First Step in NASA Authorization Process
The new chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Space, James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), reviewed NASA’s fiscal year 1996 budget request in a February 13 hearing. The agency is slated to receive $14.26 billion for the upcoming fiscal year, but has been targeted by the Administration for a cut of $5 billion over the next five years (see FYI #24.) Warning that “NASA has a history of over-optimistic planning,” Sensenbrenner expressed doubts about whether the agency could accomplish all its plans within the context of the budget cut.
Sensenbrenner plans to introduce a multi-year NASA authorization bill within the next four weeks. The House Science Committee, as an authorizing committee, can write legislation to approve and suggest funding levels for programs under its jurisdiction, but the job of providing the funds belongs to the appropriations committees. In theory, authorization bills are passed before appropriations bills to provide guidance on spending. In reality, authorizing legislation often comes out either too late to affect the appropriations process, or not at all.
NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin testified that he has begun an agency-wide analysis to determine where to make the necessary cuts. He hopes to extract the entire $5 billion from what he described as an outdated, overly-large NASA infrastructure, rather than by cancellation of programs. “If we just choose to cancel programs and maintain the infrastructure,” he said, “we will have made the wrong decision.” He added that “if we cannot, we’re going to come forward and we’ll tell you which programs have to be cut.”
Goldin expects to have the analysis completed by May 17, but Sensenbrenner intends to “get the authorization bill out of subcommittee and out of the full committee before the [mid-April] Easter recess.” He warned Goldin that if the agency could not provide recommendations by that time, “the train will have left the station.” He added, “I am not partial to funding any new starts until I see what’s done with this $5 billion” cut.
Subcommittee members questioned Goldin on specific programs in the request. Ranking minority member Ralph Hall (D-TX) inquired why, in the circumstances, NASA planned to initiate a Reusable Launch Vehicle program. Goldin explained that the money was not to develop a new vehicle but to explore the possibility. He noted that by the next century, without a new launch vehicle, the shuttle will require significant upgrades. Asked why the Gravity Probe B mission was undergoing yet another scientific review, Goldin reported concerns about whether the mission was redundant in light of research performed since it was first planned. He stated that he believed the space station had adequate ($3 billion) reserves, and that Russia was “turning out to be one of our most reliable partners.”
Jane Harman (D-CA) urged Goldin to “keep doing what you’re doing, but also, do it faster. I think what the chairman has said about the effort here to authorize this program in the right sequence is very important.” If the agency did not provide input into the authorization process, she said, “NASA will be the loser.”
