NASA Plan to Cut $5 Billion; Additional Cuts Loom

Just as NASA readied itself for $5 billion in spending reductions by the end of the decade that were mandated by the White House, it now must contemplate additional cuts by Congress. Commented NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin: “The deeper cuts Congress is contemplating simply go too far, and I am committed to fighting them.” He added, “all bets are off” if the additional cuts occur, as facilities will be closed and programs terminated.

Goldin’s remarks came as he unveiled a set of management and organizational changes that will cut NASA’s civil servant employment to 17,500 by the year 2000. This is about the number of employees it had in 1961. An additional 25,000 contractor employees will also be cut.

Under this “Zero-Base Review,” all of NASA’s ten major field centers are to be kept open, with retention of major core science, aeronautics, and exploration programs. NASA will make the $5 billion in cuts by reducing jobs, facilities, and administrative overhead. This newest cut is in addition to a 31% (or $35 billion) reduction already in progress.

Every NASA field center would have a primary mission under this plan. Earth Science/Physics and Astronomy would be managed by the Goddard Space Flight Center, which would see a 28% reduction in federal and contractor employment. Planetary Science and Exploration would be centered at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which would see a 22% reduction in employment. Another three months of reviews will be necessary before the plan is finalized and incorporated in the proposed FY 1997 budget to be sent to the Office of Management and Budget.

House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) and Space Subcommittee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) did not comment directly on the Zero-Base Review in an issued statement. They criticized President Clinton because he “punted on deficit reduction” and NASA for “unrealistic wishful thinking.” Commenting on the House Budget Resolution to cut another $7 billion from NASA’s FY 1996-2000 budget, Walker said, “Republicans made hard choices because NASA, just like every other federal agency, had to take its fair share of cuts. During this process, everything was `on the table’ including the International Space Station. The priorities of the Republicans include: the International Space Station, the Reusable Launch Vehicle program, basic science, and investment in cutting-edge technology.” Later, Ranking Democrat George Brown (CA) commended Goldin, warning that the House Budget Resolution would “at least double” job reductions.

As if all of this was not enough, some Members of Congress are talking about the impact of the House and Senate budget resolutions on the space station. Said Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee Chairman Larry Pressler (R-SD), “In terms of public policy, are we doing this thing right? Are we in an unhappy marriage that we should get out of?” Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) commented, “I think the draconian cuts at NASA really place the station in jeopardy.” Station opponent Rep. Dick Zimmer (D-NJ) predicted, “I think we have a lot of courageous freshmen who are willing to go against the grain,” a view dismissed by Chairman Walker who says, “From everything we known, we have plenty of votes on this.” First indications of support for the station may be the now rescheduled June 6 mark-up of H.R. 1601, a bill to authorize funding for the space station though its completion, by the space subcommittee.

The continual cutting of the NASA budget and the uncertainty surrounding the space station are no doubt having an effect on NASA’s workforce. When Goldin was informed of the Republican moves to cut the agency budget he probably spoke for many when he said, “I couldn’t get out of bed, I was so frustrated.” A major task for his agency and those who depend on it is, he commented, finding ways to better communicate with Congress.