Space Research Innovation Act
Download PDFSponsored by
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
ID: B001302
Bill's Journey to Becoming a Law
Track this bill's progress through the legislative process
Latest Action
Referred to the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.
January 3, 2025
Introduced
Committee Review
📍 Current Status
Next: The bill moves to the floor for full chamber debate and voting.
Floor Action
Passed House
Senate Review
Passed Congress
Presidential Action
Became Law
📚 How does a bill become a law?
1. Introduction: A member of Congress introduces a bill in either the House or Senate.
2. Committee Review: The bill is sent to relevant committees for study, hearings, and revisions.
3. Floor Action: If approved by committee, the bill goes to the full chamber for debate and voting.
4. Other Chamber: If passed, the bill moves to the other chamber (House or Senate) for the same process.
5. Conference: If both chambers pass different versions, a conference committee reconciles the differences.
6. Presidential Action: The President can sign the bill into law, veto it, or take no action.
7. Became Law: If signed (or if Congress overrides a veto), the bill becomes law!
Bill Summary
Another brilliant example of congressional genius, brought to you by the esteemed Mr. Biggs of Arizona. Let's dissect this masterpiece, shall we?
**Main Purpose & Objectives:** The Space Research Innovation Act is a cleverly crafted bill that allows the Administrator of NASA to establish a research center for deep space and interplanetary research. Wow, how original. Because what America really needs is another bureaucratic entity to waste taxpayer dollars on "research" that will likely yield nothing but more PowerPoint presentations and academic papers.
**Key Provisions & Changes to Existing Law:** The bill authorizes the Administrator to establish a university-affiliated research center, which will be responsible for funding analyses and engineering support related to cis-lunar and deep-space missions. Because, you know, universities are just overflowing with expertise in space exploration. I'm sure the Administrator won't have any trouble finding qualified academics who aren't already on the payroll of defense contractors.
The bill also requires the Administrator to develop policies and procedures for selecting participants, awarding contracts, and ensuring technical capabilities. Oh boy, this is going to be a real challenge for our esteemed bureaucrats. I mean, it's not like they have better things to do than create more red tape.
**Affected Parties & Stakeholders:** The usual suspects will benefit from this bill:
* Universities looking to pad their research budgets with taxpayer dollars * Defense contractors seeking to expand their influence over NASA's research agenda * Politicians who want to appear pro-science and pro-innovation without actually doing anything meaningful
And, of course, the American people will be affected by this bill – namely, they'll be footing the bill for another boondoggle.
**Potential Impact & Implications:** The impact of this bill will be negligible, except for the following:
* More taxpayer dollars will be wasted on bureaucratic overhead and unnecessary research projects * The space industry will continue to be dominated by defense contractors who prioritize profits over innovation * Politicians will get to pat themselves on the back for "supporting science" while doing nothing to address the real challenges facing our nation
In short, this bill is a classic case of "legislative theater," designed to make politicians look good without actually accomplishing anything. It's a symptom of a deeper disease: the corruption and incompetence that plagues our government.
Diagnosis: Terminal stupidity, with a side of bureaucratic sclerosis. Prognosis: More of the same.
Related Topics
đź’° Campaign Finance Network
Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
Congress 119 • 2024 Election Cycle
No PAC contributions found
No organization contributions found
No committee contributions found
Donor Network - Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
Hub layout: Politicians in center, donors arranged by type in rings around them.
Showing 27 nodes and 30 connections
Total contributions: $116,250
Top Donors - Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5]
Showing top 25 donors by contribution amount
Project 2025 Policy Matches
This bill shows semantic similarity to the following sections of the Project 2025 policy document. Higher similarity scores indicate stronger thematic connections.
