The Federal Networking and Information Technology Research and Development Program: Funding Issues and Activities

The Federal Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development Program:
Funding Issues and Activities
Updated October 23, 2008
Patricia Moloney Figliola
Specialist in Telecommunications and Internet Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division



The Federal Networking and Information Technology
Research and Development Program:
Funding Issues and Activities
Summary
In the early 1990s, Congress recognized that several federal agencies had
ongoing high-performance computing programs, but no central coordinating body
existed to ensure long-term coordination and planning. To provide such a framework,
Congress passed the High-Performance Computing and Communications Program
Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-194) to enhance the effectiveness of the various programs. In
conjunction with the passage of the act, the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) released Grand Challenges: High-Performance
Computing and Communications. That document outlined a research and
development (R&D) strategy for high-performance computing and a framework for
a multiagency program, the High-Performance Computing and Communications
(HPCC) Program. The HPCC Program has evolved over time and is now called the
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD)
Program, to better reflect its expanded mission.
Proponents assert that federal support of information technology (IT) R&D has
produced positive outcomes for the country and played a crucial role in supporting
long-term research into fundamental aspects of computing. Such fundamentals
provide broad practical benefits, but generally take years to realize. Additionally, the
unanticipated results of research are often as important as the anticipated results.
Another aspect of government-funded IT research is that it often leads to open
standards, something that many perceive as beneficial, encouraging deployment and
further investment. Industry, on the other hand, is more inclined to invest in
proprietary products and will diverge from a common standard when there is a
potential competitive or financial advantage to do so. Finally, proponents of
government support believe that the outcomes achieved through the various funding
programs create a synergistic environment in which both fundamental and
application-driven research are conducted, benefitting government, industry,
academia, and the public. Supporters also believe that such outcomes justify
government’s role in funding IT R&D, as well as the growing budget for the NITRD
Program. Critics assert that the government, through its funding mechanisms, may
be picking “winners and losers” in technological development, a role more properly
residing with the private sector. For example, the size of the NITRD Program may
encourage industry to follow the government’s lead on research directions rather than
selecting those directions itself.
The FY2009 budget calls for $3.548 billion for the NITRD Program, an increase
from the FY2008 projected budget of $3.341 billion. Because the NITRD Program
“budget” consists of the budgets allocated to the 13 participating agencies, final
budget figures are not available for FY2008.



Contents
Overview of the Federal NITRD Program...............................1
NITRD Structure..............................................1
NITRD Funding...............................................4
NCO, PITAC, and Related Reports................................5
Federal Plan for Advanced Networking Research and Development..5
Leadership Under Challenge: Information Technology
R&D in a Competitive World............................6
Federal Plan for Cyber Security and Information Assurance
Research and Development..............................7
NSA Superconducting Technology Assessment..................7
Computational Science: Ensuring America’s Competitiveness......8
Cyber Security: A Crisis of Prioritization.......................9
NITRD Enabling and Governing Legislation........................9
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991.....................10
Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998.................10
Context of Federal Technology Funding...............................11
Activity in the 110th and 109th Congress...............................13th
Major Legislation, 109 Congress................................13
Hearings, 109th Congress.......................................13
Issues for Congress...............................................14
List of Figures
Figure 1. Management Structure of the NITRD Program...................2
List of Tables
Table 1. NITRD Funding Chronology FY1991-FY2009....................4



The Federal Networking and Information
Technology Research and Development
Program: Funding Issues and Activities
Overview of the Federal NITRD Program
The federal government has long played a key role in the country’s information
technology (IT) research and development (R&D) activities. The government’s
support of IT R&D began because it had an important interest in creating computers
that would be capable of addressing the problems and issues the government needed
to solve and study. One of the first such problems was planning the trajectories of
artillery and bombs; more recently, such problems include simulations of nuclear
testing, cryptanalysis, and weather modeling. That interest continues today. Such
complexity requires there be adequate coordination to ensure the government’s
evolving needs (e.g., homeland security) will continue to be met in the most effective
manner possible.
NITRD Structure
The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
(NITRD) Program is a collaborative effort in which 13 agencies coordinate and
cooperate to help increase the overall effectiveness and productivity of federal IT
R&D.1 Of those 13 members, the majority of funding, in descending order, goes to
the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Department of Energy
(DOE) Office of Science, Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA),
and DOE National Nuclear Security Administration. Dr. Christopher Greer was
named as the director of the NITRD Program in October 2007. Figure 1 illustrates
the organizational structure of the NITRD Program.


