Republicans Pass Partisan America COMPETES amidst Strong Democratic Opposition
(Washington, DC) – Today, the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a contentious markup of the Majority’s authorization bill, H.R. 1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015. The bill was reported favorably out of Committee along party lines. The partisan process of today’s markup was a notable departure from previous Competes authorizations, which were both bipartisan and fully supported by the scientific community.
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said, “H.R. 1806 is the combination of two bad bills from last year – the FIRST Act and the Department of Energy R&D Act – into one doubly bad bill. The Competes Act of 2007 was landmark bipartisan legislation that was based on the recommendations of the esteemed National Academies and was vetted with dozens of stakeholder organizations through a multi-month, transparent process. The same is true for the 2010 reauthorization.
“In contrast, the bill before us today was kept behind closed doors until less than a week before today’s markup. Neither the agencies that are being authorized nor the stakeholder community at large had any opportunity to see it or to provide feedback. Bipartisan negotiations were limited to a few pages in the STEM title. The Competes Acts of 2007 and 2010 sought to ensure America’s continued scientific preeminence and to grow our innovation economy. In contrast, H.R. 1806 is preoccupied with questioning the motives of the National Science Foundation and the integrity of the scientists it funds. In addition, it would put up multiple roadblocks to progress in clean energy R&D, under the guise of preventing ‘picking winners and losers,’ even as H.R 1806 picks its own winners and losers. The Competes Acts of 2007 and 2010 focused on reinforcing America’s commitment to the sciences across the board. In contrast, H.R. 1806 seeks to pit different scientific disciplines against one another and to prevent research in fields to which the Majority is ideologically opposed. The Competes Acts of 2007 and 2010 sought to provide sustainable increases for R&D. In contrast, H.R. 1806 would flat fund R&D overall and impose severe cuts in certain fields. The Competes Acts of 2007 and 2010 sought to attract a new generation of STEM researchers across all fields. In contrast, H.R. 1806 would direct funding cuts and policies that will discourage an entire generation of American students and researchers. Last year I described the FIRST Act as an opportunity lost. Today, I want to be clear that H.R. 1806 is much worse than an opportunity lost. It is a tragedy in waiting.”
To view Ranking Member Johnson’s full statement, click here.
Ranking Member Johnson submitted 32 letters for the record from a wide-range of scientific groups and concerned stakeholders. These groups represent well over 300 scientific organizations, universities, and private companies. View the letters here.
Democratic Committee Members submitted numerous amendments to the bill to remove harmful language and restore funding for valuable scientific research. Each of these amendments was opposed by the Majority and voted down along party lines. View the amendments here.
One of the amendments proposed by Ranking Member Johnson was intended to replace the bill text with that of the Democratic alternative, H.R. 1898, the America Competes Act of 2015. This bill was cosponsored by all of the Democratic Members of the Committee. The text for H.R. 1898 can be found here.
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article