CONCURRENT RESOLUTION ON THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006 -- (House of Representatives - March 16, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Over the past decade, funding for NASA's Aeronautics Research has declined by more than half, to about $900 million. The President's budget proposes to cut aeronautics research by 20 percent over the next 5 years.
I am concerned that the United States is losing critical expertise in aeronautics research and development. This degradation will have a tragic impact on military and civilian aviation, which contributes significantly to our national defense and our economy. I believe that the President's funding levels for aeronautics programs should be reassessed and that the House should give priority to restoring these vital programs.
Will the gentleman commit to bring to the conference report language that will clarify that the resolution makes no assumption regarding the President's proposed funding level for NASA's Aeronautics Research programs?
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, the answer is yes to start with. First and foremost, I appreciate her leadership and concern about the research programs that we have for NASA. She does an excellent job there, and we really appreciate the leadership she takes in that.
The gentlewoman knows that the resolution, while it tracks the President's overall number, it does not make any specific decisions about the different funding levels that we have in some of these major categories. It goes actually back to what the gentleman was saying on education. We cannot find in the budget any of what the gentleman from Wisconsin just talked about in education. It is a great speech, but we cannot find it in the budget. And the same is true with so much of this.
So the Committee on Appropriations is the one that is going to make these determinations. The same is true for NASA. And we appreciate that her advocacy and mine is going to have to be brought to bear as we work on that.
So that being the case, I do commit to the gentlewoman to bring back from the conference language clarifying that the budget does not make these specific assumptions regarding the President's proposed level for these programs and urging that the levels for NASA should be reassessed. There is no question that R&D is important, and I know the appropriators agree with that. I know the gentlewoman from Virginia agrees with that. I agree with that, and I have no doubt that they will bring back a bill with that in mind.
Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for his answer.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov