The House Science, Space and Technology (SS&T) Committee approved a new NASA authorization bill today amid partisan discord reminiscent of a markup of a 2013 NASA authorization bill that never made it to the floor of the House for a vote.  Four Democratic amendments were rejected on party-line votes, and the original bill was approved on a party-line vote. The committee’s top Democrat vowed that the bill would never become law.

The rancorous markup of H.R. 2039, the NASA Authorization Act for 2016 and 2017, was in sharp contrast to recent committee and subcommittee hearings on space topics as well as action on two prior NASA authorization bills for 2014 and 2015.  Congressional Republicans and Democrats differ with the Obama Administration on a number of NASA issues, especially the future of the human spaceflight program.  The top Democrat on the Space Subcommittee, Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), as recently as Tuesday talked about the “tremendous” working relationship she had with subcommittee chairman Rep. Steve Palazzo (R-MS).   She expressed hope that they could find a solution to the drastic funding cuts to NASA’s earth science program included in H.R. 2039 before the markup, but that did not happen.

At the markup today, she wondered aloud as to the purpose of having a space subcommittee when it was never consulted about the bill, never held a hearing on the bill, and for at least the past several years had never held a hearing on NASA’s earth science program despite it now being targeted for cuts.

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), the top Democrat on the full committee, was even blunter.  Noting that Democrats were not consulted about the bill and did not even know about it until Republicans announced the markup last Friday, she lambasted what she called the Republican “ideological agenda” and lamented that Republicans were “throwing out” all the bipartisan work that characterized the 2014 and 2015 bills by cutting NASA’s earth science and aeronautics budgets.  Those cuts “have nothing to do with making America safer or stronger… They are simply the expression of the Majority’s stick-your-head-in-the-sand ideology.”

Committee Republicans led by chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) defeated Democratic attempts to pass a substitute bill offered by Johnson and three other targeted amendments to increase funding for earth science (Edwards), space technology (Rep. Ami Bera, D-CA), and aeronautics (Rep. Don Beyer, D-VA).   They would have added money to the total NASA budget recommended in the bill.  Republicans insisted that it would add to the nation’s debt and the committee had to set priorities.

Republicans argue publicly that NASA’s unique role is space exploration and earth science research should be conducted by other agencies.  Many also are climate change skeptics who are not enthusiastic about spending money on climate research.  They took money from earth science, as well as from space technology, and reallocated it to the Space Launch System (SLS), Orion spacecraft, associated ground systems, planetary exploration, and astrophysics.

Both sides introduced letters they received from stakeholders in the aeronautics and space communities either opposing or endorsing the bill as introduced (they are posted, along with the amendments and opening statements, on the respective Republican and Democratic committee websites).

In the end, the bill was approved as introduced.  A SpacePolicyOnline.com fact sheet summarizing the bill contains a table comparing its funding provisions to those appropriated for FY2015 and requested by President Obama for FY2016.

NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden issued a statement after the markup saying that the bill “guts our Earth science program and threatens to set back generations worth of progress in better understanding our changing climate….NASA leads the world in the exploration and study of planets, and none is more important than the one on which we live.”  He added that the bill also underfunds space technology that the “nation needs to lead in space, including on our journey to Mars.”

Johnson, the full committee’s top Democrat, vowed that the bill would never become law and could erode support for NASA overall.  “There are those in this country, and in this Congress, who don’t think NASA should be a priority.  NASA has survived and thrived over the years only because of the strong bipartisan backing of those who understand the importance of NASA to our national wellbeing.  The bill before us will never become law.  But the Majority’s willingness to walk away from bipartisanship in order to appease their own most ideologically driven Members, risks eroding support for NASA in general.  This, I fear, will be one of the most unfortunate consequences of the Majority’s actions.”

Committee Republicans were unswayed.  The bill was approved 19-15 along party lines.

Chairman Smith issued a statement asserting that the bill “restores balance to NASA’s budget and supports its role as the only government agency responsible for space exploration.”  The bill is sponsored by Palazzo, Smith and 15 other Republicans, including the chairman of the House Appropriations Commerce-Justice-Science subcommittee that funds NASA, Rep. John Culberson (R-TX).  (Authorization bills recommend funding, but do not actually provide any money.  Only appropriations bills provide money.  For more on the difference between authorizations and appropriations, see our “What’s a Markup” fact sheet.

Updated April 30, 2015 with a clarification regarding the letter from Citizens for Spaceflight Exploration-Texas.

Letters from three stakeholder groups to the House Science, Space, and Technology (SS&T) Committee offer mixed reviews of the 2016-2017 NASA Authorization Act that will be marked up by the committee tomorrow.  The Planetary Society, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, and the Coalition for Space Exploration support certain aspects of the legislation, but not the bill in its entirety.  A fourth letter, from Citizens for Spaceflight Exploration-Texas, endorses the human exploration aspects of the bill.

The Republican-sponsored bill was announced last Friday and formally introduced on April 28 as H.R. 2039.  The policy provisions of the bill are virtually identical to language that passed the House on a bipartisan basis in February as part of the 2015 NASA Authorization Act.  The big difference is the budget section. The 2015 act, which has not passed the Senate yet, included funding figures only for FY2015.  That is the fiscal year currently underway so that bill did not require debates about funding.  

