Statement of Space Subcommittee Chairman Steven Palazzo (R-Miss.) on Edwards Amendment
Space Subcommittee Markup of Committee Print, NASA Authorization Act of 2013
Chairman Palazzo: I would like to thank the minority for their active participation in the process. This committee has a long history of bipartisan work and it is helpful to have a product from the minority defining their priorities.
In the substitute amendment, I have found many areas of agreement including a commitment to the exploration of our solar system and specifically to Mars with adequate funding for the Space Launch System and Orion crew capsule. The amendment also includes a similar commitment to the Commercial Crew Program and International Space Station. I also share the minority’s commitment to an active Aeronautics Mission Directorate and Space Technology program. I think it is clear there are many areas the majority and the minority can agree on.
One issue in particular that I feel needs to be addressed is the top line funding in the amendment. The Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed by a Republican controlled House, a Democratic controlled Senate, and signed by a Democratic President. Members on both sides of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee voted for this legislation. I share the concerns of many of my colleagues regarding sequestration and the indiscriminate way cuts are made to programs. In the House we passed two replacement solutions that would cut spending in a more responsible and balanced way. I and many of my colleagues stand ready to work with the Senate and the Administration to find alternatives to the Budget Control Act, but at this time it is the reality under which we must operate. Until we find a way to reform entitlements and mandatory spending, the discretionary agencies will continue to see shrinking budgets.
On the screens in front of us are three charts produced by the American Association for the Advancement of Science using data from the federal budget.
As you can see on the next slide, today approximately 2/3 of our federal budget is devoted to mandatory spending which leaves only 1/3 for discretionary programs including 1.6% for non-defense R&D spending.
As you can see on the next slide, today approximately 2/3 of our federal budget is devoted to mandatory spending which leaves only 1/3 for discretionary programs including 1.6% for non-defense R&D spending.
The final chart shows the projections for federal spending in the future. Sadly, this projection demonstrates that by the year 2017, mandatory spending by the federal government will have crowded out discretionary funding to approximately 1/4 of the overall budget with only 1.3% for non-defense R&D.
As you can see from these charts, discretionary research and development spending, particularly at NASA, is not the problem. Everyone recognizes the valuable investment in our future that every dollar spent on NASA provides. The real problem is the growth in mandatory spending, and it will only get worse. The Ranking Member’s amendment states in Section 101 that “…NASA’s share of the Federal discretionary budgetary authority has declined significantly relative to even its post-Apollo historical average.” The charts I just mentioned clearly illustrate how we got here. The only way to ensure that NASA remains a world-leader in space, something I think everyone of us here can agree on, is to reform mandatory spending. Failure to do so will result in not only continued sequestration levels into the future, but perhaps the collapse of our space program altogether.
As lawmakers we have a responsibility to put forth serious policies with realistic approaches to the current fiscal environment and the constraints of the law.Many of my friends on the other side of the aisle voted for the Budget Control Act and while we might agree that it is far from ideal, we’ve yet to see an alternative. Until we do, we must make serious and good faith efforts to do the best we can with the hand we’ve been dealt. That is the intent of the bill we have today.
In 2010 this Committee developed a bipartisan NASA Authorization Act that was summarily ignored by the Senate. As a result, Congress failed to provide NASA with the stability and guidance necessary for its long-term goals. I do not want this to happen again. If we follow the Minority’s lead and either defer to the Senate, or authorize unrealistic funding levels, we risk leaving NASA adrift for another four years. I refuse to let this happen. The American people deserve better.
In closing, I welcome the input and efforts of the Minority to work alongside us to replace sequestration with fiscally responsible alternatives that can pass both houses, but with the current realities we face, I cannot support this proposal as a serious or workable solution.
