing when U.S. industry is unable to meet production demands are beneficial. They also maintain that additional restrictions placed on the licensing and manufacturing of federally funded inventions could reduce incentives for the private sector to commercialize federal R&D. When considering how best to encourage the commercialization of federally funded research, the 118th Congress may consider increased oversight to ensure agency enforcement of existing U.S. Congressional Research Service 4 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress manufacturing requirements and whether to enact statutory changes to existing requirements. Congress might also consider whether digital products that result from work at federal laboratories should be eligible for copyright and whether current requirements for invention disclosure and utilization reporting are adequate for assessing the success of commercialization efforts. For Further Information Emily G. Blevins, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy CRS In Focus IF12582, March-In Rights Under the Bayh-Dole Act: Draft Guidance Patents and Innovation Policy The U.S. patent system is designed to encourage scientific and technological innovation by offering a limited-time monopoly on an invention in exchange for its public disclosure. The 118th Congress, when considering approaches to encouraging innovation and economic growth, may choose to address certain aspects of patent policy, including patent subject matter eligibility standards, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and inventor diversity. Patent subject matter eligibility standards determine the types of inventions that may be patented and may significantly influence innovation incentives. In the wake of a series of Supreme Court decisions that restricted patent eligibility, stakeholders in the biotechnology and computer software industries (among others) have argued that uncertainty over patent eligibility in their fields has reduced investment and inhibited innovation. In response, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued new guidance to patent examiners clarifying how to apply subject matter eligibility standards. Bills have been introduced in the 118th Congress to change statutory eligibility standards and abrogate Supreme Court decisions (e.g., H.R. 8134, §7, and S. 2140). In 2011, Congress created PTAB, an administrative body within USPTO, as a way to improve patent quality. PTAB proceedings often provide a faster and less expensive forum in which to challenge the validity of issued patents than federal court litigation. Some stakeholders argue that PTAB offers a fair and efficient means to adjudicate patent validity issues, but others contend that the process is biased against patent holders. Several hearings were held in the 117th and 118th Congresses on PTAB, and a number of bills were introduced in the 118th Congress that sought to reform or eliminate PTAB processes (e.g., S. 2140 and H.R. 8134, §5). USPTO does not track patent inventors’ demographic information. If collected through patent applications, such data could potentially assist policymakers in assessing the existence or scope of potential systematic inequities embedded in the patent system that might inhibit innovation. Some critics of collecting this information raise concerns about privacy violations. For Further Information Emily G. Blevins, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy Kevin J. Hickey, Legislative Attorney CRS Report R48016, The Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Inter Partes Review CRS Video WVB00690, The Patent Trial and Appeal Board: Legal Developments and Proposed Reforms CRS In Focus IF12582, March-In Rights Under the Bayh-Dole Act: Draft Guidance Congressional Research Service 5 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress CRS In Focus IF12563, Patent-Eligible Subject Matter Reform: An Overview Intellectual Property (IP) Law IP rights, including patents and copyrights, play a critical role in encouraging innovation, creativity, and the dissemination of knowledge. Many areas of IP law may be of interest to the 118th Congress. In addition to the general innovation policy issues discussed above (see “Patents and Innovation Policy”), a key emerging area concerns the interaction between AI and IP, which is discussed separately below (“Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Law”). While patents are important to many industries, they play a particularly critical role in the pharmaceutical industry. While some stakeholders argue that robust patent rights are necessary to support costly R&D for new drugs, others argue that patents can unduly delay or deter generic competition and contribute to higher drug prices. Several bills in the 118th Congress seek to reduce drug prices by limiting certain alleged pharmaceutical patenting practices, such as “product hopping,” “patent thickets,” or “pay-for-delay” settlements (e.g., H.R. 6275, H.R. 6436, S. 142, S. 150, and S. 3583). Other bills seek to facilitate coordination between USPTO and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on pharmaceutical patents (e.g., H.R. 1717, S. 79, and S. 2780) or increase generic drug companies’ ability to challenge patent information that may affect FDA approval of generic drugs (S. 1128). Copyrights grant authors of original creative works (e.g., books, music, computer code, and visual art) the exclusive right to reproduce, perform, and sell their works. Two significant copyright reforms were implemented during the 117th Congress. The Music Modernization Act, which changed the copyright licensing process for online distribution of musical works, came into full effect in January 2021. The Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement Act of 2020 established the Copyright Claims Board as a small-value copyright claims administrative tribunal, which began hearing claims in 2022. In addition to bills relating to AI (discussed separately below), copyright bills introduced in the 118th Congress include proposed reforms to copyright in technical standards incorporated by reference into law (H.R. 1631 and S. 835) and music licensing (e.g., H.R. 5576 and H.R. 7763), including whether broadcast radio should pay royalties to play sound recordings (e.g., H.Con.Res. 13, H.R. 791, S.Con.Res. 5, and S. 253). As to trademarks—another area of federal IP—the 117th Congress saw increased efforts to combat fraudulent trademarks through USPTO regulations implementing the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020. Trademark bills in the 118th Congress include proposals to reduce the availability of counterfeit goods on online platforms (S. 2934) and strengthen the U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s authority to prevent the importation of counterfeit goods (S. 3431). For Further Information Kevin J. Hickey, Legislative Attorney CRS Video WVB00567, Introduction to Intellectual Property Law CRS Report R46679, The Role of Patents and Regulatory Exclusivities in Drug Pricing CRS In Focus IF12700, “Skinny Labels” for Generic Drugs Under Hatch-Waxman CRS In Focus IF12644, Patent Listing in FDA’s Orange Book CRS In Focus IF12582, March-In Rights Under the Bayh-Dole Act: Draft Guidance CRS Report R47656, Copyright in Standards Incorporated by Reference into Law and the Pro Codes Act Congressional Research Service 6 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress CRS Report R47642, On the Radio: Public Performance Rights in Sound Recordings CRS In Focus IF12456, An Introduction to Trademark Law in the United States The U.S.-China Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement For more than 45 years, the United States has engaged with the People’s Republic of China in joint R&D activities under the U.S.-China Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement (STA), the first major agreement between the United States and the People’s Republic of China that was signed in 1979. The STA was a part of U.S. strategy at the time to build ties with China to counter the influence of the Soviet Union. During the 1980s and 1990s, U.S. strategy shifted and S&T ties became part of a broader U.S. effort to integrate China into the global system and influence its development trajectory and behavior. More recent efforts have focused on areas such as health, energy, and environmental technologies. Since its inception, U.S. views and strategy toward China have been shifting to protect and advance U.S. interests vis-à-vis China as a strategic competitor. STA proponents and critics both say that the current STA does not reflect these shifts or U.S. concerns about China’s S&T practices and industrial policies. Some say the STA does not address China’s growing research and technological capabilities and increasingly restrictive and risky operating environment for cross-border research. The United States has used the U.S.-China STA as a tool to deepen diplomatic ties, address global challenges, and advance science. Advocates say it guides U.S. S&T work with China without mandating activity; provides access and protections for U.S. scientists in China, including in the social sciences (where access has been more restricted); and benefits U.S. researchers by providing access to large pools of research subjects and longitudinal health studies. China’s cooperation has not been consistent, however, as Beijing developed domestic S&T competencies and has sought to restrict U.S. researcher access in certain areas. STA critics say that China is an unreliable or untrustworthy research partner, citing data restrictions and a lack of forthrightness in sharing scientific results. The STA was to be renewed every five years, subject to modification or extension by the parties. The STA was last extended on June 27, 2018, and was amended to address U.S. concerns about China’s approach to technology, innovation, and practices of concern (e.g., lax IP enforcement, IP theft, and forced technology transfer). Just before the STA was to lapse on August 27, 2023, the Biden Administration said it would extend renewal for six months to determine how to proceed. On February 24, 2024, the two sides agreed to another six-month extension to negotiate renewal terms. Congress might consider its oversight role with regard to the STA and any U.S. STA-related activities and negotiations with China. U.S. options regarding the U.S.-China STA (not mutually exclusive) include (a) renew the U.S.