Congress, NASA

Senate appropriators propose $17.9 billion for NASA

The Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee held a brief markup session Wednesday afternoon for its 2012 funding bill. The committee released only a summary of its appropriations bill, which features $17.9 billion for NASA in 2012, less than the $18.7 billion sought by the administration but more than the $16.8 billion House appropriators approved in July.

The summary doesn’t provide any other numbers about the NASA, instead stating that the “bill preserves NASA portfolio balanced among science, aeronautics, technology and
human space flight investments” and that it “provides funds to enable a 2018 launch of the James Webb Space Telescope” (JWST). On the latter point, the subcommittee’s chair, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), said that the bill provides $530 million for JWST, above the administration’s request for $373.7 million (House appropriators, infamously, provided no funding for JWST in their bill.) She also includes that figure in her press release about the bill, which adds that NASA science programs overall will get $5.1 billion, just above the administration’s request for $5.02 billion. In her remarks at the markup, though, she added that “we included stringent bill language limiting development costs” without elaborating.

Beyond that, there are no hard numbers about NASA’s budget in the summary. The brief markup, though, provided a few more hints. “We are going to fund the priorities that our authorizing committees in the Senate and House passed last year,” said Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), ranking member of the subcommittee. “We are going to fully fund the priorities according to the authorizing levels.” However, since the 2010 authorization act authorized a total of $19.45 billion in 2012—$1.55 billion above what Senate appropriations are proposing—not every program can be funded at authorized levels. What are those priorities? Hutchison indicated that the Space Launch System and Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle would be funded, although in the authorization those programs would get $4.05 billion, while comments earlier in the day indicated that those programs would get $3 billion a year through 2017. Hutchison also cited science as well as commercial crew as priorities in her remarks; the authorization act authorized $500 million for commercial crew in 2012, while the administration’s budget proposal sought $850 million. Notably absent from the discussion of priorities in the hearing: aeronautics and space technology.

“The NASA budget will be exactly where it was in 2009,” Mikulski said in her remarks. “So, if you liked 2009, you’re going to be crazy about our bill.” More details are likely to be forthcoming when the full committee takes up the bill Thursday afternoon, when it will also probably debate a number of amendments to the legislation.

28 comments to Senate appropriators propose $17.9 billion for NASA

  • Robert G. Oler

    And then we will hear from the super committee….and that will change everything RGO

  • NASA Fan

    Bab’s delivers. Only she could pull this off, because she was the one that initiated the Cassani Review. First I must hit you, then I can give you money!

  • DCSCA

    @Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 14th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
    And then we will hear from the super committee….and that will change everything

    Those clown will cut in out years. DoD will find a way to keep funding flowing to the pet projects it wants. Terminate JWST over Mikulski’s squawking; cut the budget to a flat $15 billion for five years. Or consolidate all civil, military and dark ops American space operations under the nat’l security umbrella of the DoD.

  • tom

    Nope money is a sure thing.

  • tom

    What a great day! SLS by 2017 (a rocket with sufficient life to build a Mars mission in two or 3 launches!), Orion launched on an EELV in 2013, crewed by 2015, Commercial crew/cargo, a commitment by the congress and senate to fund it all! The US is back. NASA will do exploration (and have a rocket and ship to do it), commercial space will open space travel to anyone.

    A win/win

    Cheers!

    Tom

  • Rhyolite

    “Notably absent from the discussion of priorities in the hearing: aeronautics and space technology.”

    Translation: We’re gong to be eating the seed corn.

  • GuessWho

    Oink – Oink. Looks like Mikulski can join her friends Shelby, KBH, and Nelson at the feeding trough. Scale of the numbers might be somewhat smaller but the behavior is the same. Question for most of the usuals on this site is whether their criticisms remain consistent.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    Supplying funding for anything in the U.S. appears to be a nightmare. Even worse is trying to control it or, heaven forbid, reduce it so that the place doesn’t sink under the weight of it’s debt.
    What’s the ‘super committee’ RGO? Is this the equivalent of a ‘slash and burn’ joint houses of Congress committee? I can’t place it at the moment.

  • Robert G. Oler wrote:

    And then we will hear from the super committee….and that will change everything.

    The super committee has no authority to make law. They will be ignored, just like Congress ignored the Erskine-Bowles National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.

