Bills
| 3.23.22

In the Name of Science: Is $32B Worth Reauthorizing the Big America COMPETES Act? (H.R. 1806)

Do you support or oppose this bill?

What is H.R. 1806?

(Updated October 27, 2018)

This bill appropriates a bunch of money for a wide range of scientific endeavors, united under the goal of increasing the U.S.’s competitiveness in global industry. It’s huge, especially for a reauthorization bill: 28,000-ish words, over 189 pages, divided into 731 sections, spread over seven titles. Hold my hand and we’ll get through this together.


Appropriations

The bill begins with allocations: $7.5 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF) for 2016 and 2017 each. Around a billion would be allocated to the United States Arctic Commission, the Mathematical and Physical Science Directorate, the Geosciences Directorate, the Engineering Directorate and the Computer and Information Science and Engineering Directorate.

Next, the bill explains the criteria for federal funding. Programs should boost industry, increase scientific literacy and the U.S.’s national security. Accompanying these goals are a series of guidelines about auditing cost proposals: any project over $50 million would have to go through an audit, and could expect any issues corrected and sent to Congress. It also makes clear what federal funding cannot be used for. It’s the usual suspects: sports games, booze and lobbying.

Programs

After that, the bill explains the kinds of studies and programming that the NSF can fund. This bill licenses funding for:

  • A study on how to best fund graduate student programs;
  • Informal programs like competitions geared at introducing underrepresented populations to STEM fields;
  • Before-school or after-school programs designed to encourage underrepresented populations.

It also licenses giving out prizes for scientific breakthroughs and authorizes funding for National Science Foundation Master Teacher Fellows. The bill also creates a system for managing large research facilities. It creates a “large facility director” who would manage national, multi-use facilities.

Oversight

Next, the bill establishes some oversight rulings. It demands that the NSF come up with ways to ensure that work isn’t being duplicated or misrepresented by people applying for grants. The National Research Council (NRC) also has to do a report on the reproducibility of studies.

The bill also allocates $4.5 million for the Office of Science and Technology Policy and compels them to put together a group to streamline the grant application process and another to put it in line with policy goals. It also compels them to conduct a study on national emergency alert systems.

Studies

Not only does this bill give the Department of Energy a mission statement: to “advance the energy, economic, and national security of the United States” and some $5 billion for 2016 and 2017 each — but it also orders several new studies and programs. They include:

  • Building a “basic energy science” program to support developing new energy technology;
  • Creating a facility to study solar energy;
  • A research program “on the fundamental constituents of matter and energy and the nature of space and time”;
  • A research program on biological systems, and another on fusion energy;
  • Research on energy grids, civilian use of nuclear power, biofuels, fossil fuels, including how to decrease their environmental impact and how to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil;

  • A study on the relationship between energy, water and land use;
  • Identifying areas for collaboration with the private sector;
  • A program to ensure that nuclear reactors are up to standard.
Miscellaneous 

Finally, the bill also:

  • Allocates $900 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, $504 million for nuclear research, $1 billion for renewable energy research, and $600 million for fossil fuel research. 
  • Creates the position of Chief Technology Officer, to advise the government on how best to use technology.
  • Compels the NSF to make funds available for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership, facilitates the transfer of technology from scientists to businesses
  • Makes it so that the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy doesn’t have to disclose private investors or commercial plans

Argument in favor

This bill appropriates funds for anything and everything related to science: STEM education—particularly for underrepresented communities, collaboration with the private sector, investment in alternative energy, cross-agency collaboration. There’s something there for everyone.

Argument opposed

Science education, research, and development are essential — but there’s too much wrong with this bill to pass it. It’s commercially oriented, cuts tons of grant programs, focuses on corporate research interests (like crude oil), and keeps funding decisions out of scientists hands.

Impact

The National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, scientists, students (pretty much all of them), technology industry.

Cost of H.R. 1806

This bill authorizes about $33 billion in funding for 2016-2020. Assuming the money is available, the CBO estimates that implementing the reauthorization would cost about $32 billion over the 2016-2020 period.

Additional Info

Of Note: Science might seem like a hard thing to squabble over — but — not only does this bill not have bipartisan support, it’s pretty controversial. The bill’s explanation of what research should do — you’ll recall from above that it should boost industry, increase scientific literacy and increase the U.S.’s national security —means a squeeze on research. There’s also way less funding in this bill for social sciences and geoscience. 

The regulations placed on large facilities, critic claim, will make them harder to build. The language of the bill also grants more power to lawmakers to determine NSF funding, which researchers are none too happy about.

When Republicans took back the House in 2014, scientists were wary of what that might mean for science. While Republicans like Rep. Smith insist that these changes are about increasing government accountability, scientists see legislation like this as part of a rising anti-science sentiment.  


In Depth:

The America COMPETES Act was first signed into law by President Bush in 2007. In 2011, President Obama reauthorized it. But unlike those bills, which were popular on both sides of the aisle, this version of the bill, passed by the Republican-controlled House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, has only Republican-sponsors.


Media:


Summary by James Helmsworth 

(Photo Credit: Flickr user NASA Goddard Photo and Video)