-China STA as is; (b) renew the STA and modify STA subagreements; (c) modify and renew the STA; (d) significantly rework and renegotiate the STA; (e) let the STA expire; (f) shift focus to deepen other STAs (e.g., with Europe, Japan, and others); and (g) work with allies and partners to develop a common approach to S&T work, in general and with regard to China, specifically. Experts debate the extent to which canceling the STA would affect U.S.-China S&T ties, including sub-agreements and federally funded research. Renegotiating the STA might or might not address specific concerns that Congress could address through legislation. It could allow Washington, but also Beijing, to set new terms. Congress might consider its preferred role in overseeing the U.S.-China STA and its negotiation. The STA is not a treaty requiring Senate ratification. Congressional Research Service 7 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress For Further Information Karen M. Sutter, Specialist in Asian Trade and Finance Emily Blevins, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy CRS In Focus IF12510, U.S.-China Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement CRS In Focus IF10964, “Made in China 2025” Industrial Policies: Issues for Congress China’s Science, Technology, and Industrial Policies China’s state-led industrial and related S&T policies aim to create competitive advantages for China in strategic and emerging industries, in part by accessing basic and applied research, technology, talent, and training from the United States and U.S. allies. The Chinese government says it is pursuing a policy of technology independence, but its approach involves sustaining and expanding its access to U.S. and foreign technology, capabilities, research, and talent. China’s Medium- and Long-Term Plan in Science in Technology (2006-2020) set technological innovation as the core driver of China’s development, a focus that was reinforced at the Communist Party of China’s 20th Party Congress. China’s process of indigenous innovation involves the acquisition, assessment, distribution, absorption, and adaptation of foreign technology that China rebrands as indigenous Chinese capabilities. China’s Made in China 2025 industrial policies aim to establish China’s leadership in emerging technologies that are critical to future commercial, government, and military capabilities. Priority areas include advanced manufacturing, aerospace, AI, information technology (IT), new materials, robotics, and semiconductors. China’s military-civil fusion program seeks to leverage these Made in China 2025 technological advancements for military development. China’s 14th Five-Year Plan (FYP) for 2021-2025 and Economic Goals out to 2035 prioritizes leveraging global basic research to support China’s development of indigenous capabilities in strategic technologies. China is focusing on currently unrestricted pathways, such as U.S. basic and applied research and open-source technology platforms. China has incentivized some of its citizens to participate in U.S. research to acquire capabilities in targeted areas that support China’s goals. China is also encouraging domestic firms to establish R&D centers overseas to access foreign technical knowledge and capabilities and is offering incentives for leading foreign S&T experts to work in China. China’s industrial and S&T policies have been a U.S. policy focus because of the asymmetrical tactics that China has used to implement them. U.S. law enforcement and counterintelligence agencies have highlighted China’s use of forced or incentivized technology transfer, industrial subsidies, licensing and joint venture requirements, state-directed cyber intrusions and IP theft, and government-funded acquisitions of foreign firms in strategic sectors. These issues are likely to remain a key area of focus in the 118th Congress as China seeks to sustain and expand its access to U.S. innovation and S&T capabilities. For Further Information Karen M. Sutter, Specialist in Asian Trade and Finance Michael D. Sutherland, Analyst in International Trade and Finance CRS In Focus IF12510, U.S.-China Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement CRS Report R47558, Semiconductors and the CHIPS Act: The Global Context Congressional Research Service 8 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress CRS In Focus IF12473, U.S.-China Competition in Emerging Technologies: LiDAR CRS In Focus IF11667, China’s Economy: Current Trends and Issues 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, collaboration, and information sharing. When broadly disseminating certain research results involves releasing proprietary information or presents potential national security concerns, however, access to such results may be restricted. For example, relevant federal restrictions may include classification and the use of 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 (DOC) 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 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. Some Members have been concerned with co-option of U.S. citizen researchers through foreign talent recruitment programs (e.g., 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. Congress has considered 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 118th 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 Emily G. Blevins, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy Karen M. Sutter, Specialist in Asian Trade and Finance Jill H. Wilson, Analyst in Immigration Policy CRS In Focus IF12589, Research Security Policies: An Overview CRS Infographic IG10039, Foreign Students: Screening and Monitoring Semiconductors and the CHIPS Act Semiconductors (also known as integrated circuits, microelectronic chips, or computer chips) are tiny electronic devices (based primarily on silicon or germanium) composed of billions of Congressional Research Service 9 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress components that can process, store, sense, and move data or signals. Semiconductors are a uniquely important enabling technology, fundamental to nearly all modern industrial and national security activities, as well as essential building blocks of other emerging technologies, such as AI, autonomous systems, and quantum computing. The federal government and U.S. companies pioneered semiconductor development throughout the 1960s and 1970s, and the United States led the world in semiconductor manufacturing. A variety of factors subsequently led to a concentration of semiconductor manufacturing in East Asia. These factors included other nations subsidizing the construction and operation of semiconductor fabrication facilities (fabs), lowering of operating costs abroad, outsourcing of manufacturing by semiconductor design firms that previously manufactured their own chips, and a preference for being physically proximate to electronics business clusters in the region. Policymakers became increasingly concerned about the potential implications of this trend for economic and national security reasons, and noted the risks associated with ensuring an adequate supply of semiconductors resulting from potential disruption of East Asian manufacturing and shipping due to trade disputes, natural hazards, or armed conflict. The COVID-19 pandemic and consequent interruption of semiconductor supplies to the United States—and the subsequent effects on U.S.-based industries—bolstered these concerns. U.S. overreliance on semiconductor production in East Asia and its vulnerability to disruption has been an ongoing source of concern for many Members of Congress. To address these concerns, Congress enacted the William M. (Mac) Thornberry National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 (P.L. 116-283), which authorized an incentive program for building and equipping semiconductor fabs in the United States, as well as R&D activities to support U.S. leadership in semiconductor technology. In July 2022, Congress enacted the CHIPS and Science Act (P.L. 117-167), which President Biden signed into law in August 2022. The CHIPS Act of 2022 (Division A of P.L. 117-167) establishes and appropriates $39.0 billion to a CHIPS for America Fund to bolster semiconductor manufacturing capacity in the United States by providing financial incentives for building, expanding, and equipping domestic fabrication facilities and companies in the semiconductor supply chain. The fund also provides $11.0 billion for semiconductor R&D activities at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and in partnership with U.S. industry through a National Semiconductor Technology Center, a National Advanced Packaging Manufacturing Program, and the establishment of up to three Manufacturing USA institutes. P.L. 117-167 also provided appropriations for three additional funds that seek to bolster U.S. semiconductor capabilities for national defense, workforce development, and international cooperation. The 118th Congress may continue to oversee the implementation of these provisions to assess whether incentives awards comply with statutory requirements related to the labor policies of recipient companies and national security provisions, among others. It also may evaluate what impact, if any, these programs have had on U.S. semiconductor manufacturing and workforce development. For Further Information Emily Blevins, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy Karen M. Sutter, Specialist in Asian Trade and Finance CRS Report R47508, Semiconductors and the Semiconductor Industry CRS Report R47523, Frequently Asked Questions: CHIPS Act of 2022 Provisions and Implementation CRS Report R47558, Semiconductors and the CHIPS Act: The Global Context Congressional Research Service 10 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress CRS Video WVB00705, Science and Technology Q&A: CHIPS for America: Technology or Industrial Policy? CRS Video WVB00589, Science and Technology Q&A: Semiconductors and the CHIPS Act of 2022 CRS Report WPD00105, Science and Technology Q&A: CHIPS for America: Technology or Industrial Policy? CRS Report WPD00059, Science and Technology Podcast: Semiconductors and the CHIPS Act of 2022 Agriculture The federal government funds billions of dollars of agricultural research annually. The 118th Congress may consider issues related to funding agriculture that is conducted at research agencies within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) or the research conducted in partnership with the land-grant institutions throughout the nation. Agricultural Research Funding The USDA Research, Education, and Economics (REE) mission area consists of four agencies: the Agricultural Research Service, the Economic Research Service, the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the National Institute of Food and