1 The members of the NITRD Program, as listed in the FY2006 Supplement to the
President’s Budget, are: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA); Office of the Secretary of Defense, Defense
Research & Engineering, and the DOD service research organizations; Department of
Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration (DOE/NNSA); Department of Energy,
Office of Science (DOE/SC); Department of Homeland Security (DHS); Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA); National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA);
National Institutes of Health (NIH); National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST);
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA); National Security Agency
(NSA); and National Science Foundation (NSF). The history of agency participation can
be found at [http://www.nitrd.gov/about/history/agency-participants.pdf].

Figure 1. Management Structure of the NITRD Program


Source: NITRD Program website, [http://www.nitrd.gov].
The National Coordinating Office (NCO) coordinates the activities of the
NITRD Program. On July 1, 2005, the NCO became the “National Coordination
Office for Networking and Information Technology Research and Development.”
The Director of the NCO reports to the Director of OSTP. The NCO supports the
Subcommittee on NITRD (also called the NITRD Subcommittee)2 and the
President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee (PITAC).3
!The NITRD Subcommittee provides policy, program, and budget
planning for the NITRD Program and is composed of representatives
from each of the participating agencies, OSTP, Office of
Management and Budget, and the NCO. Two Interagency Working
Groups and five Coordination Groups reporting to the NITRD
2 The NITRD Subcommittee was previously called the Interagency Working Group for IT
R&D (IWG/IT R&D).
3 The PITAC was established on February 11, 1997, to provide the President, OSTP, and the
federal agencies involved in IT R&D with guidance and advice on all areas of high
performance computing, communications, and information technologies. Representing the
research, education, and library communities and including network providers and
representatives from critical industries, the committee advises the Administration’s effort
to accelerate development and adoption of information technologies. Additional information
about the PITAC is available at [http://www.nitrd.gov/pitac]. The most recent PITAC
Executive Order expired on June 1, 2005.

Subcommittee focus their work in eight Program Component Areas
(P C As). 4
!The PITAC is composed of representatives of private industry and
academia who are appointed by the President. The group provides
expert independent advice to the President on the federal role in
maintaining U.S. preeminence in advanced IT and works with the
NITRD Program agencies and the NITRD Subcommittee.
!The NITRD Program is funded out of each member agency’s
individual budget, rather than in a single appropriations bill (e.g.,
NITRD Program activities conducted by the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) are funded through the NIH appropriations bill). The
program’s NCO is not explicitly funded; rather, the NITRD member
agencies contribute toward NCO operations.
The NITRD Program has undergone a series of structural changes since its
inception in 1991 and both it and the NCO have had a number of different names
over the years. When the Program was created in December 1991, it was named the
High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) Program, and when the
NCO was created in September 1992, it was named the NCO for HPCC. The name
was changed to the National Coordination Office for Computing, Information, and
Communications per the FY1997 Supplement to the President’s Budget (also known
at that time as the “Blue Book”). The name was changed to the National
Coordination Office for Information Technology Research and Development per the


4 The eight PCAs are (1) High-End Computing Infrastructure and Applications (HEC I&A)
— to extend the state of the art in high-end computing systems, applications, and
infrastructure; (2) High-End Computing R&D (HEC R&D) — to optimize the performance
of today’s high-end computing systems and develop future generations of high-end
computing systems; (3) Cyber Security and Information Assurance — to perform
fundamental and applied R&D to improve the security and assurance of information
systems; (4) Human Computer Interaction and Information Management (HCI&IM) — to
develop new user interaction technologies, cognitive systems, information systems, and
robotics that benefit humans; (5) Large Scale Networking (LSN) — to develop leading-edge
network technologies, services, and techniques to enhance performance, security, and
scalability; (6) Software Design and Productivity (SDP) — to advance concepts, methods,
techniques, and tools that improve software design, development, and maintenance to
produce more usable, dependable and cost-effective software-based systems; (7) High
Confidence Software and Systems (HCSS) — to develop the scientific foundations and IT
to achieve affordable and predictable high levels of safety, security, reliability, and
survivability, especially in U.S. national security and safety-critical systems; and (8) Social,
Economic, and Workforce Implications of IT and IT Workforce Development (SEW) — to
study the impact of IT on people and social and economic systems; develop the IT
workforce; and develop innovative IT applications in education and training. Additional
information about the program component areas is available at
[http://www.nitrd.gov/subcommittee/index.html]. HEC R&D and HEC I&A are both
covered by the HEC Interagency Working Group. A diagram illustrating the evolution of
the PCAs, 1992-present, is available at [http://www.nitrd.gov/about/history/new
-pca-names.pdf].

