Science - USA (2022-02-11)

602 11 FEBRUARY 2022 • VOL 375 ISSUE 6581 science.org SCIENCE

PHOTO: ADAM GLANZMAN/BLOOMBERG/GETTY IMAGES

R

emember when your mother said

cramming too much food into your

mouth could make you choke? Demo-

crats in the U.S. Congress are about to

find out whether that warning also ap-

plies to their ability to enact sweeping

legislation that aims to double the budgets

of the National Science Foundation (NSF)

and other key research agencies, pour money

into the high-tech industry, prevent “malign

foreign influence” on U.S. research, and curb

sexual harassment in academic science.

There are two versions of the legislation,

both designed to maintain the country’s tech-

nological edge over China. Last week, the

House of Representatives passed the America

COMPETES Act, a bill similar to the U.S. In-

novation and Competition Act approved by

the Senate in June 2021. Now, ironing out

the differences in the massive bills—which

are 5200 pages combined and have price tags

topping $250 billion—will test the Demo-

crats’ razor-thin majorities in each body.

Both bills would authorize the govern-

ment to spend tens of billions of dollars on

research. But the numbers are mostly aspira-

tional. Congress would have to approve most

of the spending through its annual budget

process, and higher education lobbyists fear

a repeat of what happened in 2007 and 2010,

when lawmakers authorized big hikes in sci-

ence spending that never materialized.

At NSF, the bills call for adding a technol-

ogy directorate and doubling the agency’s

overall budget over 5 years. The Department

of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Science and its

laboratories would get a similar boost, and

the Department of Commerce would fund a

new network of regional innovation hubs.

The nation’s semiconductor industry would

receive $52 billion, mostly to increase man-

ufacturing capacity but also to strengthen

microelectronics research facilities.

Both bills call for tightening oversight of

collaborations with China and a few other

countries seen as exerting a “malign” influ-

ence on U.S. research. Scientists with federal

grants would be barred from participating

in Chinese talent recruitment programs and

universities would be required to provide

more information about foreign donors.

The bills also seek to stamp out sexual ha-

rassment in academia, calling for a uniform

policy on reporting allegations and findings

to federal funding agencies.

There are important policy differences

between the two bills, however. The Senate

wants NSF’s new technology directorate to

focus on 10 key disciplines, such as artifi-

cial intelligence and quantum computing,

whereas the House asks NSF to combat

climate change, reduce economic and so-

cial inequality, and build a robust scientific

workforce along with advancing strategi-

cally important areas.

“The Senate bill implies a trade-off be-

tween supporting key technologies to main-

tain our competitive edge and improving

the quality of life for all Americans,” says a

Democratic staffer on the House science com-

mittee, which crafted many of the research

provisions in the COMPETES bill. “But we

think that technology is simply a means to an

end, and that you can do both things.”

The House and Senate also differ on how

to spread federal research dollars more equi-

tably across the country, including to institu-

tions that enroll large numbers of students

from groups underrepresented in science.

The Senate bill requires that 20% of the

money slated for NSF and DOE be spent in

the roughly two dozen states that receive the

fewest federal research dollars. In contrast,

the House bill avoids any mandatory set-

asides, instead creating new programs that

target institutions in those have-not states.

The COMPETES Act would also change

immigration policy to allow more foreign stu-

dents to stay after they earn advanced techni-

cal degrees at U.S. universities. One provision

would exempt them from limits on applying

for permanent residency status, and another

would create a visa category for budding

high-tech entrepreneurs. The Senate bill con-

tains no such changes, and those measures

are likely to be opposed by lawmakers who

want to limit immigration.

Unlike the Senate bill, the House bill in-

cludes several climate change provisions, in-

cluding a call for the United States to spend

$8 billion to help poorer nations respond to

the crisis and $3 billion to help U.S. solar en-

ergy companies become less reliant on com-

ponents made in China.

The House bill’s sweeping scope is its

strength, says Representative Eddie Bernice

Johnson (D–TX), chair of the House science

committee. “We are making investments to

build clean energy ... reinforce our national

security, enhance our semiconductor manu-

facturing capabilities, and so much more,”

Johnson said before passage of the bill,

which was backed by only one Republi-

can—and opposed by one Democrat.

The science panel’s top Republican, Rep-

resentative Frank Lucas (OK), explained

his party’s opposition during debate on the

bill. Democrats, he said, “hijacked good bi-

partisan bills dealing with U.S. competitive-

ness and countering the malign influence of

China to pass another Democratic wish list

that will go nowhere in the Senate.”

Lawmakers from both parties hope to final-

ize a bill by this spring. President Joe Biden

voiced his support, saying: “America can’t

afford to wait.” But a full legislative agenda

and the upcoming November elections could

make it difficult to reach a bipartisan deal. j

Congress wants to increase U.S. high-tech production

such as semiconductor manufacturing, seen at

GlobalFoundries in Malta, New York.

Massive U.S. innovation bills

face difficult road in Congress

Lawmakers must reconcile competing visions for boosting

research spending and helping high-tech industries

SCIENCE POLICY

By Jeffrey Mervis

NEWS | IN DEPTH