Agriculture. Additionally, REE’s Office of the Chief Scientist coordinates research programs and activities across the department. REE has the primary federal responsibility for advancing scientific knowledge about agriculture. Its agencies conduct and fund research that spans the biological, physical, and social sciences broadly related to agriculture, food, and natural resources. Congress provided the REE mission area programs and activities approximately $3.9 billion in FY2024 discretionary appropriations through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-42) and authorized approximately $122 million of mandatory funding per year through the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill; P.L. 115-334). USDA directs nearly half of this federal funding to states and local partners, primarily through grants. The most recent farm bill (P.L. 115-334), enacted in December 2018, reauthorizes many existing USDA research and education programs, and authorizes new programs, through FY2023. The 2018 farm bill expired in 2023. Congress extended it by one year through the Further Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-22). Congress extended the authorization for discretionary funding and provided mandatory funding for existing research programs by one year through the Further Continuing Appropriations and Other Extensions Act, 2024 (P.L. 118-22), until September 30, 2024. The continuing resolution for FY2025 through December 20, 2024 (P.L. 118-83), continues discretionary funding temporarily but did not extend the farm bill or its mandatory funding. Without another extension of the farm bill, authority to operate the Organic Research and Extension Initiative that has mandatory funding and future mandatory funding for three programs without baseline will expire. While the 118th Congress is considering a new multiyear farm bill reauthorization, another extension, or expiration, it may also consider establishing new REE programs or initiatives, revising existing efforts, or eliminating some programs. For Further Information Eleni G. Bickell, Analyst in Agricultural Policy Congressional Research Service 11 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress CRS Report R48071, The Agricultural Cooperative Extension System: An Overview Regulation of Agricultural Biotechnology The 118th Congress may continue to oversee USDA’s implementation of regulations related to the labeling of bioengineered foods and the regulation of agricultural biotechnology. As plants and animals that are developed with new biotechnology tools become more common, Congress may consider whether to revisit the 1986 Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology that governs U.S. biotechnology regulation. In 2016, Congress enacted P.L. 114-216, requiring the establishment of a national standard for the mandatory labeling of foods containing bioengineered or genetically engineered ingredients. USDA finalized its National Bioengineered Food Disclosure Standard regulations in 2018, and mandatory compliance began in January 2022. However, in September 2022, a U.S. district court remanded two provisions in USDA’s regulation that allow genetically engineered foods to be labeled only with an electronic or digital disclosure (QR code) and allow text message disclosure on packaging without requiring additional on-package labeling (7 C.F.R. §§66.106 and 66.108). As a result, USDA is expected to revise these specific provisions while the broader labeling requirements remain in effect. New biotechnology tools, such as gene editing technologies, updates to USDA plant biotechnology regulations, and a proposed change in the regulation of genetically engineered agricultural animals have sparked concerns among some stakeholders. In 2020, USDA finalized the SECURE Rule for the regulation of genetically engineered organisms under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. §§7701 et seq.), exempting certain engineered plants from regulation due to low plant pest risk. While some viewed this as supportive of innovation, others criticized it for lacking oversight. USDA also has proposed transferring regulation of genetically engineered agricultural animals from FDA to USDA. In 2021, the two agencies signed a memorandum of understanding outlining collaborative regulatory frameworks, pre-market evaluations, and post-market monitoring for genetically engineered animals, with each agency having specific roles based on their authorities to ensure the safe and efficient entry of genetically engineered species into the market. Congress may 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. Congress may also examine the implementation of E.O. 14081, “Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy,” intended to enhance coordination and communication between federal regulatory agencies and stakeholders to facilitate the development and commercialization of biotechnology products, including agricultural ones. For Further Information Eleni G. Bickell, Analyst in Agricultural Policy CRS Report R47683, Gene-Edited Plants: Regulation and Issues for Congress CRS In Focus IF11573, USDA’s SECURE Rule to Regulate Agricultural Biotechnology CRS Video WVB00713, Science and Technology Q&A: Gene Editing in Agriculture Congressional Research Service 12 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress Biotechnology and Biomedical Research Recent advances in biotechnology and biomedical research hold the promise of longer and healthier lives and more productive industry while raising policy challenges. Some issues that the 118th Congress may face include those relating to the National Institutes of Health (NIH); oversight of engineering biology; regulation of laboratory-developed tests; monitoring of environmental deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA); and the convergence of biotechnology, digital data, robotics, and AI. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Biomedical Research NIH, based in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is the lead federal agency for medical and health research. In FY2023, NIH used its over $47 billion budget to support more than 300,000 scientists and research personnel working at over 2,800 institutions across the United States and abroad, as well as to conduct research at its own facilities. The agency consists of the Office of the Director, in charge of overall policy and program coordination, and 27 Institutes and Centers, each of which focuses on particular diseases or research areas in human health. NIH represents about one-fifth of total federal R&D spending, and close to half of nonDOD R&D funding. Congress last reauthorized and comprehensively addressed NIH policy and programs through the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 (Cures Act, P.L. 114-255). Some Cures Act NIH authorizations have since expired, for example, the Cancer Moonshot initiative authorization expired in FY2023. The Cancer Moonshot was originally established with the broad goal of making a decade’s worth of scientific progress in preventing and treating cancer in just five years. In 2022, President Biden announced a “reignited” Cancer Moonshot effort focused on a broad set of health strategies in addition to research. It remains to be seen whether and how Congress might formally authorize or fund this new effort. In the 118th Congress, some Members have focused on research security issues at NIH (e.g., NIH’s support for risky research on pathogens, including “gain-of-function” research, as well as NIH’s funding for research involving institutions or foreign nationals of countries of concern). The PREVENT Pandemics Act (P.L. 117-328, Division FF, Title II), enacted in December 2022, included several provisions requiring HHS and NIH to develop policies that address security risks associated with funded research. In addition, leaders in committees of jurisdiction in both the House and the Senate have published reports on potential NIH reform, with House committee leaders proposing major structural reforms at the agency. Other NIH issues during the 118th Congress include • • • • the balance of NIH’s research portfolio with respect to disease and health areas as well as types of research (e.g., basic, translational, and clinical), NIH’s relationship with the new Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H), the affordability of pharmaceutical drugs based on NIH-funded research or IP, and animal use in NIH-funded research and associated scientific and ethical concerns. For Further Information Kavya Sekar, Analyst in Health Policy Congressional Research Service 13 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress CRS Report R43341, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding: FY1996-FY2025 CRS In Focus IF12504, The Cancer Moonshot: Overview and Issues CRS In Focus IF12002, Animal Use in Federal Biomedical Research: A Policy Overview CRS Insight IN12173, Expired and Expiring National Institutes of Health (NIH) Provisions CRS Report R47649, PREVENT Pandemics Act (P.L. 117-328, Division FF, Title II) Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H) ARPA-H aims to advance high-potential, high-impact biomedical and health research that cannot be readily accomplished through traditional research or commercial activity. ARPA-H is an independent agency housed within NIH that was first funded in FY2022 and then codified as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328). ARPA-H responds to concerns that traditional health research funding processes are too risk averse—favoring incremental advances over potentially transformative research. ARPA-H is modeled after other “ARPAs” in the federal government, especially the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. The “ARPA model” involves an organizational structure designed to be flat and nimble, staffed by tenure-limited program managers with a high degree of autonomy to select and fund research projects using a milestone-based contract approach. There are uncertainties around how well the ARPA model will work in the health and biomedical research context. Prior policy debates surrounding ARPA-H focused in large part on where to place the new agency within HHS and how to ensure its independence. In March 2022, the HHS Secretary chose to place ARPA-H within NIH, with the ARPA-H Director reporting directly to the HHS Secretary. ARPA-H was statutorily authorized in December 2022 through the PREVENT Pandemics Act (P.L. 117-328, Division FF, Title II), which codified this organizational structure. ARPA-H began establishing its programs and issued its first announcement for funding proposals in 2023. Congress