Structure of the DoD Research Budget, & More from CRS
Nearly half of all federal research and development dollars go to the Department of Defense, a new report from the Congressional Research Service observes. The Pentagon research budget is more than twice that of the next largest recipient, the Department of Health and Human Services.
The structure of the DoD research budget, which has “its own unique taxonomy,” is described in the new CRS report. See Department of Defense Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E): Appropriations Structure, December 13, 2016.
Other new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service include the following.
Military Construction: Process and Outcomes, December 14, 2016
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress, updated December 13, 2016
Agency Final Rules Submitted on or After June 13, 2016, May Be Subject to Disapproval by the 115th Congress, CRS Insight, updated December 15, 2016
Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Incentives: A Summary of Federal Programs, updated December 14, 2016
Renewable Identification Numbers (RINs) and Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) Compliance, CRS Insight, December 14, 2016
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS): In Brief, updated December 14, 2016
NASA: FY2017 Budget and Appropriations, updated December 13, 2016
Noncitizen Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview, updated December 12, 2016
The First Day of a New Congress: A Guide to Proceedings on the House Floor, updated December 13, 2016
The First Day of a New Congress: A Guide to Proceedings on the Senate Floor, updated December 13, 2016
Department of Education’s Withdrawal of Its Recognition of ACICS as an Accrediting Agency, CRS Insight, December 14, 2016
Cyprus: Reunification Proving Elusive, updated December 15, 2016
Latin America: Terrorism Issues, updated December 15, 2016
U.S. International Broadcasting: Background and Issues for Reform, updated December 15, 2016
Outcome-Based Contracting reframes procurement around the staged achievement of measurable mission outcomes rather than the delivery of predefined technical artifacts.
The real opportunity of AI lies not just in the tools, but in an educator workforce prepared to wield them. When done right, this investment in human infrastructure ensures AI accelerates learning outcomes for all students, closing the “digital design divide.”
If carbon markets are going to play a meaningful role — whether as engines of transition finance, as instruments of accurate pricing across heterogeneous climate interventions, or both — they need the infrastructure and standards that any serious market requires.
Good information sources, like collections, must be available and maintained if companies are going to successfully implement the vision of AI for science expressed by their marketing and executives.