[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 12]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 16526-16527]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                         A BLUEPRINT FOR NASA?

                                 kucinic
                                 h_____
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, July 28, 2006

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I made the attached statement in the Space 
and Aeronautics Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, regarding 
the National Academy of Science's Decadal Plan for Aeronautics on July 
18, 2006.

       Thank you Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member Udall, and 
     members of this subcommittee for the opportunity to speak 
     today about aeronautics. Under your leadership, this Congress 
     has been tremendously supportive of aeronautics and I am 
     grateful

[[Page 16527]]

     for that. I am also grateful to my colleague, Representative 
     JoAnn Davis who has fought for strong aeronautics programs.
       NASA's role in aeronautics is fundamental. Its research is 
     important because NASA is able to develop long term, high-
     risk enabling technologies that the private sector is 
     unwilling to perform because they are too risky or too 
     expensive. In fact, this has historically been the role of 
     government-sponsored research. This is true not only with 
     aeronautics but also with pharmaceutical research, defense 
     research, energy research, and environmental research.
       When the government sponsored basic research yields 
     information that could lead to a service or product with 
     profit potential, the private sector transitions from 
     research to development in order to bring it to market. While 
     it is not always as simple as this, it is clear that where 
     there is no basic research, there can be no development. This 
     research has resulted in monumental innovations that affect 
     our daily lives. Its contributions are especially significant 
     in the areas of national security, environmental protection, 
     and airline safety.
       NASA's aeronautics programs also contribute substantially 
     to the nation's economy. The NASA Glenn Research Center in 
     Brook Park, Ohio, for example, is a cornerstone of the 
     state's fragile economy and a stronghold of aeronautics 
     research. In FY04, the economic output of NASA Glenn alone 
     was 1.2 billion dollars per year. It was responsible for over 
     10,000 jobs and household earnings amounted to 568 million 
     dollars.
       Civil aeronautics is also the major contributor to this 
     sector's positive balance of trade, contributing $29 billion 
     in 2005 alone. Aeronautics contributes to a stronger economy 
     by lowering the cost of transportation, enabling a new 
     generation of service based industries like e-commerce to 
     flourish by performing the research that leads to inexpensive 
     and reliable flights.
       These are only a few of the reasons that the proposed cuts 
     to aeronautics are so pernicious. Many of the recommendations 
     by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) are already headed 
     down the path of irrelevancy because we simply won't be able 
     to pay for them. We will be feeling the effects of the 
     proposed cuts--about 25% in FY07 alone--immediately in terms 
     of economic jolts and then in the long term from the loss of 
     innovation. In addition, the Administration's projected 
     further decline of aeronautics research in the out years 
     erodes our workforce by sending a clear signal that funding 
     in the long term is unstable at best, a concern echoed by the 
     NAS reports. Our NASA workforce is the reason for our 
     aeronautics dominance. It is that simple. But the cuts are 
     already causing us to struggle against rising expertise in 
     countries like China as well as an aging scientific and 
     technical workforce at NASA.
       This subcommittee and this Congress have spoken 
     unequivocally in the past few years on this issue by keeping 
     aeronautics strong in NASA authorization and appropriations 
     bills. Yet the NASA budget requests have not changed. We are 
     still underfunding the Vision for Space Exploration, forcing 
     the agency to take money from smaller programs like 
     aeronautics, the first A in NASA. In the process, we run the 
     risk of taking away one of NASA's great strengths--diversity. 
     If NASA becomes a one trick pony focused almost exclusively 
     on space exploration, NASA as a whole is vulnerable to 
     political wind shifts.
       Our priority should be to correct this. Earlier this year, 
     I attempted to offer a bipartisan amendment to increase 
     funding for aeronautics in the Budget Resolution by $179 
     million dollars, which would have left funding flat for FY07. 
     But it was blocked by the Rules Committee. However, the 
     Senate Appropriations Committee reported a bill last week 
     that adds 1 billion dollars to cover the emergency costs 
     associated with the loss of space shuttle Columbia. That 
     would free up money for Aeronautics. It also included a ban 
     on involuntary reductions in force, protecting the most 
     valuable part of NASA, its world-class workforce. The House 
     should support these provisions in conference.
       In the long term, my hope is that this subcommittee will 
     continue to defend aeronautics at NASA. I will most certainly 
     do what I can to help.

                          ____________________