FY2001 Blue Book.5 Most recently, on July 1, 2005, the name was changed to the
National Coordination Office for Networking and Information Technology Research
and Development. These changes were made to reflect the evolution of the program
as it came to encompass a broader range of related topics.
NITRD Funding
The FY2009 budget calls for $3.548 billion for the NITRD Program, an increase
from the FY2008 projected budget of $3.341 billion. Because the NITRD Program
“budget” consists of the budgets allocated to the 13 participating agencies, final
budget figures are not available for FY2008. The chronology of NITRD funding is
detailed in Table 1.6
Table 1. NITRD Funding Chronology FY1991-FY2009
($ in millions)
Fiscal YearBudgetFiscal YearBudget
FY1991 489 FY2001 1,929
FY1992 655 FY2002 1,830
FY1993 795 FY2003 1,976
FY1994 938 FY2004 2,115
FY1995 1,038 FY2005 2,256
FY1996 1,043 FY2006 2,855
FY1997 1,009 FY2007 2,967
FY1998 1,070 FY2008* 3,341
FY1999 1,312 FY2009** 3,548
FY20001,546
*Final figure not yet available
**Requested
The Administration’s American Competitiveness Initiative has increased the
NITRD budgets of agencies that are part of the Initiative. The Initiative calls for a
doubling over 10 years of the investment in three federal agencies that support basic
research programs in the physical sciences and engineering: the National Science
Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s Office of Science (DOE/SC), and the
National Institute of Science and Technology (NIST) — are NITRD Program
member agencies. All three received FY2007 NITRD budget increases that exceed


5 That change was effective October 2000.
6 The FY2008 budget request is available at [http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/2008supplement/

08-Supp-Web/T OC%20Pages/08supp-Budget.pdf].



the percentage increase in the overall Program budget, as follows: NSF, 12%;
DOE/SC, 35%; and NIST, 10%. The aggregated NITRD budget increase for these
three agencies from 2006 estimates to 2007 request is $186 million (17% above 2006
estimates), which accounts for over 85% of the overall NITRD Program budget
increase for 2007.7
NCO, PITAC, and Related Reports
As explained earlier, the NCO provides technical and administrative support to
the NITRD Program, the NITRD Subcommittee, and the PITAC. This includes
supporting meetings and workshops and preparing reports. The NCO interacts with
OSTP and OMB on NITRD Program and PITAC matters.
Federal Plan for Advanced Networking Research and Development.
This plan was developed by the Interagency Task Force on Advanced Networking,
established under the NITRD National Science and Technology Council by the
Director of the OSTP to provide a strategic vision for future networked8
environments. The overall conclusions of the Task Force can be summarized as
follows:
!Improved networking security and reliability are strategic national
priorities;
!New paths to advanced networking are required;
!Federal R&D efforts will support a spectrum of advanced
networking capabilities;
!Close cooperation is needed to integrate Federal R&D efforts with
the full technology development cycle—this cycle includes basic and
applied research, and partnerships with researchers, application
developers, users, and other stakeholders; and
!Testbeds and prototype networks enable research on network
challenges in realistic environments.
The report notes that
The Internet’s phenomenal growth and elasticity have exceeded all expectations.
At the same time, we have become captive to the limitations and vulnerabilities
of the current generation of networking technologies. Because vital U.S. interests
— for example, national defense communications, financial markets, and the
operation of critical infrastructures such as power grids — now depend on
secure, reliable, highspeed network connectivity, these limitations and
vulnerabilities can threaten our national security and economic competitiveness.


7 The FY2007 NITRD Budget request is at [http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/2007supplement/].
8 This report is available at [http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/ITFAN-FINAL.pdf].

