Important Hearing on NASA FY 1994 Budget Request

One of the most important events in this year’s consideration of the NASA FY 1994 budget request occurred this week with the appearance of NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin and his senior staff before the House VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. This subcommittee, in conjunction with its Senate counterpart, largely determines the funding for the space agency.

Subcommittee chairman Louis Stokes (D-Ohio) began the April 28 hearing by stating “we face some very special problems this year,” cautioning that the subcommittee is “totally dependent on the allocation which we are given.” Stokes was referring to the subcommittee’s 602(b) allocation -- the money which his subcommittee is given to fund all of the programs under its jurisdiction. This allocation procedure is starting this week, and will be an important factor in determining how well NASA (as well as NSF) do in the FY 1994 budget process.

Goldin gave a powerful opening statement stressing fundamental changes which have been made at the agency. Declaring, “we are going to reinvent the way this agency works,” Goldin gave heavy emphasis to tighter management, technology programs, and leaner budgets. Goldin noted that $15 billion has been sliced off NASA’s projected budgets over the next five years, an amount equal to one year of the agency’s budget.

Stokes was very well prepared for what would be hours of questioning, some of it rather intense, about the agency’s management, programs, and budget. Space Station Freedom was a topic of much discussion. Stokes and other committee members asked probing questions about the ability of a redesigned station to accomplish its mission, as well as the validity of new cost estimates. Goldin replied, “If we cannot do the right things, we will not come forward,” later declaring “we are not going to pull a rabbit out of a hat” and “we will not be chained to the past.” Technical review of the various options was completed on April 27; cost estimates are now being made. Many questions were raised about the effect of the redesign on international participation. Goldin acknowledged great anxiety by other countries, but said that “they are not being excluded.”

Goldin was not entirely successful in his efforts. Rep. Thomas DeLay (R-Texas) citing the reactions of his Houston-area constituents, said this “redesign thing is poor administration, poor management,” later calling it “irresponsible.” Ranking Republican Jerry Lewis (R-California) expressed some frustration with Goldin’s inability to be more specific pending the conclusion of the redesign process, saying “I’m not sure we should have had this hearing.” Another hearing is planned after the redesign process is completed.

There was no evidence that NASA or the administration is backing away from the space station. Goldin linked his agency’s mission directly to the station, saying “if we do not build a space station, it will be a crime.... American will be backing into the past.”

Rep. Dean Gallo (R-NJ) predicted that the space station was going to have difficulty on both the House and Senate floor, cautioning Goldin that the “redesign seriously erodes a lot of support the space station had.... We are going to have our hands full.” Stokes asked many questions about the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF.) NASA split this project into two phases, which Stokes complained would eventually result in a heavier impact on the budget. Twice, Stokes commented that “the concern of the subcommittee is that there is too much on the plate.” In replying to another line of questions, Goldin said that NASA would be revisiting space science priorities early this summer since the agency’s budget is scheduled to increase by no more than inflation over the next five years. Wes Huntress, Associate Administrator for Space Science, warned the FY 1994 budget for Mission Operations and Data Analysis will be cut below the requested level if the agency’s over-all budget is cut by Congress. Earlier, Goldin said that Gravity Probe-B and the Discovery missions are undergoing internal reviews.

During the afternoon session, Stokes questioned the budget for life and microgravity sciences and applications. He said that neither the House nor the Senate appropriations subcommittees see the space station’s primary research objective as being human physiology, since this implies Moon/Mars missions which are “not in the budget cards.” Rather, the subcommittee sees the station’s primary research areas as being cellular research and biotechnology.

In discussing the Earth Observing System, Goldin described the cuts that have been made to the system bringing it down from a once-envisioned $17 billion program to $8 billion. When asked if further cuts are contemplated, Goldin said “not at the present time.”

The subcommittee will be revisiting the agency’s budget request again in June, after the White House selects the space station design. It is safe to say that the repercussions of the station’s new budget will be felt for many months, both in committee and on the House and Senate floors.