Geology and Society Division

 View Only

Newly-introduced Senate COMPETES bill has strong support for basic research

By Jessica Ball posted 08-15-2014 10:10

  

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) introduced the Senate version of the America COMPETES reauthorization bill on July 31. Similar to the House Democrats’ COMPETES reauthorization, the Senate version builds on the 2006 COMPETES bill and 2010 reauthorization, which sought to double the federal investments in basic research at the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by 2017. The Senate’s 2014 COMPETES bill would reauthorize the NSF and NIST in 2015 at the level of the FY2015 request ($7,255,000,000 for the NSF and $900,000,000 for NIST), with annual increases of ~6.6% for the next five years. While this is similar to the amounts in the Democratic House bill, it is a significant departure from the Republican FIRST bill, which would flatline funds for the two agencies, specify directorate-level funding amounts at the NSF and introduce onerous regulations for transparency in the merit review process.

Highlights of the Senate COMPETES bill include language supporting the NSF’s current merit review process – likely in response to the House’s FIRST bill – and reinforcing the value of the Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences and Education and Human Resources directorates, both of which have come under attack in the House. The Senate bill also contains provisions that benefit STEM graduate students and postdocs; it stipulates that in the NSF’s IGERT and GRF graduate programs, funding increases in one program must be accompanied by an equal increase in the other, and directs NIST to create a post-doctoral fellowship program supporting 20 or more researchers each year.

In general, the Senate COMPETES reauthorization emphasizes the need for sustained and steady growth in federal funding for research and development, pointing out that the US has had “stagnant private sector investment in basic and early applied research related to international competitors”. One provision directs the OSTP to convene a subcommittee on research productivity to develop recommendations for reducing the costs and administrative burdens associated with competing for, completing and reporting on federal research grants. This follows on the heels of (several) recent hearings and
House legislation on the overwhelming administrative burdens faced by many STEM researchers, which highlighted the NSB report stating that applicants can spend more than 40% of their work time dealing with administrative issues.

In light of
Congressional attention to the issue of frivolous government spending on conference travel, this version of COMPETES contains language backing federal agencies and staff who attend scientific conferences, stating that conferences allow federal scientists access to new developments, top researchers, transformative ideas, and support the reputation and visibility of federal science agencies. Finally, the bill includes a directive for the National Science and Technology Council to encourage additional input from educational institutions, agencies and industry on the 5-year strategic STEM education reorganization plan for federal programs. The President’s initiative to reform and consolidate federal programs supporting STEM education has not been well received; the White House claims it is needed to eliminate redundant and ineffective programs, but both the House and the Senate have objected to the effort on the grounds that it lacks a substantive plan for implementation and that stakeholders have not been consulted properly.

While there are currently several authorization bills for the NSF and NIST in various stages of review in the House and Senate, appropriations committees in both chambers are not waiting for authorizations. The Senate is currently considering the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2015 (S.2437, which passed the House on May 30) and an Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill (draft).

0 comments
18 views

Permalink