Research and development to create the next generation of networking
technologies is needed to address these threats.
The plan is centered on a vision for advanced networking based on a design and
architecture for security and reliability that provides for heterogeneous, anytime-
anywhere networking with capabilities such as federation of networks across
domains and widely differing technologies; dynamic mobile networking with
autonomous management; effective quality of service (QoS) management;
support for sensornets; near-realtime autonomous discovery, configuration, and
management of resources; and end-to-end security tailored to the application and
user.
The report outlines four goal for realizing this vision:
!Provide secure network services anytime, anywhere;
!Make secure global federated networks possible;
!Manage network complexity and heterogeneity; and
!Foster innovation among the Federal, research, commercial, and
other sectors through development of advanced network systems and
technologies.
Leadership Under Challenge: Information Technology R&D in a
Competitive World. This report assesses global U.S. competitiveness in
networking and information technology and provides recommendations aimed at
ensuring that the NITRD Program is appropriately focused and implemented. The
report makes specific recommendations for Federal R&D that would enhance U.S.
competitiveness in this economically critical area. In developing the report, the
PCAST consulted extensively with experts from industry and academia. The PCAST
concluded that while the United States is still in a leadership position, other nations
are challenging that lead in a number of areas and that the NITRD Program must
focus on visionary research and work with universities to keep the United States at
the cutting edge. Some of the report recommendation areas follows:
!Both the U.S. federal government and the private sector need to
address the demand for skilled IT professionals, including such steps
as updating curricula, increasing fellowships, and simplifying visa
processes.
!With respect to the federally-funded research portfolio, the NITRD
Program should emphasize larger-scale and longer-term,
multidisciplinary IT R&D and innovative, higher-risk projects.
!The United States should give priority to R&D in economically
important areas, including IT systems connected with and embedded
in the physical world, software, use and management of digital data,
and advanced Internet capabilities. The PCAST noted that with an
annual federal investment of over $3 billion in the NITRD Program,



changes in the Program’s interagency process to strengthen
assessment and planning are needed.9
Federal Plan for Cyber Security and Information Assurance
Research and Development. In April 2006, the NITRD Subcommittee released
its “Federal Plan for Cyber Security and Information Assurance Research and10
Development.” This report sets out a framework for multi-agency coordination of
federal R&D investments in technologies that can better secure the interconnected
computing systems, networks, and information that together make up the U.S. IT
infrastructure. The plan outlines strategic objectives for coordinated federal R&D
in cyber security and information assurance (CSIA) and presents a broad range of
CSIA R&D technical topics, identifying those topics that are multi-agency technical
and funding priorities. The plan’s findings and recommendations address R&D
priority setting, coordination, fundamental R&D, emerging technologies,
roadmapping, and metrics.
NSA Superconducting Technology Assessment. In August 2005, NSA
released its “Superconducting Technology Assessment”11 as part of its participation
in the High-End Computing PCA of the NITRD Program. NSA had been concerned
about projected limitations of conventional technology and wanted to explore
possible alternatives to meet its future mission-critical computational needs. This
report presented the results of the technology assessment, which found the following.
!Government investment is necessary, because private industry
currently has no compelling financial reason to develop alternative
technologies for mainstream commercial applications.
!With aggressive federal investment (estimated between $372 and
$437 million over five years), by 2010 next generation technologies
would be sufficiently mature to allow the initiation of the design and
construction of an operational petaflops12-scale system.
!Although significant risks exist, the panel has developed a roadmap
that identifies the needed technology developments with milestones
and demonstration vehicles.


9 This report responds to reporting requirements of the High-Performance Computing Act
of 1991 (Public Law 102-194) and the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998
(Public Law 105-305). The laws call for a President’s Information Technology Advisory
Committee (PITAC) to assess periodically what is now known as the NITRD Program.
Executive Order 13385, signed on September 29, 2005, assigned the PITAC’s
responsibilities to PCAST. This report is available at [http://www.nitrd.gov/pcast/
r e p o r t s / P C A S T -N IT -F IN A L . p d f ] .
10 This report is available at [http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/csia/csia_federal_plan.pdf].
11 This report is available at [http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/nsa/sta.pdf].
12 In computing, “flops” or “FLOPS” is an abbreviation of Floating Point Operations Per
Second. This is used as a measure of a computer’s performance, especially in fields of
scientific calculations that make heavy use of floating point calculations. A petaflops-scale15
machine operates at 10 flops.