    (For all the blame the Congressional GOP heap on Obama for the deficit, they never once note that Obama appointed the first deficit commission, which issued recommendations they totally ignored.)

    Beancounter from Downunder wrote:

    What’s the ‘super committee’ RGO? Is this the equivalent of a ‘slash and burn’ joint houses of Congress committee? I can’t place it at the moment.

    Formally known as the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, the committee is required to recommend by November 23 $1.5 trillion in budget cuts over a 10-year period. Congress is required to vote on it by December 23. If Congress fails to pass it, automatic cuts kick in but there are certain exemptions (read the above link).

    Congress passed the law. Congress can amend the law too. Congress can also ignore the law. So I’ll believe it when I see it.

    Personally, I think the committee will deadlock, Congress will ignore the law, and the GOP will just blame Obama again.

  • ““The NASA budget will be exactly where it was in 2009,” Mikulski said in her remarks.”
    This is nothing but playing to gullible constituents and SLS huggers. They’re acting as though the special committee created under the debt ceiling law does not exist. When the committee wields its axe (as it is required by law to do or accross the board cuts automatically happen), Hutchison et al. will act so SHOCKED like they didn’t know it was coming.

  • josh

    how about closing unproductive, unneeded centers like msfc and jsc? would probably save a couple billion.

  • Michael from Iowa

    @josh
    Or… now I know this’ll sound crazy but stay with me here… we could just drop the SLS program and continue virtually every other program running out of NASA at near existing funding levels (even after the inevitable debt-deal cuts)

  • MrEarl

    The “Super Committee” has a long way to go, $1.5T, and a short time to get there. Since eliminating NASA outright would only be about 10% of the money they need to get to their goal it’s more likely they’ll be going after the entitalments and defence department budgets.

  • Space Cadet

    Mr. Earl, I think you mean 1% of what they need.

    But as insignificant as NASA’s piece of the pie is, I think the pain of cuts will be spread all around, not sparing NASA.

  • common sense

    @ MrEarl wrote @ September 15th, 2011 at 10:36 am

    The problem is that the cut will go across ALL agencies. It does not matter that NASA is a small drop. It is a drop nonetheless. And those more powerful agencies will not like to see their budget decline if only to save NASA SLS/MPCV ridiculous programs and yes maybe JWST.

    Just watch.

  • Vladislaw

    The super committee doesn’t get to cherry pick, they can not take 500 billion from the military and then none from agency X, my understanding is the cuts will come across the board. All agencies were given orders to provide data for both a 5% and 10% cut. So NASA would lose 10% about 1.7 – 1.9 billion in cuts. SLS would seem to be the easiest cut since it hasn’t been started at all.

  • chance

    “Personally, I think the committee will deadlock, Congress will ignore the law, and the GOP will just blame Obama again.”

    Could you explain this further? Are the cuts not really automatic, or are you saying Congress would repeal that provision?

  • MrEarl

    Vlad, your understanding is wrong.

  • MrEarl

    A few things that need to be clarified.
    The joint budget deficit committee needs to reduce the budget deficit by $1.5T over 10 years. The president has also asked the committee to cut an additional $450B to offset his requested jobs package for a total of approx. $1.95T. That’s only $190B per year.
    NASA’s budget is approx. $17B per year. Eliminating NASA would only save $170B over that 10 year span. A little less than 10% really.
    The operative word from my first sentence is reduce. That could come in the form of cuts or “revenue enhancements”. They have to have this plan ready to present by November 23rd or there will be across the board cuts in entitlements and defense spending, not other discretionary spending.
    Spending reductions can come from anywhere and to not have to be evenly distributed. What will happen is that the Democrats will focus on cuts in defense spending while republicans will focus on cuts in entitlements. Cuts to NASA, and other small agencies will be largely ignored by the committee because the amount of money that can be taken from those agencies is not worth quibbling over.

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ September 15th, 2011 at 2:08 pm

    Cuts to NASA, and other small agencies will be largely ignored by the committee because the amount of money that can be taken from those agencies is not worth quibbling over.

    If it’s not worth quibbling over, then they have no reason NOT to cut NASA, since no one will quibble over it.

    Sorry, your logic doesn’t make sense in the real world.

    NASA is no more inherently safe than any other government agency or department – they all have their supporters.