has thus far provided ARPA-H with over $4 billion in multiyear appropriations. As ARPA-H continues to develop its programs, ongoing oversight issues for Congress include the following: • • • • • Are ARPA-H’s programs and focus areas in line with congressional intent for the new agency? Is ARPA-H able to recruit people with the appropriate talent and expertise as program managers? How is ARPA-H avoiding duplication and ensuring collaboration with other agencies that fund health research? What processes and policies are ARPA-H putting into place to facilitate eventual broader implementation of ARPA-H-supported innovations? What does success look like for ARPA-H in the short, medium, and long term? For Further Information Kavya Sekar, Analyst in Health Policy CRS Report R47568, Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health (ARPA-H): Overview and Selected Issues Congressional Research Service 14 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress Interoperability and the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) Information technology (IT) takes many forms and is increasingly used in health care contexts to improve, and make more efficient, patient care. Numerous federal initiatives have facilitated and incentivized this transition, including the establishment of ONC, codified by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act of 2009 (HITECH Act; P.L. 1115). ONC is a federal staff division within HHS and is in part tasked with advancing nationwide health IT (HIT) interoperability, or essentially, the capability of different HITs to communicate with one another and meaningfully exchange and use data. Some topics in the ONC HIT sphere that may be of particular interest to the 118th Congress include AI, data protection, and efforts to extend interoperability nationwide and across different categories of health data. ONC promotes interoperability in numerous ways. For example, ONC develops voluntary federal standards for HIT under its Health IT Certification Program (Certification Program). In December 2023, ONC operationalized the Trusted Exchange Framework and Common Agreement (TEFCA). TEFCA in part intends to facilitate the connection of different hubs, or health information exchanges (HIEs), across the country. Thus, TEFCA’s operationalization is meant to continue expanding interoperability and the trusted exchange of digital health information nationwide. As innovative HIT emerges, ONC has taken a key federal role in developing regulations for these novel technologies. On January 9, 2024, ONC published a final rule, entitled Health Data, Technology, and Interoperability: Certification Program Updates, Algorithm Transparency, and Information Sharing (HTI-1), in the Federal Register. Among other things, this rule further develops ONC policy regarding algorithm transparency, including as it relates to AI, in HIT contexts. Under this rule, ONC-certified health IT modules that contain AI and other predictive algorithms must provide clinical users access to consistent, baseline information, in part to better inform users’ selections of appropriate tools. For Further Information Nora Wells, Analyst in Health Policy CRS In Focus IF12352, The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) Oversight of Engineering Biology Engineering biology is the application of engineering principles and the use of systematic design tools to enable the reprogramming of living cells at the genetic level for a specific functional output. As the field of engineering biology is developing rapidly, distinctions are not always clear among engineering biology, synthetic biology, and other related terms such as genetic engineering, genome engineering, and biotechnology. Engineering biology may find use in multiple sectors, including biomanufacturing, medicine, consumer products, agriculture, smart materials, energy generation, adaption to and mitigation of climate change, environmental conservation, pollution remediation, and others. On September 12, 2022, President Biden issued E.O. 14081, “Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation for a Sustainable, Safe, and Secure American Bioeconomy.” An accompanying White House press release stated that “global industry is on the cusp of an industrial revolution powered by biotechnology” and that “other countries are positioning themselves to become the world’s resource for biotechnology solutions and products.” Congressional Research Service 15 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress Applications of engineering biology have become more complex, novel, and designed for broader use in the environment—for example, to control disease transmission and reduce the impacts of invasive species on natural population. Applications designed for release into the environment may have biosecurity implications. For example, gene drives, a system of biasing inheritance to increase the likelihood of sexually reproducing species passing on a modified gene to offspring, could potentially spread and persist throughout the environment with irreversible effects on organisms and ecosystems. These potential ecological impacts could have biosecurity and strategic implications for the United States. For example, if a staple crop or ecosystem were impacted by an engineering biology application, deliberately or by accident, it could affect U.S. food and water supply chains and global food security systems. In the 118th Congress, policymakers may consider whether the current U.S. regulatory system, research and infrastructure investments, and agency expertise appropriately balance the broad cross-cutting issues associated with engineering biology (e.g., biosafety, biosecurity, and ecological impacts) while maintaining U.S. competitiveness and leadership in biotechnology. For Further Information Todd Kuiken, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy CRS Video WVB00526, CRS Science and Technology Seminar Series: Engineering Biology Issues for the 118th Congress CRS Report R47849, Artificial Intelligence in the Biological Sciences: Uses, Safety, Security, and Oversight CRS Report R48155, Oversight of Laboratory Biosafety and Biosecurity: Current Policies and Options for Congress Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests (LDTs) Regulation of LDTs—in vitro diagnostic (IVD) devices that are designed, manufactured, and used within a single laboratory—has long been debated. FDA has traditionally exercised enforcement discretion over LDTs, so most have not undergone premarket review. However, FDA has asserted authority over LDTs it considers higher risk, for example, direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests. In 2014, FDA published draft guidance outlining a comprehensive risk-based regulatory framework for LDT, which was never finalized. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted issues with FDA regulation of LDTs. Most COVID-19 LDTs were subject to premarket review during the pandemic, but in August 2020, in a now rescinded policy, HHS announced that FDA was prohibited from requiring premarket review for LDTs without first undergoing notice-andcomment rulemaking. The VALID Act (H.R. 6102 and S. 3404), which was initially introduced in the 116th Congress, would establish a comprehensive regulatory scheme for in vitro clinical tests. The VALID Act was incorporated into the Senate user fee bill in 2022 (S. 4348) but was not included in final passed legislation. The VALID Act was again introduced in the House during the 118th Congress (H.R. 2369). In the context of the experience with COVID-19 LDTs during the pandemic, as well as the exclusion of the VALID Act from user fee legislation, in October 2023, FDA published a proposed rule describing its intention to phase out its general enforcement discretion approach for LDTs. This rule was finalized in May 2024. The 118th Congress may be interested in revisiting the VALID Act or similar legislation in light of FDA’s final rule. Congressional Research Service 16 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress For Further Information Amanda Sarata, Specialist in Health Policy CRS In Focus IF12628, Regulation of Laboratory-Developed Tests: FDA’s Proposed Rule DNA as Data Environmental deoxyribonucleic acid (eDNA) and environmental ribonucleic acid (eRNA) are trace amounts of genetic material collected from an environmental sample such as soil, sediments, water, or air. An eDNA/RNA sample can be compared with a reference from a known species. The results of that comparison can be used to identify and track a species of interest, identify the presence of small or rare species, and detect the presence of non-native plants or animals, as well as various microbes, viruses, and other pathogens. For example, analysis of eRNA in wastewater and sewage has been used to detect and monitor the presence of the virus that causes COVID-19. How sequences and other data are collected, analyzed, and stored in these reference databases could impact how eDNA/RNA data can be used for research and decisionmaking. The availability, quality, and selection of a primer, or DNA sequence, from one database over another can affect the analysis of an eDNA/RNA sample. Whether databases are private or publicly managed can affect access to datasets for eDNA analysis. Databases that contain genetic sequence information can also have implications for biosafety and biosecurity. In June 2024, the White House NSTC released the National Aquatic Environmental DNA Strategy, which focused on eDNA analysis of aquatic biodiversity. The 118th Congress may consider the level of federal investment in eDNA/RNA techniques, the development and maintenance of genetic sequence information databases, and the development of federal standards/protocols for applying eDNA/RNA tools. Policymakers may also consider regulation of the collection, use, retention, and access to digital DNA/RNA sequence data and how local, state, and federal agencies currently use or could use eDNA/RNA for decisionmaking. For Further Information Todd Kuiken, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy Anna E. Normand, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Caitlin Keating-Bitonti, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Anne A. Riddle, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy CRS In Focus IF12356, Digital Biology: Implications of Genetic Sequencing CRS Video WVB00593, Science and Technology Q&A: Environmental DNA (eDNA) CRS Report WPD00061, Science and Technology Podcast: Environmental DNA (eDNA) Convergence of Biotechnology, Digital Data, Robotics, and Artificial Intelligence As biotechnology