Computational Science: Ensuring America’s Competitiveness. In
June 2005, the PITAC released “Computational Science: Ensuring America’s13
Competitiveness.” The report identified obstacles to progress in this field,
including “rigid disciplinary silos in academia that are mirrored in federal research
and development agency organizational structures.” According to the report, these
“silos stifle the development of multi-disciplinary research and educational
approaches essential to computational science.” The report recommends the
following.
!Both academia and government fundamentally change their
organizational structures so that they promote and reward
collaborative research.
!The National Science and Technology Council commission the
National Academies to convene one or more task forces to develop
and maintain a multi-decade roadmap for computational science,
with a goal of assuring continuing U.S. leadership in science,
engineering, and the humanities.
!The federal government establish national software sustainability
centers to harden, document, support, and maintain long-term vital
computational science software.
!The federal government provide long-term support for
computational science community data repositories. These should
include defined frameworks, metadata structures, algorithms, data
sets, applications, and review and validation infrastructure. It should
also require funded researchers to deposit their data and research
software in these repositories or with other approved access
providers.
!The federal government provide long-term funding for national
high-end computing centers at levels sufficient to ensure the
regularly scheduled deployment and operation of the fastest and
most capable high-end computing systems that address the most
demanding computational problems.
!The federal government implement coordinated, long-term
computational science programs that include funding for
interconnecting the software sustainability centers, national data and
software repositories, and national high-end leadership centers with
the researchers who use those resources.
!The federal government should rebalance its R&D investments to:
(a) create a new generation of well-engineered, scalable, easy-to-use
software suitable for computational science that can reduce the


13 This report is available at [http://www.nitrd.gov/pitac/reports/20050609_computational/
computational.pdf].

complexity and time to solution for today’s challenging scientific
applications and can create accurate simulations that answer new
questions; (b) design, prototype, and evaluate new hardware
architectures that can deliver larger fractions of peak hardware
performance on scientific applications; and (c) focus on sensor- and
data-intensive computational science applications in light of the
explosive growth of data.
Cyber Security: A Crisis of Prioritization. In February 2005, the PITAC
released “Cyber Security: A Crisis of Prioritization.”14 That report outlined four key
findings and recommendations on how the federal government could “foster new
architectures and technologies to secure the Nation’s IT infrastructure.” Specifically,
the PITAC urged the government to
!significantly increase support for fundamental research in civilian
cyber security in 10 priority areas;
!intensify federal efforts to promote the recruitment and retention of
cyber security researchers and students at research universities;
!increase support for the rapid transfer of federally-developed
cybersecurity technologies to the private sector; and
!strengthen the coordination of federal cybersecurity R&D activities.
Also in February 2005, the NCO released the FY2006 Supplement to the President’s15
Budget. The supplement provides a brief technical outline of the FY2006 budget
request for the NITRD Program. The FY2007 Supplement has not yet been released.
NITRD Enabling and Governing Legislation
The NITRD Program is governed by two laws. The first, the High-Performance
Computing Act of 1991, P.L. 102-194,16 expanded federal support for high-
performance computing R&D and called for increased interagency planning and
coordination. The second, the Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998, P.L.17
105-305, amended the original law to expand the mission of the NITRD Program
to cover Internet-related research, among other goals.


14 This report is available at [http://www.nitrd.gov/pitac/reports/20050301_cyber
security/cybersecurity.pdf].
15 This report is available at [http://www.nitrd.gov/pubs/2006supplement].
16 High Performance Computing Act of 1991, P.L. 102-194, 15 U.S.C. 5501, 105 Stat. 1595,
December 9, 1991. The full text of this law is available at [http://www.nitrd.gov/
congressional/laws /pl_102-194.html ].
17 Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998, P.L. 105-305, 15 U.S.C. 5501, 112 Stat.

2919, October 28, 1998. The full text of this law is available at [http://www.nitrd.gov/


congressional/laws /pl_h_105-305.html ].