  • MrEarl

    First off Ron, we’re not talking about the real world, we’re talking DC-land.
    If there is a cut in NASA funding it will be in the millions, not billions and spread throughout the agency.
    All this talk about killing the SLS through the deficit committee is just wishful thinking on the part of it’s detractors.

  • chance wrote:

    Could you explain this further? Are the cuts not really automatic, or are you saying Congress would repeal that provision?

    I’ve been a part-time political consultant and aide for many years. I’ve seen many times where politicians passed laws and then ignored them. Unless someone files suit, spends lots of money and years and court, the politicians will get away with it.

    So let’s say the automatic cut kicks in and NASA is supposed to be cut from (arbitrary numbers for argument’s sake) $100 to $75. The House Appropriations Committee votes to fund NASA at $90. The rest of the Congress approves it and the President signs it. That’s the real budget for the next fiscal year.

    It would take a majority of the Supreme Court to overturn their action, but who would bother to sue? It would take years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs to overturn. No one is going to sue and waste their time. By the time it got to the Supreme Court, it’ll be 2017 and the fiscal year will have long passed, as will the session of Congress that broke the law in the first place.

  • Dennis

    What will come out of SLS, still remains to be seen. Remember both Apollo and the Shuttle programs in their infancy, had visions of vehicles quite a bit different than what was produced, due to cost. I suspect that SLS wll go through the fine tuning process as well. We may end up with a whole lot less than what is being originally planned for.

  • Coastal Ron

    MrEarl wrote @ September 15th, 2011 at 3:48 pm

    we’re not talking about the real world, we’re talking DC-land

    Exactly. Your supposition was that NASA was too small to give a large cut, and all I’m saying is that logic doesn’t enter into budget discussions, and what you’re proposing is semi-logical.

    All this talk about killing the SLS through the deficit committee is just wishful thinking on the part of it’s detractors.

    I’ve never said that, but I do see the SLS failing for the same reasons Constellation did, since none of the systemic problems that caused the program to go horribly over budget and way over schedule have been identified or addressed.

    The design of the SLS, which is based on the same major components as the Ares I/V, hasn’t even changed, so what sane person could expect a different outcome?

    Funded programs have to spend money, and NASA leadership has no choice but to move forward with the SLS. But the SLS has far less enthusiasm than Constellation did, and Congressional budget cutters will NOT be in the mood to ADD MONEY to the SLS budget, so I see the handwriting on the wall for this franken-rocket.

  • chance

    Thank you, that’s a pretty good explaination. That said, while I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m also not quite convinced that’s how it will go down. Would Congressional Republicans really risk offending the party base? I’d think too many on the right would be livid if the Congress passed a budget that doesn’t stick to or exceed the cuts. I guess we’ll see here soon.

  • Coastal Ron

    Dennis wrote @ September 16th, 2011 at 10:13 am

    We may end up with a whole lot less than what is being originally planned for.

    We already are ending up with a whole lot less, and they haven’t even started on it yet.

    Remember both Apollo and the Shuttle programs in their infancy

    Keep in mind the design of the SLS was done by politicians, whereas the design of the Apollo lunar program hardware was done by engineers.

    The goal of the Apollo engineers was to get to the Moon as fast as possible, whereas the goal of the politicians for the SLS is to spend money in their districts as fast as possible.

  • chance wrote:

    Would Congressional Republicans really risk offending the party base? I’d think too many on the right would be livid if the Congress passed a budget that doesn’t stick to or exceed the cuts.

    The “base” is called that because they’re the true believers. They won’t go to the other side no matter how much evidence they’re presented that it’s in their best interest. The challenge is to energize the “base” to turn out, to vote, and most importantly to send money.

    In my opinion, the GOP “base” — the Tea Party in particular — are a gullible lot and will believe whatever they’re told on Fox News. I run into them all the time here in the Space Coast — people who were told by Fox News that Obama “killed” NASA despite the obvious evidence to the contrary right in front of their noses.

    So if the GOP fails to implement the so-called “automatic” cuts, the GOP will blame Obama, Fox News will tell blame Obama, and the “base” will believe it.

  • @Coastal Ron:

    Keep in mind the design of the SLS was done by politicians…

    Except for the fact that it…well…wasn’t.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>