Top Republican on House Science Says Committee Waiting to Move Tech Bill

The Nov. 17 announcement from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., about moving to conference (see 2111180009) was “encouraging,” but there’s been no follow-up since the start of the formal conference process, Lucas said. Schumer’s office cited the initial announcement. Pelosi’s office didn’t comment.

“USICA has yet to be sent to the House, while our bills have been sitting in the Senate for months,” Lucas said. “I’m glad the Senate has started expressing a desire to move forward, but what I’d really like to see is action on this.” The office for Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, didn’t comment.

The Senate Commerce Committee has “consistently asked” since USICA passed to meet with the House Science Committee, and “we were definitely refused,” Senate Commerce Committee Chair Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., told reporters Nov. 17. Given the Senate’s larger staff and broader jurisdiction, the upper chamber was able to pass a more comprehensive bill than the House, Cantwell said. “All it means is we’ve got to get them to look at it, and we appreciate them looking at it,” she said. But the Senate is “at a disadvantage,” given the House has been focused “on other things.” She’s confident the House bill will ultimately look like what passed in the Senate.

USICA includes $52 billion to boost chipmaking and $1.5 billion for the Utilizing Strategic Allied Telecommunications Act. “If we’re serious about this, we’ve got to get the funding. We’ve got to keep the level of the funding, and I would say the House will probably embrace the supply chain features of” the legislation, she said.

The Senate bill takes a different approach to what passed in the House regarding the National Science Foundation’s new tech directorate. The House Science Committee is seeking a comprehensive reauthorization of NSF, so it has more resources, including a doubling of the budget for basic research. Both chambers agree on the need for a new tech directorate, but there are differences about funding.

Ultimately both sides need to understand that other countries and regions, including China, South Korea and Europe, are “hungry” to invest, Cantwell said. “Do we really care about America’s competitiveness? Yes,” she said. “Do we think it needs a little dusting off? Yes. Do we think other countries are way hungrier in making these investments? Yes.”

The House and Senate are starting in very different places legislatively, said Margaret McCarthy, Information Technology Industry Council senior director-government affairs, citing “philosophical differences” regarding the tech directorate. There’s no corresponding work in the House for some of the core elements in what passed the Senate, she said. ITI is a major supporter of the underlying bill in the Senate, particularly the chip funding, which is the “glue that keeps the whole package together,” McCarthy said. It was good to see the House’s R&D funding, but the lower chamber hasn’t made as much progress as the Senate on some provisions, she said: “Our top priority is that the chips funding gets enacted this year, as soon as possible.”

There’s important AI research funding in the Senate proposal that could “be effective” if “done the right way,” Craig Albright, BSA|The Software Alliance vice president-legislative strategy, said. He cited the digital trade provisions included in the upper chamber’s bill as another “important” section.