High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. This law was the original
enabling legislation for what is now the NITRD Program. Among other
requirements, it called for the following.
!Setting goals and priorities for federal high-performance computing
research, development, and networking.
!Providing for the technical support and research and development of
high-performance computing software and hardware needed to
address fundamental problems in science and engineering.
!Educating undergraduate and graduate students.
!Fostering and maintaining competition and private sector investment
in high-speed data networking within the telecommunications
industry.
!Promoting the development of commercial data communications and
telecommunications standards.
!Providing security, including protecting intellectual property rights,
!Developing accounting mechanisms allowing users to be charged for
the use of copyrighted materials.
This law also requires an annual report to Congress on grants and cooperative R&D18
agreements and procurements involving foreign entities.
Next Generation Internet Research Act of 1998. This law amended the
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991. The act had two overarching purposes.
The first was to authorize research programs related to high-end computing and
computation, human-centered systems, high confidence systems, and education,
training, and human resources. The second was to provide for the development and
coordination of a comprehensive and integrated U.S. research program to focus on
(1) computer network infrastructure that would promote interoperability among
advanced federal computer networks, (2) economic high-speed data access that does
not impose a “geographic penalty.” and (3) flexible and extensible networking
technology.


18 The first report mandated information on the “Supercomputer Agreement” between the
United States and Japan be included in this report. A separate one-time only report was
required on network funding, including user fees, industry support, and federal investment.

Context of Federal Technology Funding
In the early 1990s, Congress recognized that several federal agencies had19
ongoing high-performance computing programs, but no central coordinating body
existed to ensure long-term coordination and planning. To provide such a
framework, Congress passed the High-Performance Computing Program Act of 1991
to improve the interagency coordination, cooperation, and planning of agencies with
high performance computing programs.
In conjunction with the passage of the act, OSTP released, “Grand Challenges:
High-Performance Computing and Communications.” That document outlined an
R&D strategy for high-performance computing and communications and a
framework for a multi-agency program, the HPCC Program.
The NITRD Program is part of the larger federal effort to promote fundamental
and applied IT R&D. The government sponsors such research through a number of
channels, including
!federally funded research and development laboratories, such as
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory;
!single-agency programs;
!multi-agency programs, including the NITRD Program, but also
programs focusing on nanotechnology R&D and combating
terrorism;
!funding grants to academic institutions; and
!funding grants to industry.
In general, supporters contend that federal funding of IT R&D has produced
positive results. In 2003, the Computer Science and Telecommunications Board
(CSTB) of the National Research Council (NRC) released a “synthesis report” based
on eight previously released reports that examined “how innovation occurs in IT,
what the most promising research directions are, and what impacts such innovation
might have on society.”20 One of the most significant of the CSTB’s observations


19 “High-performance” computing is a term that encompasses both “supercomputing” and
“grid computing.” In general, high-performance computers are defined as stand-alone or
networked computers that can perform “very complex computations very quickly.”
Supercomputing involves a single, stand-alone computer located in a single location. Grid
computing involves a group of computers, in either the same location or spread over a
number of locations, that are networked together (e.g., via the Internet or a local network).
House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Supercomputing: Is the United States on
the Right Path (Hearing Transcript), [http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/
hsy88231.000/hsy88231_0f.htm], 2003, pp. 5-6.
20 National Research Council, Innovation in Information Technology, 2003, p. 1. This report
(continued...)

was that the unanticipated results of research are often as important as the anticipated
results. For example, electronic mail and instant messaging were by-products of
[government-funded] research in the 1960s that was aimed at making it possible to
share expensive computing resources among multiple simultaneous interactive users.
Additionally, the report noted that federally funded programs have played a
crucial role in supporting long-term research into fundamental aspects of computing.
Such “fundamentals” provide broad practical benefits, but generally take years to
realize. Furthermore, supporters state that the nature and underlying importance of
fundamental research makes it less likely that industry would invest in and conduct
more fundamental research on its own. As noted by the CSTB, “companies have
little incentive to invest significantly in activities whose benefits will spread quickly
to their rivals.”21 Further, in the Board’s opinion:
government sponsorship of research, especially in universities, helps develop the
IT talent used by industry, universities, and other parts of the economy. When
companies create products using the ideas and workforce that result from
federally-sponsored research, they repay the nation in jobs, tax revenues,22
productivity increases, and world leadership.
Another aspect of government-funded IT R&D is that it often leads to open
standards, something that many perceive as beneficial, encouraging deployment and
further investment. Industry, on the other hand, is more likely to invest in proprietary
products and will diverge from a common standard if it sees a potential competitive
or financial advantage; this has happened, for example with standards for instant
messagi ng. 23
Finally, proponents of government R&D support believe that the outcomes
achieved through the various funding programs create a synergistic environment in
which both fundamental and application-driven research are conducted, benefitting
government, industry, academia, and the public. Supporters also believe that such
outcomes justify government’s role in funding IT R&D, as well as the growing
budget for the NITRD Program.
Critics assert that the government, through its funding mechanisms, may be
setting itself up to pick “winners and losers” in technological development, a role
more properly residing with the private sector.24 For example, the size of the NITRD
Program may encourage industry to follow the government’s lead on research
directions rather than selecting those directions itself.