has advanced, it has built upon advances in other fields of science and engineering, such as nanotechnology, AI, robotics, and digital data management. Advances in DNA sequencing technologies have made it possible to sequence entire genomes (the genetic information responsible for the development and function of an organism) in greater depth and at lower cost. The resulting digital sequence information can be stored in proprietary or public Congressional Research Service 17 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress databases, many of which are publicly funded and freely accessible to interested parties to download. Gene synthesis technologies can use this information to “write” DNA, turning the data back into actual genetic material. This ability to both read and write DNA is a fundamental enabling technology for biotechnology. Biofoundries that combine biology, computer-aided design, robotics, and engineering technologies in a single facility increasingly provide an integrated infrastructure that enables the rapid design, construction, and testing of engineered organisms for biotechnology applications and research. This has led to the establishment of new industries and the emergence of new communities of practice. At the same time, increased access to digital sequence information, combined with advances in AI and robotics, has raised biosafety and biosecurity concerns. Questions include, for example: Who should have access to these capabilities? What limits should be placed on the services that may be provided in order to prevent the deliberate or accidental development and use of a potential biological threat? AI technologies, methodologies, and applications can be used throughout the biological sciences and biology R&D, including in engineering biology (e.g., the application of engineering principles and the use of systematic design tools to reprogram cellular systems for a specific functional output). This has enabled R&D advances across multiple application areas and industries. For example, AI can be used to analyze genomic data (e.g., DNA sequences) to determine the genetic basis of a particular trait and potentially uncover genetic markers linked with those traits. It has also been used in combination with biological design tools to aid in characterizing proteins (e.g., 3D structure) and for designing new chemical structures that can enable specific medical applications, including for drug discovery. The convergence of AI and other technologies associated with biology can lower technical and knowledge barriers and increase the number of actors with certain capabilities. These capabilities have potential for beneficial uses while at the same time raising certain biosafety and biosecurity concerns. For example, some have argued that when AI is used for biological design, it can be repurposed or misused to potentially produce biological and chemical compounds of concern. For federally funded research, the United States has multiple, overlapping policies that provide biosafety and biosecurity guidance and oversight for certain life sciences research, depending on factors such as the types of experiments and biological agents used. On May 9, 2024, the White House OSTP released its most recent policy update, the United States Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential. According to the policy, it is “a unified federal oversight framework for conducting and managing certain types of federally funded life sciences research on biological agents and toxins.” It addresses oversight of research on biological agents and toxins that, when enhanced, have the potential to pose risks to public health, agriculture, food security, economic security, or national security. In the 118th Congress, policymakers may consider whether current policies to address the convergence of biotechnology, digital data, robotics, and AI are sufficient and adequately balanced or whether new oversight authorities are needed to manage emerging biosafety and biosecurity issues without unduly stifling innovation. For Further Information Todd Kuiken, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy CRS Report R47849, Artificial Intelligence in the Biological Sciences: Uses, Safety, Security, and Oversight Congressional Research Service 18 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress CRS Report WPD00077, Science and Technology Podcast: Artificial Intelligence in the Biological Sciences CRS Video WVB00642, Science and Technology Q&A: Artificial Intelligence in the Biological Sciences Climate Change S&T considerations are often part of the deliberations on climate change policy. Among the S&T topics discussed are climate-change-related science and the ocean-climate nexus, decarbonizing the railroads, and carbon capture and sequestration. Legislation regarding climate change was enacted in the 117th Congress, influencing debate on related issues during the 118th Congress. Climate-Change-Related Science and the Ocean-Climate Nexus Congress may examine and consider recent scientific assessments—domestic and international— that strengthened and updated previous assessments. For example, in 2023 the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) published the Fifth National Climate Assessment (NCA5), which found that human-related greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are accumulating in the atmosphere, raising global average temperature, and increasing acidity of the global ocean. It concluded that the increase in GHG emissions is driving global land and ocean warming and other climate effects (e.g., melting ice and sea level rise). It stated that [i]t is unequivocal that human activities have increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. It is also unequivocal that global average temperature has risen in response. The USGCRP also coordinates U.S. participation in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which provides reports on climate science. Recently the science of climate change attribution—whether, or to what degree, human influence may have contributed to extreme climate or specific extreme weather events—has received increased attention. Attributions of extreme weather to human-induced climate change may affect how policymakers, understand and manage associated risks. The ocean is an integral part of the global climate system, as it absorbs, retains, and transports heat, water, and carbon. This interplay is referred to as the ocean-climate nexus. The absorption of increased levels of carbon dioxide by the ocean is contributing to ocean acidification thereby affecting some marine species and putting fisheries at risk. Ocean acidification is an area of ongoing research by federal science agencies. The U.S. marine economy may be positively or negatively impacted by climate change (e.g., ocean warming or acidification). The 118th Congress may examine the role of the federal government in supporting federal climate and ocean science. Congress may monitor federal support for climate and ocean research, whether adjustment to the level of federal support is needed, and how federal funding may be allocated among federal agencies. For Further Information Jonathan D. Haskett, Analyst in Environmental Policy Caitlin Keating-Bitonti, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy CRS Report R47583, Is That Climate Change? The Science of Extreme Event Attribution CRS Report R47551, Solar Geoengineering and Climate Change Congressional Research Service 19 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress CRS Report R47300, Ocean Acidification: Frequently Asked Questions Decarbonizing the Railroads Freight railroads, which generally do not receive federal funding, own and control most of the railroad tracks in the United States and primarily rely on fleets of diesel-powered locomotives with long service lives (approximately 25 years, longer if remanufactured). Compared to most other modes of freight and passenger transportation, railroads consume energy more efficiently and produce fewer emissions. Nevertheless, reducing emissions from U.S. railroads could be of interest to Congress as part of the nation’s overall strategy to reduce air pollution and reach longterm GHG reduction targets. Congress may consider extending some of the demonstration or incentive programs in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA; P.L. 117-58) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA; P.L. 117-169) to apply to railroads, altering project eligibilities under existing grant and loan programs, or creating new programs or freestanding legislation to promote one or more mature technologies (e.g., electric trains powered by overhead wires) or emerging ones (e.g., battery- or hydrogen-powered trains) for rail electrification or decarbonization. The adoption of any low- or zero-emission railroad technology could present obstacles to an industry that is accustomed to operating its locomotives effectively barrier free across the entire national railway network. Large-scale electrification with overhead wires could require up-front investments in infrastructure that may be cost prohibitive and provide logistical challenges; electric locomotives would not be able to operate on unelectrified lines unless they were purpose built to do so, at additional cost. Battery-powered locomotives have practical limits to their power and range that may not be well suited to long-haul freight. Hydrogen-fueled locomotives could depend on the future development of affordable hydrogen fuel nationwide. For Further Information Ben Goldman, Analyst in Transportation Policy CRS In Focus IF12707, Options for Railroad Electrification and Decarbonization Carbon Capture and Sequestration Carbon capture and sequestration (or storage)—known as CCS—seeks to capture CO2 at its source, store it underground, or utilize it for another purpose or product. CCS is sometimes referred to as CCUS—carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (or storage). The capturing step is the costliest and most energy-intensive step in the CCS process. CCS could reduce the amount of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere at large stationary sources. Carbon utilization has recently gained interest as a means of converting CO2 into potentially commercially viable products, such as chemicals, fuels, cements, and plastics. Direct air capture, a related emerging technology, removes atmospheric CO2 directly from the atmosphere. CO2 can also be captured from seawater in a process known as direct ocean capture. Federal law and regulations specify certain requirements for CO2 underground injection