House VA/HUD Chair Lewis Supportive of NASA
Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) of the House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee heard testimony on NASA’s FY 1996 budget request in a hearing that began on March 28 and continued on March 30. Over the two days of the hearing, Lewis showed himself to be a supporter of NASA, and particularly the space station.
NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin testified that President Clinton has asked the space agency to cut $5 billion over the next five years from a budget profile that has already been reduced by 30 percent in the last two years. He contended that the way to reduce the budget was not to cancel programs, but to reduce NASA’s outdated and redundant infrastructure.
One thing Goldin insisted upon was that the space station program should not take any more cuts. Lewis cautioned that the station was likely to be a target for cuts or termination on the House floor, and asked for the Administration’s help in defending it. Ranking Minority Member Louis Stokes (D-OH) questioned how, since the subcommittee was confronted with cuts in public housing programs, Goldin could justify the statement that “it is crucial not to touch the space station budget?” “Shouldn’t every program have to share in the belt-tightening?” Stokes asked. But Goldin responded that, through restructuring, NASA had “done our cut” on the space station. He argued that stability in the program’s budget (currently frozen by OMB at $2.1 billion a year) was vital, and reiterated that “if station is cut in Congress, I will recommend its cancellation.” Lewis warned that the station “is a very high priority item that’s probably going to face difficulties” this year. With so many new Members, he said, “we have a very serious education job to do here.”
Tom Delay (R-TX) tried to get Goldin to admit to uncertainty in recent Mission to Planet Earth findings that the ozone hole is primarily the result of man-made chemicals, but Goldin supported the peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Lewis remarked that while he felt strongly about environmental concerns, he worried about “a reaction in Congress that could take us back a long way.” He also concurred with Stokes on concerns over cuts to NASA’s programs to encourage women, minorities and the handicapped.
In the context of NASA’s budget reductions, Lewis inquired about the agency’s planned new starts, including the New Millennium spacecraft and a program to study a reusable launch vehicle. Goldin said the budget-tightening required a “revolution” in NASA’s missions, and added that he would cancel “a whole host” of other programs before touching the revolutionary new programs. After being reassured that budget reductions would not compromise the safety of the shuttle program, subcommittee members raised questions about shuttle privatization, as recommended in a recent report. Goldin, while not opposing the suggestion, said that efficiencies would not be achieved if the U.S. government was the only customer.
The second day focused primarily on space science. Noting that Gravity Probe B was still awaiting review by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Lewis asked what NASA would cut to fund the mission if it received NAS approval. Goldin said no offsets had been identified yet, so that NAS would not be comparing it directly with another program. He expected to have the NAS recommendation by June 1, but Lewis protested that the subcommittee hoped to mark up their bill at that time. Goldin promised to try to move up the NAS report by a few weeks. Questioned about a requested funding increase in Mission Operations and Data Analysis (MO&DA) for space physics, Goldin reported that it was due to two launches last year, but he added that, in arguing for continuation of the Global Geospace missions, space physicists had forfeited an opportunity for new starts.
Asked by Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) about how far NASA should go in privatization, Goldin suggested that, while the government needed to do long-term R&D, some other areas that could be done better by industry might be launch services, information systems, and operations. Kaptur questioned why, since industry profits were up and “Wall Street is happy,” companies were not investing more in long-term R&D. Goldin answered that to be prosperous, they were forced to focus on short-term profits. Lewis remarked that this was “a very, very important issue” for Congress to discuss, including how tax policy could and could not encourage investment in long-term research. But, he said, the proper place for that discussion was in the Ways and Means Committee.
Next week, the Senate VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee will hold its hearing on NASA’s budget request.
