House Science Committee Chairman Sees Trouble for NASA: CBO Report

“You can’t live in a dream world forever,” warned House science committee chairman George Brown (D-Cal.) at last Thursday’s press conference on the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report, “Reinventing NASA” (see FYI #48.) The report highlights the difficult choices which Congress will be making about NASA’s programs in the next six months leading up to the start of Fiscal Year 1995.

As chairman of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, Brown’s direct influence over the FY 1995 NASA appropriation is limited. The NASA budget is the province of the two VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittees. Nevertheless, Brown is one of a handful of key science leaders on Capitol Hill, and his pronouncements have always been closely followed -- as evidenced by the large audience he attracted last week.

Brown, a strong NASA supporter, said the CBO was asked to provide this report to “throw some objective light” on NASA’s budget projection for the next five years. (CBO is a nonpartisan office of Congress consisting of budget specialists and economists.) The new report follows-up on a similar document prepared in 1988. The chairman stated that he was not a protagonist for any of the three options discussed in the report. He continued, however, that he was “bitterly disappointed” about NASA’s previous budgets, which have been set by the appropriations subcommittees at levels significantly less than the requested levels.

“My recommendation will be to take something off the table,” warned Brown, if the appropriations bill reduces the total NASA request by more than around $100 million. Brown has been told that the final bill will probably cut about $1 billion out of the request. If reductions are made, he said, the space station must be reconsidered, warning, “if it slips this year, I am probably going to have to go against the station.” Brown is very concerned about the “whittling away syndrome” and its impact on NASA space science programs. The chairman has more than the upcoming year in mind. Brown wants a better funding profile for the agency over the next five years, which is set to decline at a rate of 5% annually.

Brown’s comments echo those he made earlier this month at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. Here he was more direct in analyzing the trade-offs between adequate support for space science and the space station. Brown faulted future budget projections (beyond FY 1995) as lacking balance and for the shortchanging of space science, concluding, “the out year budgets for NASA simply are not defensible.” He called on the President, Vice President, and OSTP Director to “exercise leadership in making sure that the appropriations allocations permit NASA to receive its requested funding this year...and help to define a more realistic budget for NASA over the next five years.” He continued, “If NASA receives a major reduction in the appropriations process this year, or if the out years for NASA cannot be reconfigured, I have arrived at the regretful decision that I must oppose the space station.”

What is the likely effect of Brown’s misgivings? Last year, before the redesign of the space station was announced, Brown had a similar press conference at which he threatened to withdraw his support if the new station moved away from a Freedom-derived design. The final design was in line with Brown’s thinking. Station supporters cannot afford to loose Brown’s support in what only last week Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) called a “fragile” coalition. It is not at all an unusual practice for Members of Congress to follow the lead of a colleague who is seen as an expert in a particular area. Coming on last year’s rejection of the Superconducting Super Collider in the House of Representatives, both proponents and opponents of the space station are approaching another day of reckoning for a major project. Last year, the House approved station funding by a 24 vote margin.