20 (...continued)
discusses all federal funding for R&D, not only the NITRD Program.
21 Ibid, p. 4.
22 Ibid, p. 4.
23 Ibid, p. 18.
24 Cato Institute, Encouraging Research: Taking Politics Out of R&D, September 13, 1999,
[ ht t p: / / www.cat o.or g/ pubs/ wt paper s/ 990913cat or d.ht ml ] .

Overall, CSTB states that, government funding appears to have allowed research
on a larger scale and with greater diversity, vision, and flexibility than would have
been possible without government involvement.25
Activity in the 110th and 109th Congress
There has been no NITRD-specific activity in the 110th Congress. The 109th
Congress introduced one bill and held three hearings related to the NITRD Program.
Major Legislation, 109th Congress
Representative Judy Biggert introduced H.R. 28, the High-Performance
Computing Revitalization Act on January 4, 2005. The bill would have amended the
High-Performance Computing Act of 1991 and further delineate the responsibilities
of the NITRD Program, including setting the goals and priorities for federal high-
performance computing research, development, networking, and other activities and
providing more specific definitions for the responsibilities of the PCAs. The bill was
referred to the House Committee on Science, which reported the bill on April 12,
2005.26 The committee also approved, by voice vote, an amendment that stated that
the results and benefits of federal supercomputing research should be shared with the
private sector. The committee rejected, by a vote of 17-19, an amendment offered
by Representative Brad Sherman that would have directed the National Science
Foundation to investigate the societal, ethical, legal, and economic implications of
computers that one day might be capable of mimicking human abilities to learn,
reason, and make decisions. H.R. 28 was agreed to by voice vote in the House on
April 26, 2005, and received in the Senate, where it was read twice and referred to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, on April 27, 2005.27 No
further action was taken.
Hearings, 109th Congress
On July 17, 2006, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation’s Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation, and Competitiveness,
held a hearing to discuss issues related to supercomputing research. In particular, the
witnesses expressed concern that although supercomputers are now faster than ever,
U.S. government investment in supercomputers had decreased significantly over the
past decade, leaving such investment to the private sector. However, a number of
witnesses noted that the Bush Administration’s FY2007 budget calls for increased
supercomputing research investment and that a consistent investment over the next
few years would prompt industry and academia to invest more steadily as well.


25 National Research Council, Innovation in Information Technology, 2003, p. 22.
26 See H.Rept. 109-36.
27 See H.Rept. 109-36.

On February 16, 2005, the House Committee on Science held a hearing to
discuss the federal R&D Budget for FY2006.28 This hearing covered the entire R&D
budget and included an overview of NITRD activities by Dr. John Marburger, the
Director of OSTP.
On May 12, 2005, the House Committee on Science held a hearing entitled,
“The Future of Computer Science Research in the U.S.”29 That hearing focused on
three primary areas of investigation.
!What effects are shifts in federal support for computer science (e.g.,
shifts in the balance between short- and long-term research, shifts in
the roles of different agencies) having on academic and industrial
computer science research and development?
!What impacts will these changes have on the future of the U.S.
information technology industry and on innovation in this field?
!Are the federal government’s current priorities related to computer
science research appropriate? If not, how should they be changed?
!What should the federal government be doing to implement the
recommendations of the recent PITAC report on cybersecurity?
At this hearing, the committee heard testimony from Dr. Marburger, OSTP; Dr.
Anthony J. Tether; DARPA; Dr. William A. Wulf, National Academy of
Engineering; and Dr. Tom Leighton, Akamai Technologies and member of the
PITAC. Testimony from Drs. Marburger and Tether stressed the growing budget of
computer research and their belief that the overall health of the U.S. science and
technology research community remains strong. However, Doctors Wulf and
Leighton, representing the research community, stated that they believed government
needed to provide even more funding, as industry was not willing to fund the levels
of fundamental research they believed necessary to sustain the United States’
research needs.
Issues for Congress
Federal IT R&D is a multi-dimensional issue, involving many government
agencies working together towards shared and complementary goals. Most observers
believe that success in this arena requires ongoing coordination among government,
academia, and industry.


