Prepared Testimony by Rep. Mark Udall Presented to Aerospace States Association "Hearing" on National Aeronautics Policy
Good afternoon. I would like to commend the Aerospace States Association for organizing this hearing on a national policy for aeronautics research and development.
In addition, I want to thank you for the opportunity to appear before you in person today to talk about something that I care deeply about - the health and future direction of aeronautics R&D in the United States.
I know that I don’t need to tell any of you that progress in aeronautics is crucial to the health of the nation’s air transportation industry, which in turn is crucial both to the continued strength of our domestic economy and to our international competitiveness. In addition, aeronautical goods and services have long provided a major positive input to our balance of trade.
Yet progress in aeronautics is important for reasons beyond simply helping our trade balance. Aeronautics R&D can enable advances in the capability of America’s air transportation system to handle the enormous increases in air travel projected over the next twenty years.
Aeronautics R&D can enable more environmentally compatible commercial aircraft, with significantly lower noise, emissions, and energy consumption relative to aircraft in commercial service today.
Such new aircraft would not only improve the quality of life but would also open new markets. Finally, aeronautics R&D can lead to new concepts for protecting our nation.
All of this will only be possible if we are committed to making the investments in aeronautics R&D that are necessary to achieving our research goals. However, the unfortunate reality is that America currently is not investing enough in NASA’s aeronautics research program.
Moreover, if nothing is done to correct the situation, NASA will suffer cuts that jeopardize the long-term viability of our national aeronautics R&D capabilities.
Of course, you don’t have to take my word for it - there have been a series of reports by independent committees and commissions over the last five years that have expressed deep concern over the state of the U.S. aeronautics R&D enterprise.
In addition, the House Science Committee as well as other congressional committees have held hearings that have included sobering testimony on the extent to which aeronautics R&D in America is at risk.
As you know, Congress last year - in both the NASA FY 2006 appropriations provisions and the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 - added money to the President’s budget request for aeronautics.
In addition, both pieces of legislation directed the Administration to develop a national aeronautics R&D policy and plan. By all accounts that effort is well underway, and I understand that you will be getting a status report on the policy from the Administration today.
Preparing a meaningful and enduring aeronautics R&D policy and plan is an especially challenging task in the current environment - and I fear that some may be tempted to craft a policy that simply legitimizes the projected—and in my opinion ill-advised - five-year cuts to NASA’s aeronautics program.
I hope that those in charge of the effort will resist that temptation, because the policy that would result is unlikely to prove either durable or commensurate with the need.
It should be noted that the U.S. Congress has already articulated an aeronautics R&D policy for the nation in the NASA Authorization Act of 2005. To quote Section 411 of the Act:
"Congress reaffirms the national commitment to aeronautics research made in the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958. Aeronautics research and development remains a core mission of NASA. Further, the government of the United States shall promote aeronautics research and development that will expand the capacity, ensure the safety, and increase the efficiency of the Nation’s air transportation system, promote the security of the Nation, protect the environment, and retain the leadership of the United States in global aviation."
It is clear from the language I just quoted that Congress envisions the need for a robust and broad program of R&D in aeronautics for the foreseeable future.
Furthermore, despite NASA’s understandable interest in its new exploration initiative, it is clear from the legislative record that Congress believes that NASA needs to remain substantively involved in aeronautics research - indeed that aeronautics R&D should remain a "core mission" of NASA.
I was gratified that the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 wound up incorporating many of the provisions that I had first developed for the Aeronautics Research and Development Revitalization Act of 2005.
Those provisions included revitalization of NASA’s fundamental research program, a sensible policy for maintaining our national aeronautical test facilities, a challenging set of aircraft R&D initiatives, as well as initiatives in aviation safety and security and in airspace systems.
With respect to airspace systems in particular, I think it is critical that NASA continue to play a significant role in the development of the Next Generation Air Transportation System [NGATS] as part of the multi-agency Joint Planning and Development Office [JPDO].
If the nation is to maintain a safe and effective air traffic management system into the future, it is essential that the JPDO succeed - and NASA’s research can play an important role in ensuring that success.
A just-released report from the National Academies echoes Congress’s view that there are no lack of important R&D challenges remaining in the field of aeronautics.
I note that the co-chair of the National Academies’ Decadal Survey of Civil Aeronautics committee is testifying before you today, so I will not attempt to describe their report in any detail. However, it appears to be a very thoughtful and comprehensive effort, and I would commend it to you.
It addresses important issues related to workforce, government-university-industry research partnerships, and how far NASA should take its research before letting industry pick it up if appropriate.
I would also like to concur with the written statement by Dr. Kaminski at the front of the report in which he notes the projected 32 percent decrease in NASA’s aeronautics budget in just three years, and states that "This budgetary trend will make it increasingly difficult for NASA to build a solid foundation for the future."
I am very concerned about that budgetary trend, and I think it needs to be reversed.
Moreover, I would also encourage you to review another recently released National Academies’ report, entitled Aeronautics Innovation: NASA’s Challenges and Opportunities. That report argued persuasively that:
"Refocusing the NASA aeronautics program exclusively on fundamental research may appear to be a reasonable strategy given the current outlook for funding, but it risks losing the support of industry stakeholders, without which the program cannot compete effectively for resources in a constrained budget environment.
"Moreover, the areas of public good in which the argument for government involvement is strongest - safe, efficient air traffic management and environmentally benign aviation operations - are arguably the areas in which users are more dependent on outside suppliers to deliver fairly well-proven technologies and in which NASA’s technical capabilities are in some respects superior. There are also areas where the market is unlikely to produce the optimum level of innovations."
The National Academies’ panel went to conclude that: "to sustain its relevance and support [NASA’s aeronautics program] should have a portfolio quite diversified in terms of the stage of technology being developed…"
I think that those tasked with developing an aeronautics R&D policy for the Executive Branch would do well to heed those insights.
While there is concern in some quarters about the potential competitive threat posed by the European Union’s plans for a significant and sustained thrust in aeronautics research, I have a somewhat different perspective.
Without minimizing the importance of ensuring that America’s aviation industry remains a world leader, I would submit that we should be investing in aeronautics R&D whether or not there were an imminent competitiveness challenge from Europe or elsewhere.
I currently sit on the Armed Services, Science, and Resources committees. From those vantage points, I am well acquainted with the role that past investments in aeronautics R&D have played in enabling future military capabilities, improving the capabilities of the civil air transportation system, and reducing the adverse environmental impacts of aircraft operations.
That is, investments in aeronautics R&D have had a direct impact on both our quality of life and the security of our nation.
In sum, the return on the past Federal investment in aeronautics R&D has been significant. I have no reason to believe that that won’t continue to be the case.
We need to ensure that any national policy on aeronautics R&D that emerges properly recognizes the importance of investing in research and development that not only advances our fundamental knowledge, but that also is relevant to the needs of our society.
We should not allow perceived budgetary constraints to result in too narrow a vision of what aeronautics R&D is "appropriate" for the government to undertake, lest we wind up with a research portfolio that fails to address the future needs of the nation.
With that, I want to again thank you for allowing me to testify today, and I would be pleased to address any questions you might have.
Thank you.
Next Article Previous Article