A Bipartisan Innovation Bill Scraped Through the Senate and Heads to the House. Could This Notch a Win for Progressives?
By Jake Higdon
After a hodge-podge of Senate amendments, a $250 billion bill to promote American innovation and manufacturing — the U.S. Innovation and Competition Act (USICA) — is close to becoming law. In its original form as the Endless Frontier Act, the bill was framed as a “must-pass” measure to increase American competitiveness with China in critical technology areas like advanced computing and clean energy. President Biden has explicitly endorsed it in his infrastructure agenda and urged quick passage in the House. As the House takes up its own version of USICA, Democrats have an opportunity to make a positive imprint on the public innovation landscape.
The U.S. Innovation and Competition Act was designed to garner bipartisan support, so it will never be progressives’ ideal innovation policy. But it is a rare instance of a large bill that could pass through regular order, and we have reason to believe it can advance progressive goals on climate and equity. Data for Progress polling finds that a number of provisions in USICA are widely popular, and that there is public support for pushing even further on the most progressive components. As we’ve stated repeatedly in our work on climate innovation and prior commentary on the bill, the Left would do well to reclaim and expand the ambition of federal innovation, which is too often posed as an alternative, rather than a complement, to other bold government action on priorities like climate and health care.
Mapping out the legislative process
Before we dive into opportunities for progressive wins, we should recap the bumpy path to the USICA. The original Endless Frontier Act focused almost exclusively on enhancing efforts at the National Science Foundation (NSF). It provided $100 billion to create a new technology “directorate,” or department, focused on mission-oriented research and development, also referred to as applied R&D. This would expand NSF’s research focus beyond basic science to real-world applications, like emerging zero-emissions technologies to combat climate change, or artificial intelligence. It also allocated $10 billion for regional innovation hubs that could create clusters of technology commercialization, entrepreneurship, and economic development across the U.S.
However, the Senate made several noteworthy alterations and additions to Endless Frontier before crafting a final version of USICA. The Senate markup process 1) shrunk the proposed NSF directorate to $25 billion, while directing a portion of the original funding to the Department of Energy to address energy-related supply chain issues; 2) tacked on the CHIPS Act to incentivize domestic semiconductor manufacturing; 3) added the Strategic Competition Act designed to counter China’s geopolitical influence; 4) included provisions to promote equity in the STEM workforce and educational institutions; and 5) reopened a NASA contract that would ostensibly benefit Jeff Bezos. Many have offered reasonable gripes with these confusing appendages, which tangled the innovation-focused legislation with a much broader set of geopolitical and social issues — some of which progressives support, but many they do not.
Figure 1. The legislative status of USICA. Dotted lines represent uncertainty around what proposals might make it into the final legislation.
Now, the biggest leverage point for progressives is in assembling and amending a House counter-offer, which will be negotiated with the Senate to arrive at a single piece of legislation. The House does have its own version of the Endless Frontier Act, introduced by Rep. Ro Khanna. However, the core of the House counter-offer is likely to be two House Science Committee bills: the NSF for the Future Act and the Department of Energy Science for the Future Act. Both passed the House earlier this month. The NSF for the Future Act creates a new mission-oriented technology directorate similar to the Endless Frontier Act, and also promotes equity in STEM. The Department of Energy Science for the Future Act, championed by energy subcommittee chair Jamaal Bowman, expands R&D in the DOE’s Office of Science with new focus areas on environmental systems and climate science, among others. There may be other House bills and amendments hitched to these two before they move a full counter-offer into negotiations.
House progressives can build on popular elements from legislation in both chambers
Both the Senate bill and the likely House components contain popular, progressive wins, but House lawmakers can push even further.
First, House lawmakers should fight for clean energy R&D to be at the center of the innovation agenda. The bills proposed in both chambers would take an important step to expand the aperture of NSF from basic science to mission-oriented R&D, including advanced energy and climate science, while also recognizing the Department of Energy’s important historical role in clean energy development and commercialization. House lawmakers should feel confident increasing funding for clean energy research and development even further in their counter-offer. A June 2021 Data for Progress national survey found that two-thirds of likely voters (67 percent) support investments in clean energy R&D to combat climate change, compared to 59 percent who support investments in emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning.
Second, House lawmakers can make the new technology directorate more progressive by placing explicit emphasis on climate, equity, and diversity in the innovation ecosystem. The NSF for the Future Act includes efforts to address social and economic inequality and train a diverse climate adaptation and mitigation workforce. We find that voters strongly endorse measures to increase economic and social equity in innovation. This includes support for expanding funding for rural and minority-serving institutions (63 percent support) and empowering the NSF to improve the outcomes and workplace inclusion of underrepresented minorities (57 percent support).
Third, the House counter-offer should include and build upon the Senate’s investments in domestic manufacturing and strong labor standards. These include the $10 billion for regional innovation hubs and $52 billion for semiconductor supply chains in the CHIPS Act, which is coupled with Davis-Bacon prevailing wage requirements. These investments can complement applied R&D by creating high-paying jobs in disinvested regions, while strengthening the domestic supply chain for electric vehicles and other essential climate technologies. Data for Progress polling shows that, by a 45-point margin, voters support including labor and prevailing wage standards in USICA (66 percent support, 21 percent oppose). Support is bipartisan: majorities of Democrats (81 percent), Independents (55 percent), and Republicans (54 percent) all support robust wage and labor standards as part of USICA.
House lawmakers can build upon these popular investments by ensuring federal funds are not used for stock buybacks or executive bonuses, as Sen. Bernie Sanders attempted in a Senate amendment, while taking care not to include so many strings as to undercut the incentives. They can also require that federal R&D investments promote domestic manufacturing by introducing legislation to strengthen the Bayh-Dole Act, which has several loopholes that have led to offshoring in the clean energy and semiconductor industries.
Fourth, one of the main differences we are seeing in the House is a caution around using anti-China posture to build bipartisan support. Rep. Bowman summed up a rising concern among the progressive caucus back in May: “I strongly reject any anti-China rhetoric associated with this bill, and we must be vigilant about the impacts of such rhetoric on AAPI communities at a time of increased hate crimes... We won't be able to solve the challenges of the 21st century like the climate crisis and global health unless we have relationships that harness partnerships across the globe, including China.” Sen. Sanders made a similar plea in a recent op-ed. House lawmakers can replace the Senate’s Strategic Competition Act, which is particularly hawkish and antagonistic toward China, with the EAGLE Act, to hold China accountable on human rights and climate without stoking anti-Asian sentiment.
Finally, House negotiators should push to exclude Sen. Maria Cantwell’s amendment to authorize a redundant $10 billion for a NASA lunar landing contract. Reopening the contract, which was already awarded to SpaceX, would almost certainly benefit the senator’s billionaire constituent Jeff Bezos.
Conclusion
Given the above medley of priorities and amendments, it is inevitable that the bill will be less coherent in its innovation approach than the original Endless Frontier Act, but it still represents a major opportunity for positive change. Lawmakers should push to pass a bill that does not just continue the federal government’s long-standing innovation approach, but expands its capacity for applied R&D, strengthens domestic manufacturing, and promotes a robust and equitable workforce. The U.S. will be better poised to compete in the 21st century, tackle the climate crisis, and achieve economic prosperity for all if we target our historic innovation weaknesses and invest in the American people.
Jake Higdon (@Jake_Higdon) is a Senior Policy Adviser to Data for Progress, providing support to the Green New Deal portfolio.