H.R. 2039, however, includes funding recommendations for future years, FY2016 and FY2017.  This bill is the first salvo in what could turn out to be a highly partisan debate over NASA’s priorities.  The bill makes funding recommendations based on two different budget scenarios  — an “aspirational” level where the caps set by the 2011 Budget Control Act (BCA) are removed and a “constrained” level where the caps remain in force.  NASA’s earth science program would suffer significant cuts under either of those scenarios.   Rep. Donna Edwards (D-MD), the top Democrat on the Space Subcommittee, said on Tuesday that she “will not stand by quietly” and enable those cuts to go into effect.

A summary of the bill and a fact sheet with a table comparing its proposed funding levels with current funding and the President’s FY2016 budget request is available on SpacePolicyOnline.com.

The committee posted three letters (from The Planetary Society, the Commercial Spaceflight Federation, and Citizens for Spaceflight Exploration-Texas) on its website on Tuesday that it characterized in a press release as supportive of the bill.  The Coalition for Space Exploration issued its letter on Wednesday.

The letter from The Planetary Society (TPS) strongly endorses the funding levels for planetary exploration, which receive a boost, but is silent on other provisions.  On Wednesday, Casey Dreier, TPS Director of Advocacy, who signed the letter, clarified on the Society’s website that TPS does not support other aspects of the legislation.  “Obviously, the cuts to Earth Science make this a hard bill to support, therefore the Planetary Society does not as written.  We’re hoping that the committee markup will find ways to preserve and grow all science as this moves forward.”

The Commercial Spaceflight Federation praised the bill’s recommended FY2016 funding level for commercial crew (which is the same as the President’s request under the aspirational scenario; less than the request, but more than current funding in the constrained scenario) and for Advanced Exploration Systems (AES).  AES is a sub-account under Exploration R&D and the bill’s proposed level for Exploration R&D is the same as the President’s request in FY2016 under either budget scenario.   The Federation letter adds, however, that “While this bill represents progress in key areas, we remain concerned about some provisions … that include, among other things, limitations on NASA’s use of Space Act Agreements….”

The letter from the Coalition for Space Exploration thanks the committee for its support of human and robotic exploration programs (specifically mentioning the James Webb Space Telescope as an “exploration science mission”), but “we remain concerned that by flat funding SLS, Orion and other Exploration program levels … the bill would unintentionally constrain progress toward accelerating program content from Exploration Mission-2 [EM-2] to be included in Exploration Mission-1 [EM-1] in 2018.  We urge the committee to consider the demands of these programs during this critical moment in the development cycle and hope that targeted adjustments will be made….”  The bill would provide level funding for SLS and Orion compared to FY2015 appropriations.  President Obama requested reduced funding for FY2016.  EM-1 is the first SLS launch, scheduled for 2018, which will carry an uncrewed version of the Orion spacecraft.  EM-2 is the second SLS launch, with a crewed Orion, anticipated in 2021.

The letter from Citizens for Spaceflight Exploration-Texas, which is associated with the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership, said it “welcomes the strong endorsement of America’s space exploration program” exemplified in the bill.   The letter appears to address the broad scope of NASA’s space programs by referencing technological innovation and competitiveness, STEM education, and high-tech jobs and future workforce opportunities, for example, but a representative of the group contacted SpacePolicyOnline.com on April 30 to clarify that the letter was designed to endorse only those aspects of the bill related to SLS, Orion, the International Space Station, and commercial cargo and crew.  Those are the topics, which also are specifically mentioned in the letter, within the group’s purview.  It has no position on the other parts of the bill.

The markup begins at 11:00 am ET on April 30.  Edwards said on Tuesday that she was trying to talk to subcommittee chairman Steve Palazzo (R-MS), the lead sponsor of the bill, and full committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) to see if they can reach common ground on the cuts to earth science prior to markup.  Otherwise she said she fears they are on a path to the same type of partisan discord that characterized a 2013 markup of a NASA authorization bill.  Approved by committee on party lines, it never reached the floor for a vote.

Update, June 4, 2015:   The full committee made no change to the subcommittee’s recommendation, but an amendment was adopted during floor consideration on June 3 to add $250,000 for the office.

Update, April 29, 2015:  The subcommittee approved the bill today with no change to the funding for this office.  The date for full committee markup has not been announced.

Original Story, April 28, 2015:  The Transportation-HUD (T-HUD) subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee is set to mark up its FY2016 funding bill tomorrow.  It includes the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), which is part of the Department of Transportation (DOT).   The draft bill would keep AST’s funding at the same level as FY2015 instead of granting a requested increase of $1.5 million to pay for additional staff.

AST is funded at $16.605 million for FY2015.  The draft T-HUD bill provides that level for FY2016, too, rather than the $18.115 million requested by President Obama.   The requested increase of $1.509 million is to pay for 13 additional full time equivalent (FTE) staff members.  DOT’s budget justification documents explain that the additional staff are needed to handle an expected increase in the number of commercial space launches requiring FAA licenses. Of the $1.509 million increase, $1.258 million would pay for the additional staff.  The remainder covers mandatory personnel costs such as the FY2015 and FY2016 pay raises of 1 percent and 1.3 percent respectively.

The draft bill does not provide any explanation for denying the requested increase for AST, but it cuts DOT’s total budget by $1 billion compared to its current FY2015 funding level, or by $6.8 billion compared to the President’s request for FY2016.  Under the draft bill, DOT would receive $17.2 billion in appropriations.  The draft bill is posted on the committee’s website.

The bill is scheduled for markup at 9:30 am ET tomorrow (April 29).