wells, which are regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or delegated states. Currently, 4 federal EPA-permitted geologic sequestration wells and at least 11 state-permitted wells are in operation in the United States. From FY2010 through FY2024, Congress has provided a total of $11.5 billion (in constant 2024 dollars) in annual appropriations for the DOE research arm conducting most federal CCS research activity. Additionally, IIJA provided supplemental appropriations of $8.5 billion for CCS for FY2022-FY2026 and $3.6 billion for direct air capture for the same time period. IRA increased the “Section 45Q” tax credit for underground carbon sequestration, among other provisions. Congressional Research Service 20 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress Proponents of CCS and some Members of Congress have called for increased federal support for building CO2 pipeline and storage infrastructure related to CCS. Others oppose investment in CCS and prefer to focus climate and energy policy on renewable energy exclusively. CCS technology and the extent of the federal role in development of the U.S. CCS industry may continue to be of interest in the 118th Congress. For Further Information Angela C. Jones, Analyst in Environmental Policy Ashley J. Lawson, Specialist in Energy Policy CRS Report R44902, Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) in the United States CRS In Focus IF11501, Carbon Capture Versus Direct Air Capture CRS Report R48033, Class VI Carbon Sequestration Wells: Permitting and State Program Primacy CRS In Focus IF11861, DOE’s Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) and Carbon Removal Programs CRS In Focus IF11455, The Section 45Q Tax Credit for Carbon Sequestration Defense Research and Development S&T play an important role in national defense. DOD relies on a robust research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) effort to develop new military systems and improve existing systems. Issues that may come before the 118th Congress regarding DOD’s S&T activities include budgetary concerns, the effectiveness of programs to transition R&D results into fielded products, and how DOD encourages innovation. Department of Defense (DOD) Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation DOD spends more than $100 billion per year on RDT&E. In FY2022, enacted RDT&E funding was $119.3 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. 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 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 various considerations, such as whether DOD has adequately justified the expenditure or the need for 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 Congressional Research Service 21 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress 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 118th Congress. 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 2020, some stakeholders 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 dual-use fields such as AI, 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 Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy Kelley M. Sayler, Specialist in Advanced Technology and Global Security CRS In Focus IF10553, Defense Primer: RDT&E CRS In Focus IF11105, Defense Primer: Emerging Technologies CRS Report R46458, Emerging Military Technologies: Background and Issues for Congress DOD Innovation Capacity R&D is a global enterprise, with the private sector generally driving technology development. Some assert that DOD has been slow to react and adapt to this new reality, raising concerns that the U.S. military may be unable to maintain its historical technological advantages. Congress and the executive branch have adopted a number of reforms to address the perceived concerns, including the reestablishment of the position of Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, the expansion of other transaction authority, and the creation of new organizations (e.g., the Defense Innovation Unit and the Air Force’s AFWERX) and programs (e.g., the Rapid Innovation Program and the Accelerate the Procurement and Fielding of Innovative Technologies pilot program). Many of these efforts will likely require sustained management focus and oversight to ensure that DOD transforms into a more innovative, risk-tolerant R&D organization that delivers new technologies to the warfighter in a timely and relevant manner. As Congress considers the impact of these reforms and their effectiveness, it may examine any of several issues, such as • • • • • the adequacy of DOD’s investments in RDT&E programs; the sufficiency of DOD’s strategic planning as it relates to the development and deployment of technologies deemed critical for national security, in particular emerging technologies; DOD’s ability to attract and retain scientific and technical talent; how to measure the rate and extent of cultural change in innovation practices within DOD; the effectiveness of DOD’s collaborations and cooperation with other federal agencies and allied nations in the development and implementation of Congressional Research Service 22 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress • • technologies deemed critical for national security, in particular emerging technologies; the degree to which DOD is incorporating nontraditional contractors and small businesses into the defense industrial base; and how Congress can effectively balance its oversight responsibilities and the desire for transparency and accountability with the need for DOD to respond flexibly and nimbly to emergent opportunities. For Further Information Marcy E. Gallo, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy CRS In Focus IF10834, Defense Primer: Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering Energy, Minerals, and Mining S&T issues related to energy, minerals and mining that may come before the 118th Congress include biofuels, electricity transmission, offshore energy technologies, hydrogen, hydrogen pipelines, critical minerals and materials, and seabed mining. 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 GHG emissions. Others regard biofuels as potentially more harmful to the environment (e.g., air and water quality concerns), more land-intensive, and prohibitively expensive to produce. The debate about biofuels is complex, as policymakers consider numerous factors (e.g., feedstock cost and supply, environmental impact of biofuels). The debate can be even more complicated because biofuels may be produced using numerous biomass feedstocks and conversion technologies. Congress has 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 supports domestic biofuel production R&D. Congress has also established tax incentives for biofuels, including the sustainable aviation fuel credit and the biodiesel credit. 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 began a new phase in 2023 with the EPA Administrator determining the volume requirements in a multiyear rulemaking for 2023-2025. The RFS is under scrutiny for various reasons, including concerns about EPA’s lifecycle GHG emissions modeling and advanced biofuel pathway approval. The 118th Congress may consider whether to modify existing biofuel policies, establish new biofuel initiatives, or maintain the status quo. Other topics of potential congressional interest include the development of a federal low-carbon fuel standard in lieu of or complementing the RFS, and R&D and commercial production of sustainable fuels for aviation, shipping, and other applications. Congressional Research Service 23 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress For Further Information Kelsi Bracmort, Specialist in Natural Resources and Energy Policy CRS Report R43325, The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): An Overview Electricity Transmission The U.S. electricity transmission system (i.e., the grid) is of central importance to maintaining reliable electricity supply across the country. The grid faces several challenges that could limit its ability to deliver reliable and affordable electricity moving forward. Many transmission facilities are at or near the end of their design lifetimes. Cyberattacks and physical attacks against the grid appear to be on the rise. Extreme weather events can damage the grid or disrupt power flows through it. Much of the transmission system is not optimally built to access wind and solar energy, which are becoming a larger share of the national electricity supply. Many of these challenges can be addressed by constructing new or replacement transmission facilities or deploying new, innovative grid technologies (or a combination of both). Choices about what kind of transmission infrastructure to build—and where to build it—are primarily made by utility companies with the approval of state and local regulators. Regulators are often balancing an interest in addressing transmission challenges with concerns about raising costs for consumers, because the costs of new transmission infrastructure are primarily borne by electricity customers. The federal government has a role in some aspects of the grid. Mandatory reliability standards, including cybersecurity and physical security protections, apply to most components of the transmission system. Financial incentives for deploying innovative grid technologies are available in those parts of the system under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). FERC regulations also cover some aspects of planning new transmission facilities. IIJA (P.L. 117-58) and IRA (P.L. 117-169) established several programs at DOE to support electricity transmission development and modernization. Most of these are administered through DOE’s Grid Deployment Office. For Further Information Ashley J. Lawson, Specialist in Energy Policy CRS Report R47862, Electricity Transmission: What Is the Role of the Federal Government? CRS Insight IN12074, Electric Grid Physical Security: Recent Developments CRS Insight IN11981, Electricity Transmission Provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 Offshore Energy 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 renewable energy. Private industry, universities, and government are all involved in ocean energy R&D. At the federal level, both DOE and the Department of the Interior (DOI) support ocean energy research. With respect to U.S. offshore oil and gas, one ongoing interest for developers and federal regulators is exploration of deepwater areas of the Gulf of Mexico. Industry interest in expanding deepwater activities has prompted advances in drilling technologies and steps toward automated Congressional Research Service 24 