28 The charter and submitted testimony for this hearing is available at
[http://www.house.gov/ science/hearings /full05/index.htm] .
29 The charter and submitted testimony for this hearing is available at
[http://www.house.gov/ science/press/109/109-71.htm] .

Through hearings, the House Committee on Science has been investigating
issues related to U.S. competitiveness in high-performance computing and the
direction the IT R&D community has been taking. Those issues and others remain
salient and may merit further investigation if the United States is to maintain a
comprehensive IT R&D policy. Included among the possible issues Congress may
wish to pursue are: the United States’ status as the global leader in high-performance
computing research; the apparent bifurcation of the federal IT R&D research agenda
between grid computing and supercomputing capabilities; the possible over-reliance
on commercially available hardware to satisfy U.S. research needs; and the potential
impact of deficit cutting on IT R&D funding.
Many Members of Congress as well as those in the research community have
expressed concern over whether the United States is maintaining its position as the
global leader in high-performance computing R&D. That concern was highlighted
in 2003 when Japan briefly surpassed the United States in possessing the fastest and
most efficient supercomputer in the world.30 While this was a reason for some
concern, it was also viewed by some as an indicator of how the United States’
research agenda had become bifurcated, with some in the R&D community focusing
on traditional supercomputing capabilities, and others focusing more on cluster
computing or grid computing. Each type of computing has its advantages, based on
its application. Stand-alone supercomputers are often faster and are generally used
to work on a specific problem. For example, cryptanalysis and climate modeling
applications require significant computing power and are best accomplished using
specialized, stand-alone computers. Cluster computing, however, allows the use of
commercially available hardware, which helps contain costs. The cluster
configuration is useful for applications in which a problem can be broken into
smaller independent components.31 Therefore, one possible course for Congress
could be to monitor closely the work that was begun by the High-End Computing
Revitalization Task Force and is now being performed by the NITRD Program’s
High-End Computing Interagency Working Group and provide ongoing feedback and
guidance.
Without a clear plan as to how to proceed, pursuing two disparate research
agendas (with goals that could be viewed as being at odds with each other) could split
the research community further, damaging its ability to provide leadership in either
area. The NITRD Program already is working on a “roadmap” for future directions
in supercomputing; therefore, one possible course for Congress at this time would be
to monitor closely the work of the High-End Computing Revitalization Task Force
and provide input or a more visible forum for discussion (i.e., additional hearings
involving task force participants). Congress may wish to conduct its own inquiry
into the debate over grid versus stand-alone computing. For example, at a July 2003
hearing, one of the overarching questions the panelists were asked to address was
whether federal agencies were pursuing conflicting R&D goals and, if so, what


30 House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Supercomputing: Is the United States
on the Right Path? (Hearing Transcript), [http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/science/
hsy88231.000/hsy88231_0f.htm], 2003, p. 13.
31 Ibid, p. 6-7.

should and could be done to ensure they moved toward a more coordinated, unified
goal.
Another issue is whether the United States is relying too heavily on
commercially available hardware to satisfy its R&D needs. While use of computers
designed for mass-market commercial applications can certainly be a part of a
successful high-end computing R&D plan, Congress may wish to monitor how this
reliance may be driving the new emphasis on grid computing.
As noted earlier, critics of IT R&D funding often state that industry should
conduct more fundamental R&D on their own, without government backing, and that
fiscal restraint dictates that less funding should be made available. Conversely,
supporters of government funding would point out that IT R&D has a very long cycle
from inception to application and that any reductions in funding now could have a
significant negative impact for many years to come in terms of innovation and
training of researchers. Therefore, Congress may monitor and assess the potential
impact of deficit-cutting plans on progress in IT R&D.