Crucial Time for NASA Science Programs

As described in FYI #97, early reports state that the House VA/HUD/Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, in marking up its FY 1996 funding bill, made these recommendations for major NASA science programs: termination of the Cassini mission to Saturn (FY96 request: $191.5 million); at least a delay in funding SIRTF (FY96 request: $15.0 million) and SOFIA (FY96 request: $48.7 million); and, by some accounts, termination of Gravity Probe B, whose continuation NASA is studying. The subcommittee also recommended the closure of three NASA centers, Goddard, Langley, and Marshall, by FY 1998. (See FYI #3 for the House subcommittee roster.)

This action represents only the first step in the appropriations process for NASA, but now is the time to take action to affect the rest of the process. One opportunity to turn the fate of the programs around will come on the House floor (no date has yet been scheduled). For instance, David Obey (D-WI), the House Appropriations Committee’s ranking minority member, has announced that he will offer an amendment to terminate space station funding and make those funds available for other programs under VA/HUD’s jurisdiction, including other NASA activities.

Other House members are likely to protest the subcommittee’s actions. House Science Committee chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) has released the following statement on the bill: “While I am pleased that the subcommittee recognizes the need for continued support of a manned space program by fully funding the space station and the reusable launch vehicle program, I am concerned that the subcommittee has chosen to eliminate some of the highest priority space science missions.... NASA’s core basic research, which includes planetary exploration and physics and astronomy, should be the first area to be preserved.”

Walker added, “The proposal to close three NASA centers is premature and is not something which I can support at this time. NASA Administrator Dan Goldin has outlined a restructuring plan which should be considered before we begin to dismantle the operational centers. I am hopeful that an upcoming Science Committee markup of the NASA budget will be able to offer some clear alternatives to the appropriators before VA/HUD goes to the House floor.” In addition, House Science ranking member George Brown (D-CA), has argued forcefully for the preservation of NASA’s science missions.

According to reports, the House subcommittee bill suggests moving Goddard’s functions to the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). The Foster Task Force review of NASA’s laboratories, released earlier this year (see FYI #51), found that “astrophysics, space physics, and fundamental earth science research should continue to be conducted at both JPL and GSFC because those program elements are complementary and not redundant.”

The bill would reportedly also shift Langley’s functions to Lewis and Ames Research Centers, and spread out Marshall’s programs among Lewis, Stennis, Johnson, and Kennedy centers. Not only is House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Lewis’s (R-CA) district near JPL, but two subcommittee members are from Texas, where Johnston Space Flight Center is located, and three are from Ohio, the home of Lewis Research Center. There are no subcommittee members from Maryland, Virginia, or Alabama, the locations of Goddard, Langley, and Marshall, respectively.

The Senate VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee will have an opportunity to provide its own recommendations when it takes up the bill. Members of the Senate subcommittee include ranking Democrat Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), who is an avid supporter of NASA and especially Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in her state, and Richard Shelby (R-AL), whose state houses Marshall Space Flight Center. Mikulski has been quoted by the Washington Post as saying, “This is real, and the battle has been joined.... We’ll try to work it out, and if we can’t, we’ll duke it out.” While she and Shelby are certain to fight for their centers, it is less certain how much they will stand up for the science programs. To get the Senate to restore money for any programs terminated by the House will require considerable support from the public. (See FYI #31 for the Senate subcommittee roster.)

President Clinton has already announced his intention to veto appropriations bills that go too far in making cuts he disagrees with, but he has other concerns in the VA/HUD bill. In addition to reducing NASA and NSF funding, it drastically cuts housing programs and terminates his National Service Program.

An added factor for the VA/HUD bill revolves around Congress’s attempt to pass a rescissions bill for FY 1995 funding (see FYIs #34, 93). If that bill, which was taken into account in the budget-reduction plans, is not passed, more will likely be cut from the FY 1996 appropriations allocations to remain on a five-year path to a balanced budget. The VA/HUD allocation, already 12 percent less than last year’s, is a likely target for further reductions.

NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin reacted to proposed R&D budget cuts, and to the subcommittee bill on Tuesday at the PCAST meeting. He spoke at length about the impact which continual downsizing has had on the NASA workforce, saying that “people are at their limits...NASA is ready to explode.” He went on to characterize new efforts to reduce the NASA work force as “road kill,” where the objective seems to be cutting for the sake of cutting. “I’ve had it,” he said. Speaking specifically of the subcommittee’s reduction in NASA funding for FY 1996 - $720 million less than the administration request - Goldin said, “I am not prepared to cut the budget another nickel.”