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress monitoring and maintenance. Government and industry seek to address concerns about safety and resilience, including oil spill prevention, and security, including cybersecurity. Also of interest are options for decommissioning offshore oil and gas infrastructure as wells reach the end of their producing lifetimes. This could potentially include repurposing of assets for hydrogen transportation or CCS, among other uses. Some companies operating in the Alaskan Arctic are pursuing technologies (such as ice-resistant drilling units) to extend the drilling season beyond the periods where sea ice is absent and are pursuing improvements to oil spill response capability in Arctic conditions. DOE and DOI undertake and fund Arctic energy R&D, including through DOE’s Arctic Energy Office. Among renewable ocean energy sources, only wind energy has advanced to the point of commercial application in U.S. waters. The Biden Administration announced a national goal to deploy 30 gigawatts of offshore wind by 2030 and a related goal to deploy 15 gigawatts of floating offshore wind by 2035. Wind energy resources have been identified in the Atlantic region, the Pacific region, and offshore of the Gulf Coast. Other potential resources are offshore of Alaska and in the Great Lakes. Identified priorities for offshore wind R&D include (1) technology advancement for offshore wind plant; (2) improvements of resource and physical site characterization; (3) environmental impact assessment and siting to reduce radar interference; and (4) technology improvements in installation, electricity transmission and onshore grid integration, operations and maintenance, and supply chain issues for the U.S. market. For offshore wind plant technology advancement, the Biden Administration announced in September 2022 a Floating Offshore Wind Shot with a goal of reducing the costs of floating technologies by more than 70% by 2035. Another focus is building the domestic supply chain for offshore wind development, including port infrastructure and manufacturing capabilities for turbine components and installation and support vessels. As interest in offshore wind grows in the United States, some stakeholders have expressed concerns about offshore wind projects’ potential impacts on the marine ecosystem and associated species, including marine mammals, birds, and fishes. Congress may continue to consider whether—and, if so, how—to support or incentivize development of offshore wind and other ocean renewables, as well as how to assess the potential impacts these technologies may have on the ocean ecosystem. For Further Information Laura B. Comay, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Corrie E. Clark, Specialist in Energy Policy CRS Report R41153, Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issues for Congress CRS Report R46970, U.S. Offshore Wind Energy Development: Overview and Issues for the 118th Congress CRS Report R47894, Potential Impacts of Offshore Wind on the Marine Ecosystem and Associated Species: Background and Issues for Congress CRS In Focus IF12491, Vessel Construction for Offshore Wind Power Generation Hydrogen A future “hydrogen economy” using hydrogen as an energy carrier and fuel could offer an alternative to today’s economy with its prevalent combustion of fossil fuels. Initially thought of as a new technology for personal mobility services (e.g., cars) and high-value applications such as provision of electric power during space flight, hydrogen now is receiving attention for industrial Congressional Research Service 25 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress processes, heavy vehicles, forklifts, portable power, and buffering and balancing of electric power. Except for its use as an established industrial chemical (e.g., petroleum refining, ammonia manufacture), the scope and scale of hydrogen for energy applications is limited to demonstration scale or early deployment activities. IIJA (P.L. 117-58) authorized and funded the Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs—envisaged networks of hydrogen producers, consumers and infrastructure in a common geography. DOE announced seven finalists for $7 billion in grants for Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs in October 2023. DOE announced a further $1 billion for a Demand-side Support Initiative on July 5, 2023. The 117th Congress incentivized hydrogen production that meets certain criteria. IRA (P.L. 117169) created a new tax credit for the production of “clean hydrogen.” The amount of the hydrogen production tax credit (Internal Revenue Code Section 45V) can be up to $3 per kilogram hydrogen, provided GHG emissions limits and wage and apprenticeship requirements are met. The Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published a notice of proposed rulemaking on the implementation of the 45V tax credit on December 26, 2023. Congress may consider the coordination and simplification of hydrogen and fuel cell programs. Questions surround the implementation and oversight of the 45V credit, including how to determine if the energy inputs used to manufacture the hydrogen will be counted as “clean,” how to balance concerns about GHG emissions from electricity generation against the goal of accelerating the development of hydrogen fuel and technology, and whether the uptake of the production tax credits will be sufficient to support the development of Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs. For Further Information Martin C. Offutt, Analyst in Energy Policy Lexie Ryan, Analyst in Energy Policy Paul W. Parfomak, Specialist in Energy Policy CRS Report R48196, Hydrogen Production: Overview and Issues for Congress CRS Report R47487, The Hydrogen Economy: Putting the Pieces Together CRS Report R47289, Hydrogen Hubs and Demonstrating the Hydrogen Energy Value Chain CRS In Focus IF12514, DOE Appropriations for Its Hydrogen Program: FY2024, by Martin C. Offutt CRS Video WVB00579, Science and Technology Q&A: The Outlook for Hydrogen Fuel CRS Video WVB00607, The Hydrogen Economy Hydrogen Pipelines IIJA (P.L. 117-58, §40315) authorized an $8 billion program of Regional Clean Hydrogen Hubs, which would be centers of activity involving hydrogen production, delivery, and end use. Supplying hydrogen from sources such as regional hubs to power plants, industrial facilities, and vehicular fuel distribution centers could require the development of an expansive hydrogen pipeline network. 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. Establishing such a network could pose technical challenges due to the chemical characteristics of hydrogen. Congressional Research Service 26 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress 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. The presence of hydrogen can deteriorate steel pipe, pipe welds, valves, and fittings through a variety of mechanisms, particularly embrittlement. 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 a key safety consideration. Some in Congress have called for federal initiatives to advance hydrogen pipeline-related research and development (R&D). For example, the chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee made the following statement at a 2022 committee hearing: We will certainly need to build some new infrastructure dedicated solely to transporting and storing hydrogen. There is also potential to adapt our country’s extensive natural gas delivery network in the near-term to support a blend of hydrogen and natural gas.... More work is needed to look at the safety and feasibility of these modifications. In the 117th Congress, the Senate Committee on Appropriations (H.Rept. 117-394) encouraged DOE to include hydrogen pipeline-related R&D in its plans for transitioning segments of the economy to low-carbon fuels. IIJA directs the Secretary of Energy to advance the safe and efficient delivery of hydrogen or hydrogen-carrier fuels in pipelines, including by retrofitting existing natural gas pipelines (§40313). Other legislative proposals, including H.R. 6494, H.R. 6510, H.R. 7655, H.R. 9323, and S. 4983, would mandate studies to examine the potential for, and challenges associated with, repurposing existing natural gas infrastructure to carry pure hydrogen or hydrogen blends. H.R. 7200 and S. 649 would mandate studies to synthesize the results from research, development, and demonstration projects on materials for transporting hydrogen and hydrogen blends and to determine outstanding research questions. H.R. 7073 would support technology demonstration projects involving the pipeline transportation of hydrogen and hydrogen blends. Executive agencies, such as the Department of Transportation’s (DOT’s) Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, 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 Policy CRS Report R44201, DOT’s Federal Pipeline Safety Program: Background and Issues for Congress CRS Report R47289, Hydrogen Hubs and Demonstrating the Hydrogen Energy Value Chain Fusion Energy The federal government has supported fusion energy R&D for decades. In recent years, congressional interest in fusion has grown in response to scientific progress by fusion researchers, the emergence of a growing commercial fusion industry, and hope that future fusion power plants can contribute to the nation’s electricity needs without emitting carbon dioxide—a GHG that contributes to climate change. Congressional Research Service 27 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress A fusion power plant would have a number of potential advantages. Unlike today’s fission-based nuclear reactors, fusion does not require uranium or plutonium, whose use has raised concerns about nuclear weapon proliferation and uranium imports from countries such as Russia. Fusion reactors also pose no meltdown risk and create little radioactive waste. Unlike power plants based on the combustion of fossil fuels, the operation of a fusion reactor would not directly emit carbon dioxide. On the other hand, developing operational fusion energy systems remains technically challenging. Most federally funded fusion energy R&D is supported by the Fusion Energy Sciences program of the DOE Office of Science. The program focuses on basic research, though in recent years it has funded applied research, commercialization, and public-private partnerships. A priority for the program is ITER (initially the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor), a fusion energy research and demonstration facility under construction in France. ITER is an international collaboration involving the United States, China, India, Japan, South