The Senate is where the appropriations story gets interesting. Senator Susan Collins (R-ME), who chairs the full Appropriations Committee and sits on the CJS subcommittee in an ex officio position, is running in a race rated as a toss-up. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Gary Peters (D-MI), who both serve on the CJS subcommittee, are retiring, and both states are rated as toss-ups. However those races turn out, there will be many new faces on the Senate CJS subcommittee, and a possible leadership fight for the full committee could also shift the balance of power.
On the Senate authorizing committee, the story is a little different. By virtue of the staggered six-year terms and the broader remit of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, the membership is unlikely to change dramatically, with only the Alaska and Michigan seats, currently represented by Senator Dan Sullivan (R) and retiring Senator Gary Peters (D), respectively, rated as toss-ups, and Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) retiring. The remaining four senators on the panel up for reelection are not in competitively rated states, and 21 senators are not up for reelection. Therefore, the Commerce Committee roster likely won’t change much.
But nowhere else will the spate of new Members of Congress be felt than in the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. At the end of the 119th Congress, the current roster for this committee will have an average seniority of just over six years or three terms in office. It typically comprises many low-seniority Members of Congress who often don’t stay on the Committee for long after their first term. So it stands to reason that with such high turnover in the House, there will be many new Members of Congress on the House Science Committee.
Representative Frank Lucas (R-OK), a former chair of the House Science Committee, referred to it as the “committee of the future.” Its members understand the visionary nature of the agencies they oversee. Thankfully, members regularly reach across the aisle to get things done. That culture has survived plenty of turnover before. New members will need time to learn the ropes, but they will be joining committees where cooperation on space policy is the norm. For the 120th Congress, that is a solid foundation to build on.
Same legislation, different Congress
In parliamentary procedure, there is a phrase: “to lay on the table.” While it might sound like instructions for prepping for supper, it means to set a matter aside indefinitely. Come early January, a good deal of pending space legislation will be laid on the table.
Each Congress lasts two years. Any bill that has not become law by the end of that term does not advance, no matter how far it got. In the new Congress, a bill has to be reintroduced and run the gauntlet again: hearings, a committee markup, votes in both chambers, and a final agreement between the House and Senate before being sent to the president for their signature. And if the bill isn’t reintroduced, it may be consigned to the annals of the Congressional Record.
That is the predicament where the NASA authorization finds itself. A quick refresher on process: authorization bills set policy direction. These laws tell NASA what Congress wants it to do and recommend a funding level, but they do not appropriate funds — that’s another process. The last NASA authorization became law in 2022, folded into the CHIPS and Science Act. The last standalone authorization became law in 2017, almost a decade ago. Since then, civil space policy has largely been determined through budget allocations and guidance by congressional bully pulpit.
Both chambers have come achingly close to passing an authorization in 2026 after starts and stops in 2024 and 2025. The House Science Committee unanimously approved H.R. 7273 on Feb. 4. A month later, the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously approved its own version. The Senate bill authorizes a slightly-increased agency budget of $25.3 billion in FY 2027, directs NASA to build a permanent base on the Moon, and extends International Space Station operations to 2032, among many other directives.
Still, neither bill has passed its full chamber, let alone been considered by the other. A final push is possible after the election, but the NASA authorization will have to compete for floor time with many “must-pass” bills, including the annual defense policy package, the farm bill, expiring health care programs, and government funding. And with barely 20 in-session days left before the end of the 119th Congress, timing will be tight. NASA authorization could hitch a ride on a must-pass bill, but that would require significant agreement during final negotiations.
If history repeats, the 120th Congress will see one or both of the current bills reintroduced, but that will be up to the newly formed committees, possibly with new leadership in both chambers.
The money question
The federal government is currently running on a continuing resolution, or CR. This keeps agencies operating at the prior year’s funding level until Congress passes full-year appropriations. Under a CR, agencies generally cannot start new programs or change course on existing ones.
The current CR became law on Sept. 2 and funds the government through Dec. 11. It holds NASA at its FY 2026 level of $24.4 billion, well above the $18.8 billion the White House requested for FY 2027. The CR also pauses implementation of the Office of Management and Budget’s deeply unpopular Uniform Guidance changes. But without a funding deal by midnight on Dec. 11, the government will shut down, and these grant changes will begin to be implemented, though reports indicate that some agencies have preemptively implemented political reviews and grant slowdowns. More on that later.
Congress is still a long way from a final deal on FY 2027 appropriations. The House Appropriations Committee passed all 12 of its FY 2027 bills, including the CJS bill that funds NASA, and the full House passed three of them, excluding CJS. When Congress broke for recess at the end of September, the Senate Appropriations Committee had not released any of its 12. The House bill rejected many of the proposed cuts to NASA, but it would still reduce NASA Science from $7.3 billion to $6 billion while increasing human spaceflight. Though the Senate did not release a CJS bill, both Senators Jerry Moran (R-KS) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the Chair and Ranking Member of the CJS subcommittee, respectively, indicated strong support for a fully funded NASA during their hearing with NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman in May.