Making Appropriations for Science, the Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and Related Agencies for Fiscal Year 2006

MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR SCIENCE, THE DEPARTMENTS OF STATE, JUSTICE, AND COMMERCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senators Allen, Murray, Warner, and Voinovich in an effort to maintain our Nation's commitment to vital aeronautics research. We are offering this amendment to restore the aeronautics research & development program to last year's level of $906 million.

For decades, NASA has conducted a wide array of aeronautics research programs that have helped ensure our economic and military security and revolutionize the way we travel. NASA's work in aeronautics has captured the spirit of the Wright Brothers, spawning generation after generation of progress. The amendment before us will help make certain that progress continues in the coming fiscal year.

The impact of NASA's work is widespread. The U.S. aviation industry supports over 11 million jobs and contributes $1 trillion in economic activity. Our airlines carry 750 million passengers per year, with that number expected to grow to a billion within 15 years. We ship 52 percent of our exports by air, and in fact, the aviation industry contributes more to the U.S. balance of trade than any other domestic manufacturing industry.

Yet unfortunately, we are at grave risk of losing the staff, facilities, and expertise necessary to continue NASA's aeronautics programs. We are at risk of essentially allowing the first ``A'' in NASA--the one that stands for aeronautics--to die over the next several years. We are at risk and we better pay attention.

The bill we have before us now is a good bill, and I want to congratulate Chairman SHELBY and Ranking Member MIKULSKI on their hard work in meeting so many needs with a very tough and tight budget allocation. One thing the bill does not include, however, is a specific reference to aeronautics funding.

Nonetheless, we know of NASA's plans for aeronautics from its fiscal year 2006 budget request. We know that the agency intends to reduce overall aeronautics funding by $54 million from the previous year, a cut of over $200 million from 2004. In fact, the 2006 Budget shows aeronautics programs facing a nearly one-third cut in the next 5 years for aeronautics. That is simply not acceptable.

What will the practical consequences of these cuts be? The cuts mean that subsonic and hypersonic research will
be terminated. This is the research that focuses on designing stronger airframes and better engines, technologies that with just a little work can be taken from the lab and applied directly to aircraft, whether commercial or military. As a result, U.S. aerospace producers will lack access to solid pre-competitive research, while competitors abroad benefit from well financed efforts, such as the European Union's ``Vision 2020'' program.

Second, many of the facilities necessary to design and test new aeronautics technologies will be closed as a result of budget shortfalls. Wind tunnels and propulsion test facilities are used by Government, academia, and industry--often on a pay-for-use basis--and require minimal funding to maintain.

A recent RAND National Defense Research Institute study determined that over 84 percent of these NASA facilities serve strategic national needs, and that the success of the U.S. aerospace industry relies on NASA's workforce and test facility infrastructure.

So, these proposed aeronautics cuts are a double threat to the U.S. aviation industry: On the one hand, they get NASA out of the business of key aeronautics research areas, and on the other, they will lead to the closure of the very facilities industry and academia would need to replace that research. The cuts undermine our national defense by decimating cross-cutting technologies used by the Department of Defense. The cuts will force massive layoffs among NASA's best and brightest engineers, and will also impact the scores of Americans working for private sector aerospace companies. These cuts are simply unacceptable.

We need to step back and re-evaluate where we are with aeronautics research, where we want to be in 5, 10, 15 years, and make a commitment to do what it takes to get us there. A National Institute of Aerospace, NIA, study commissioned by Congress and unveiled earlier this year shows a need for vastly increased investment within NASA aeronautics programs. Our amendment does not reach the levels recommended by the NIA report, but it does move us in the right direction, the same direction that the House of Representatives has taken in its version of this bill.

Our amendment follows directly from budget language adopted by the Senate this year calling for an adequate aeronautics investment. We do not cut space exploration programs to make this increase. This is a clean, deficit-neutral amendment that will help ensure our national competitiveness in civil and military aerospace, and it deserves the Senate's support.

I will be back on the floor later to talk more about this amendment, as my other colleagues will, but at this point I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be set aside.

http://thomas.loc.gov/