Korea, Russia, and the European intergovernmental organization Euratom. It has a history of budget and schedule challenges. The total estimated U.S. share of the project’s cost is $6.5 billion, and full operations are due to start in 2035. DOE plans to confirm a revised cost and schedule baseline during the 118th Congress. The DOE Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy (ARPA-E) also supports some fusion energy projects, along with other projects across the full range of energy technologies. In the DOE National Nuclear Security Administration, the Inertial Confinement Fusion program seeks to use fusion science to improve stewardship of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. The program includes the National Ignition Facility (NIF), which demonstrated fusion ignition in December 2022. (Ignition occurs when a fusion reaction releases more energy than was consumed to initiate and maintain the reaction.) The demonstration of ignition at the NIF increased interest in using related designs for fusion energy applications. A new development in recent years is the emergence of a commercial fusion energy industry, involving several dozen companies and announced private investment approaching $5 billion. The approaches taken by the commercial fusion sector often use design strategies traditionally seen as alternative. Most companies are targeting delivery of electricity to the grid by the mid2030s. Some observers consider that an ambitious goal. In April 2023, after considering various options for the regulation of future commercial fusion energy systems, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission voted to use the “byproduct material” framework (10 C.F.R. Part 30). That approach would address any radioactive material present in a fusion facility but not the detailed operation of the facility. The commercial fusion industry generally considered this the least burdensome of the options under consideration. Congress has taken several legislative actions regarding fusion energy in recent years, such as (1) defining the term advanced nuclear reactor to include fusion reactors, which made fusion R&D potentially eligible for various DOE nuclear energy programs previously limited to fission; (2) directing the Fusion Energy Sciences program to place more emphasis on commercialization and public-private partnerships and to support the design of a pilot plant in order to bring fusion to commercial viability; and (3) providing supplemental appropriations for fusion-related construction and equipment. Efforts in the 118th Congress may include oversight of DOE’s implementation of these actions, oversight of budget and schedule issues with ITER, and appropriations decisions about funding for fusion R&D. For Further Information Todd Kuiken, Analyst in Science and Technology Policy Congressional Research Service 28 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress CRS In Focus IF12411, Fusion Energy CRS In Focus IF12692, Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science Critical Minerals and Materials The Energy Act of 2020 (Division Z of P.L. 116-260) amended national minerals and materials policy and directed various federal agencies to engage in R&D, analysis and forecast, education and workforce development, and other activities to ensure critical minerals and materials supply to meet demand. IIJA (P.L. 117-58) amended or added directives and provided some supplemental appropriations for federal agencies to advance critical minerals and materials initiatives. Additional laws, including the CHIPS and Science Act (P.L. 117-167) and IRA (P.L. 117-169) included provisions that may increase demand for these critical minerals and materials. Critical minerals are essential for the U.S. economy and national security, and are susceptible to vulnerable supply chains. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) published a 2022 Critical Minerals List of 50 minerals that were deemed critical based on past production and consumption, and began prioritizing research and assessment of potential domestic critical mineral resources. The USGS Earth Mapping Resources Initiative (EarthMRI) established and funded by IIJA is working to complete a national assessment of critical mineral resources by 2031. DOE published a 2023 Critical Materials List that forecast which materials would be critical for energy technologies in the medium term (2025-2035). DOE categorized and considered these energy technologies in developing the DOE list: vehicles, stationary storage, hydrogen electrolyzers, solar energy, wind energy, nuclear energy, electric grid, solid state lighting, and microchips. DOE is working on critical material initiatives across the department that focus on research, development, and demonstration, as well as domestic production of these materials. Congress may consider whether critical minerals and materials policy and initiatives by federal agencies are sufficient to ensure sustainable supply chains in the future. Legislation introduced in the 118th Congress would amend policy, programs, and appropriations for critical minerals and materials initiatives. For Further Information Linda R. Rowan, Analyst in Natural Resources and Earth Sciences Emma Kaboli, Analyst in Energy Policy CRS Report R47982, Critical Mineral Resources: National Policy and Critical Minerals List CRS Report R48005, Critical Mineral Resources: The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Role in Research and Analysis CRS Report R48149, Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies CRS Report R47034, Energy and Minerals Provisions in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (P.L. 117-58) Land-Based Mining and Mineral Processing Two main types of land-based mining are surface and underground mining, used for accessing mineral lodes at different depths and the type of minerals being extracted. Advances in mining technology, such as by using advanced mapping technologies and virtually recreating mine sites, have increased efficiency. Also, autonomous vehicles and drones have been deployed for both Congressional Research Service 29 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress surveillance of mine sites and “exploration” of mineral resources. AI has also been deployed to run predictive analytics for mineral ore “location,” as well as in predictive maintenance systems to monitor equipment health and maintenance schedules on expensive mining equipment. Mineral processing and recycling technologies have also advanced in recent decades, with a particular focus on critical minerals. New mineral extraction technologies allow for the possibility of processing older mine sites to extract critical minerals and rare earth elements. In addition, domestic recycling capacity for many minerals has potential for expansion to meet increased demand. For some technologies, such as electric vehicles, research into the recycling of their components and batteries seeks to separate and reuse valuable mineral components. Federal support of land-based mining and processing R&D is spread across multiple agencies and departments. These include DOE, DOI, DOD, and others. The 117th Congress provided authority in Section 10359 of the CHIPS and Science Act (P.L. 117-167) for the Director of NSF to make grants for basic research to accelerate innovation to advance critical minerals and mining strategies and technologies for improving domestic supply resilience. For Further Information Emma Kaboli, Analyst in Energy Policy CRS Video WVB00699, Critical Minerals for Energy: Recycling and Alternatives CRS Report R48149, Critical Minerals and Materials for Selected Energy Technologies Seabed Mining The transition to alternative energy technologies has been driving U.S. interest in securing a domestic supply of critical minerals. Some scientists estimate that certain critical minerals, such as cobalt and manganese, are more abundant in seafloor deposits than in land deposits. Most global interest in deep-seabed mining in areas beyond national jurisdiction is focused primarily on a 4.5-million-square-kilometer area of the Pacific seafloor located between Hawaii and Mexico. This area of the Pacific is rich in polymetallic nodules, which contain nickel, manganese, copper, zinc, cobalt, and other minerals. In tension with the apparent concentration of such minerals is the technological challenge of extracting resources from such remote locations and the debate about the impact of these techniques. The emergence of the seabed mining industry raises questions about the potential impacts seabed mining may have on deep-sea ecosystems. Government, industry, and universities are all involved in studying the potential environmental impacts of seabed mining activities. The 118th Congress may continue to consider whether additional authorities or funding may be useful in researching and identifying seabed mineral resources on the U.S. outer continental shelf as well as better understanding potential marine ecosystem impacts from future deep-seabed mining in domestic or international waters. In the 118th Congress, some Members proposed a moratorium on seabed mining until its potential impacts on the marine ecosystem are fully understood and an international regulatory regime is in place. U.S. ocean mapping campaigns may provide a baseline for understanding whether—and to what degree—deep-sea life is vulnerable or resilient to human disturbance (e.g., seabed mining). Efforts in the 118 th Congress may also include oversight of the rate at which federal agencies are mapping, exploring, and characterizing certain areas of the U.S. seafloor and how these mapping efforts may contribute to the identification of mineral resources that would serve U.S. national security interests. For Further Information Caitlin Keating-Bitonti, Specialist in Natural Resources Policy Congressional Research Service 30 Science and Technology Issues for the 118th Congress CRS In Focus IF12608, U.S. Interest in Seabed Mining in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction: Brief Background and Recent Developments CRS Infographic IG10053, Seabed Mining in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone CRS Report R47623, Frequently Asked Questions: Mapping of U.S. Ocean and Coastal Waters CRS Report R47912, Outer Limits of the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf: Background and Issues for Congress Earth Sciences Earth-science-related S&T issues before the 118th Congress include changes to the National Oceanic and Atmospheri [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR47373. Public record. Not legal advice.