Senators Rally Around NASA, Mission to Planet Earth
NASA and its Mission to Planet Earth program received praise and support in two May 16 Senate hearings. An authorization hearing of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space was chaired by Conrad Burns (R-MT), a self-proclaimed “natural resources type of person” who stated, “we should know as much about our planet as we possibly can.” Burns’ hearing featured an impressive show-and-tell demonstration of remote sensing data available on the Internet, with a broad variety of applications: land use, vegetation stress and erosion, ocean height, weather forecasting and hurricane analysis, volcanic activity, mining impacts and mineral classification of wastes. Burns was joined for a time by Larry Pressler (R-SD), chairman of the full Commerce Committee, and Byron Dorgan (D-ND), both of whom expressed support for Mission to Planet Earth.
NASA Associate Administrator for Mission to Planet Earth, Charles Kennel, described the program and remarked that it “concerns scientific issues deeper and more extensive than [just] global warming.” Kennel reported that since 1990, Mission to Planet Earth’s total budget has been cut from $17 billion to $6.8 billion, and warned that the program was “close to the point where we can say that further budget reductions will translate into knowledge reductions.” This statement was echoed by other witnesses.
Pressler inquired about a National Academy of Sciences recommendation last year that NASA select a federation of data users from academia, industry, and government to manage some of the data from the program. Kennel responded that NASA planned to move cautiously by trying small pilot programs, and that the government would maintain responsibility for the primary data. Asked by Burns about reports of an unspent “slush fund” within the Mission to Planet Earth budget, Kennel explained that most of those funds had been obligated but not paid out yet, partly due to caution by program managers because of last year’s appropriations uncertainties.
Later that day, some of the same participants faced each other again at a hearing of the Senate VA/HUD/Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. Here, too, Members were supportive of NASA, and voiced concerns over significant budget reductions projected by the Clinton Administration for future years. Chairman Kit Bond (R-MO) cautioned that such reductions would “have devastating consequences on NASA programs.” He asked whether it would be fiscally prudent to terminate some programs now rather than run into shortfalls in coming years. Goldin, in a now-familiar refrain, replied that he was confident he could work with the Administration to resolve the outyear budget problems, and said he had been directed by the White House not to take any “precipitous actions” such as terminating programs this year.
Ranking Minority Member Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) pursued this issue, questioning whether NASA programs like Mission to Planet Earth were sufficiently funded in the outyears. Goldin continued to insist that problems could be worked out. “I think we’ve gotten the message,” Mikulski said drily, “even if we haven’t gotten an answer.” She also pressed Goldin on a recent announcement about cutting NASA’s headquarters staff by 700 employees (many of whom live in Mikulski’s state of Maryland.) Goldin replied that the number was an initial target supplied for guidance, but that he was working with the Associate Administrators to determine the size of the staff actually needed. He expected to have an answer by mid-July. Mikulski said the subcommittee expected its bill to go to the Senate floor by then, and suggested that if there was still “a lack of clarity” on the NASA outyear budget by mid-June, she would ask the Administration to clarify its plans. Goldin said a consensus between the Administration and Congress was needed on a deficit-reduction plan “before we have any clarity” on the outyear budgets.
Goldin cited development of a new launch capability as NASA’s highest priority for a new start, and SIRTF as the highest priority for a new start in space science. When Richard Shelby (R-AL) pointed out that space science was not among five major NASA goals identified by the Administration, Goldin answered that it was important to the White House and he was working to achieve a balance among all the programs. He added that, due to an emphasis on “faster, better, cheaper” missions, the space science budget was coming down even before NASA set out to make cuts.
Asked by Shelby about the status of the space station, Goldin reported that it was about 40 percent complete, within 2-3 weeks of schedule and one percent of budget - without accounting for reserves - and still on target for first and second element launches in 1997. He added that he might ask for additional funds for shuttle safety. Burns, noting that he was “a very big supporter of Mission to Planet Earth,” inquired about incorporating the New Millennium program for technology development. Goldin explained that advanced technologies would cut weight, cost, and development time, and improve performance of the sensors.
When Shelby asked whether he could “save NASA by downsizing and streamlining,” Goldin responded that there were a lot of new technologies and new management techniques yet to be incorporated, and that NASA was “doing the right thing.”