Introduction
— 58 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise space policy reviews, legislative proposals, and regulatory reforms smoothly. The NSpC generally led on space issues within the EOP, but other White House offices also took on space topics. l As a member of the NSpC, and in coordination with other members, the Office of Science and Technology Policy developed a national space weather strategy, research and development (R&D) plans to mitigate the effects of orbital debris, and protocols for planetary protection to avoid biological contamination of celestial bodies. l The Council of Economic Advisers did research on the economic benefits of space property rights. l OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Reform updated and streamlined commercial launch licensing and commercial remote sensing satellite rules. During the Trump Administration, if a topic was purely military, such as stand- ing up the U.S. Space Command, the NSC took the lead. If a topic cut across military, civil, and commercial sectors, as was the case with cybersecurity in space, the NSpC and NSC would cochair the policy review groups. Trusted, collegial relationships across the White House complex are critical to successful space policy development, implementation, and oversight. Nowhere is this more important than in the relationship between the NSpC staff and OMB staff who oversee civil and national security–related space spending. Teamwork between the NSpC and OMB staff can communicate clear presidential priorities to departments and agencies, facilitating smooth development of the President’s budget request. The NSpC and OMB have many opportunities to collaborate in promoting presidential priorities while finding offsets in lower-priority programs and funding lines. OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY (OSTP) The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) was created by the National Science and Technology Policy, Organization, and Priorities Act of 1976.33 Before its creation, Presidents received their advice and counsel on such matters through advisers and boards that had no statutory authority. The Director of OSTP is one of the few Senate-confirmed positions within the Executive Office of the President. Consistent with other laws, the President may delegate to the Director of OSTP directive authority over other elements of the executive branch. Other EOP policy officials and organizations such as the NSC and NEC are formally only advisory with relevant agency directives issued by the President. — 59 — Executive Office of the President of the United States The OSTP’s functions, as contained in the law, are to advise the President of scientific and technological considerations, evaluate the effectiveness of the federal effort, and generally lead and coordinate the federal government’s R&D programs. If science is being manipulated at the agencies to support separate political and institutional agendas, the President should increase the prominence of the OSTP’s Director either formally or informally. This would elevate the role of science in policy discussions and subsequent outcomes and theoretically help to balance out agencies like the Departments of Energy, State, and Commerce and the Envi- ronmental Protection Agency and Council on Environmental Quality. The OSTP can also help to bring technical expertise to regulatory matters in support of OMB. The OSTP should continue to play a lead role in coordinating federal R&D pro- grams. Recent legislation, especially the CHIPS and Science Act,34 has expanded federal policy and funding across the enterprise, and there is a need for more sig- nificant leadership in this area both to ensure effectiveness and to avoid duplication of effort. As befitting its location in the White House, the OSTP must be concerned with advancing national interests and not merely the parochial concerns of depart- ments, agencies, or parts of the scientific community. During the Trump and Biden Administrations, there has been a bipartisan focus on prioritizing R&D funding around the so-called Industries of the Future (IOTF). Under President Trump, IOTF priorities were artificial intelligence (AI), quantum information science (QIS), advanced communications/5G, advanced manufacturing, and biotechnology. Under President Biden, this list has been expanded to include advanced materials, robotics, battery technology, cybersecurity, green products and clean technology, plant genetics and agricultural technologies, nanotechnology, and semiconductor and microelectronics technologies. These priorities should be eval- uated and narrowed to ensure consistency with the next Administration’s priorities. Given a long list of priorities, coordinating efforts across agencies and mea- suring success are extremely challenging. The OSTP and OMB are required to work together on an annual basis to prioritize the funding requests and whatever Congress adds on top of them, but there continues to be concern about mission creep and funds expended on nonscientific R&D. The President should also issue an executive order to reshape the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and related climate change research pro- grams. The USGCRP produces strategic plans and research (for example, the National Climate Assessment) that reduce the scope of legally proper options in presidential decision-making and in agency rulemakings and adjudications. Also, since much environmental policymaking must run the gauntlet of judicial review, USGCRP actions can frustrate successful litigation defense in ways that the career bureaucracy should not be permitted to control. The process for producing assess- ments should include diverse viewpoints. The OSTP and OMB should jointly assess the independence of the contractors used to conduct much of this outsourced
Introduction
— 119 — Department of Defense 4. Alter the Space Development Agency’s current “fail-early” approach and transition to a methodology that maintains aggressive timelines but with significantly greater engineering rigor, with special attention to sustainment, support, and fully integrated space operations. 5. Increase the number of general officer positions to ensure the Space Force’s ability to compete for resources on a common basis with the other services. 6. Explore creation of a Space Force Academy to attract top aero–astro students, engineers, and scientists and develop astronauts. The academy could be attached initially to a large existing research university like the California Institute of Technology or MIT, share faculty and funding, and eventually be built separately to be on par with the other service academies. U.S. CYBER COMMAND USCYBERCOM was established in 2010 by the Department of Defense to unify the direction of cyberspace operations, strengthen DOD cyberspace capabilities, and integrate and enhance U.S. cyber expertise. Cyber capabilities and threats are evolving rapidly. Accordingly, a conservative Administration should be especially sensitive to and prepared to meet the challenges presented by bureaucratic silos, inappropriately rigid tactical doctrine, and strategic thinking’s historic tendency to lag behind technological capability. The preliminary evidence from the war in Ukraine suggests that existing cyber doctrine and certain capability and target assumptions may be incorrect or mis- placed. The following recommendations therefore presuppose that there will be a rigorous “lessons learned” analysis and review of existing U.S. doctrine in light of the battlefield evidence. Needed Reforms l Ensure that USCYBERCOM is properly focused. Mission creep is leading to wasteful overlap with the Department of Homeland Security, National Security Agency, Department of Defense, and Central Intelligence Agency. 1. Separate USCYBERCOM from the National Security Agency per congressional direction. 2. Conduct effective offensive cyber-effects operations at the tactical and strategic levels.
