NASA Praised by Senate VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee

“Perhaps no agency, more than NASA, has confronted the reality of the austere budget environment. Over the last few years, NASA has transformed itself from an agency that had assumed large annual budget increases, to one that now assumes a flat to negative funding horizon. I applaud the agency for getting out front of this dilemma...” -- Sen. Christopher Bond

With these words of praise, chairman Christopher Bond (R-MO) of the Senate VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee opened an April 5 hearing on NASA’s FY 1996 budget request. Bond is a “strong supporter for NASA’s efforts,” as were the other subcommittee members present: Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Richard Shelby (R-AL), and Robert Bennett (R-UT).

NASA is requesting $14.26 billion, a decrease of $203.7 million from current-year spending. It has been asked by the Administration to take a cut of $5 billion from its expected budget profile over the next five years. Daniel Goldin, the agency’s administrator, reported that five separate reviews had taken or were taking place on different aspects of the space agency’s activities. By mid-May, Goldin expects to have an initial assessment on whether or not the agency could achieve the five-year reduction through cuts in infrastructure alone. If not, he promised to come back to the subcommittee with NASA’s priorities for program cuts. Bond concurred with Mikulski when she urged that NASA’s analysis be “done in time to give guidance to the House and, certainly, to the Senate.” If the analyses were not available in time to mark up the subcommittee’s bill, she warned, “we will move without them.”

Shelby raised concerns about how NASA’s field centers would fare under the downsizing, especially Marshall Space Flight Center in his home state. Goldin was “cautiously optimistic” about preserving the primary centers, although he was doubtful that they could all be cut evenly. “Survival of a center is not the issue,” he declared. It is “survival of the American economy.”

Mikulski described NASA as part of the nation’s effort to “create wealth and jobs,” rather than just redistribute them. Jobs, she said, are “what people are looking for from NASA.” She then questioned the Administration’s policy of “fencing off” the space station budget from any of the reductions. Goldin praised having a stable station budget as “the single biggest, most important characteristic” in the program’s progress, adding that “to change the funding at this point could be its demise.” Mikulski cautioned that singling it out “makes it a very clear target.” Goldin vowed, “Somehow, some way, no matter what happens...this station is going to be built.”

Bond made no mention of decreasing the NASA budget further; he said the agency had “given at the office,” and made greater reductions than he would have asked for. “We appreciate what you’ve done,” he assured Goldin.