Introduction
— 119 — Department of Defense 4. Alter the Space Development Agency’s current “fail-early” approach and transition to a methodology that maintains aggressive timelines but with significantly greater engineering rigor, with special attention to sustainment, support, and fully integrated space operations. 5. Increase the number of general officer positions to ensure the Space Force’s ability to compete for resources on a common basis with the other services. 6. Explore creation of a Space Force Academy to attract top aero–astro students, engineers, and scientists and develop astronauts. The academy could be attached initially to a large existing research university like the California Institute of Technology or MIT, share faculty and funding, and eventually be built separately to be on par with the other service academies. U.S. CYBER COMMAND USCYBERCOM was established in 2010 by the Department of Defense to unify the direction of cyberspace operations, strengthen DOD cyberspace capabilities, and integrate and enhance U.S. cyber expertise. Cyber capabilities and threats are evolving rapidly. Accordingly, a conservative Administration should be especially sensitive to and prepared to meet the challenges presented by bureaucratic silos, inappropriately rigid tactical doctrine, and strategic thinking’s historic tendency to lag behind technological capability. The preliminary evidence from the war in Ukraine suggests that existing cyber doctrine and certain capability and target assumptions may be incorrect or mis- placed. The following recommendations therefore presuppose that there will be a rigorous “lessons learned” analysis and review of existing U.S. doctrine in light of the battlefield evidence. Needed Reforms l Ensure that USCYBERCOM is properly focused. Mission creep is leading to wasteful overlap with the Department of Homeland Security, National Security Agency, Department of Defense, and Central Intelligence Agency. 1. Separate USCYBERCOM from the National Security Agency per congressional direction. 2. Conduct effective offensive cyber-effects operations at the tactical and strategic levels. — 120 — Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise 3. Expand defensive cyber-effects operations authorized by President Trump's classified National Security Presidential Memorandum 13, “United States Cyber Operations Policy.”36 4. End USCYBERCOM’s participation in federal efforts to “fortify” U.S. elections to eliminate the perception that DOD is engaging in partisan politics. l Increase USCYBERCOM’s effectiveness. 1. Accelerate the integration of cyber and electronic warfare (EW) doctrine and capabilities, abiding by the time-tested norms of combined-arms warfare. 2. Mandate that development teams will include both coders and soldiers, aircrew, and sailors with kinetic experience at the platoon level. 3. Break the paradigm of cyber authorities held at the strategic level. 4. Increase cyber resilience by, for example, protecting the Nuclear Command, Control, and Communications Network and the Air Force’s Cyber Resiliency Office for Weapons Systems (CROWS). 5. Expand coordination of joint operations with allies. 6. Implement the Government Accountability Office’s recommendation that the DOD Chief Information Officer, Commander of USCYBERCOM, and Commander of Joint Force Headquarters–DOD Information Network “align policy and system requirements to enable DOD to have enterprise-wide visibility of cyber incident reporting to support tactical, strategic, and military strategies for response.”37 l Rationalize strategy and doctrine. 1. Update the October 2022 National Security Strategy to define DOD roles and responsibilities beyond existing platitudes. 2. Apply traditional deterrence strategies and principles for using cyber/ EW in retaliation for foreign cyberattacks and/or EW actions against U.S. infrastructure and citizens.
Showing 3 of 5 policy matches
About These Correlations
Policy matches are calculated using semantic similarity between bill summaries and Project 2025 policy text. A score of 60% or higher indicates meaningful thematic overlap. This does not imply direct causation or intent, but highlights areas where legislation aligns with Project 2025 policy objectives.