Authorizers and Appropriators Turn Attention to NASA

As Congress moves on both authorization and appropriations fronts with respect to NASA, problems with growing cost estimates and Russian delays to the International Space Station (ISS) program still draw the greatest attention.

Lawmakers continue to question whether NASA’s requests to transfer funds to the space station from other internal programs are damaging the science programs within the agency. A new report by a NASA-chosen panel of outside experts, presented to the agency on March 19, estimates that the total U.S. costs for station development and assembly could run as high as $24 billion, $3 billion over NASA’s earlier estimate. A NASA Advisory Council will now review the report and provide its comments to Administrator Dan Goldin. An authorization bill (S. 1250), passed by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee on March 12, would limit U.S. expenditures on the station to $21.9 billion through the end of assembly, and would also cap the U.S. share of transportation costs for assembly at $17.7 billion. However, the efficacy of cost caps is not clear; the March 19 independent panel report notes that some of the program’s cost and schedule overruns might be attributable to annual caps implemented by the Administration several years ago.

The Senate authorization bill would approve NASA funding of $13.63 billion for FY 1998 (the amount already appropriated), $13.46 billion for FY 1999 (equal to Clinton’s FY 1999 request), and $13.68 billion for FY 2000 (higher than the projected FY 2000 request). A House authorization bill passed last year (see FYI #56 , 1997) would authorize more than the Senate in years FY 1998 and FY 1999. It is worth noting that no NASA authorizing legislation has passed both the entire House and Senate and been sent to the White House since 1992.

At two hearings of the House VA/HUD Appropriations Subcommittee, on March 12 and March 31, Chair Jerry Lewis (R-CA) and other Subcommittee Members - most of them space station supporters - questioned Goldin about the impact of station cost growth on other NASA programs. Goldin responded emphatically and repeatedly that, even with a decreasing total budget, NASA science programs are more robust than ever. He cited as proof “major new space science programs” as well as enhanced Research and Analysis funding for Earth science. He also pointed out that the Science, Aeronautics and Technology (SAT) portion of the total NASA budget has grown from 31 percent in 1992 to 43 percent in the FY 1999 request. SAT “has been the big winner at NASA,” he said, but “somehow this message has not gotten across. I feel each year we’ve made continued progress in increasing the capacity of science.” He added, “If anything, I worry we’ve overcompensated space science,” while cutting human space flight too deeply. He also reassured subcommittee members that despite difficulties, both the AXAF and Gravity Probe B/Relativity space science missions continued to run under budget.

Prompted by congressional dismay that NASA continues to see a declining budget under the FY 1999 request even as most R&D agencies are slated for increases, Goldin said it was difficult, but he thought it was because NASA was better than other agencies at “doing more with less.” He admitted, though, that once he has been successful at “trying to reform NASA to do things differently,” he intends to ask for larger budgets.

Much of the concern about ISS cost growth is due to continued funding delays in the Russian portion of the effort. As recently as March 23, the Russian government experienced a shake-up which removed from power Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, who had been prominently involved in the space station program. Goldin reported that, even during the shake-up, the Russians continued to incrementally make up for shortfalls in program funding, and he viewed this as a signal of their commitment. He said that in mid-May, NASA has scheduled a decision point at which it will reevaluate the status of Russia’s commitment and determine whether further U.S. funding will be necessary to keep the program on track. At both hearings, Lewis urged Goldin to consider what would be necessary if the Russians proved unable to fulfill their commitments. “I think it’s about time for us to begin to discuss up front the what if’ scenario,” Lewis said. Goldin hesitated, saying there was “time for us to collect the next level of detail” if the question arises this summer. The Associate Administrator for Human Space Flight, Joe Rothenberg, noted that a default by the Russians “could run up to billions quickly.” Lewis warned, “If this thing explodes, and we’re not prepared, it could undermine the whole program.”

Questions were also plentiful about NASA’s recent request for authority to transfer $173 million from current funds ($45 million from Mission Support and $128 million from SAT) to the station in an FY 1998 supplemental request. The agency would combine this with $27 million from the shuttle, which it already has authority to transfer, for a total of $200 million in new funds for FY 1998. Last year, Congress approved a transfer of funds from the shuttle program, but refused to grant authority for NASA to shift additional money from other budget areas for the station. (In addition, NASA has moved nearly one-half billion dollars from life and microgravity science programs for the station to station development, with the intent of repaying much of it in future years as research capacity on the station becomes available.) NASA Comptroller Malcolm Peterson testified that the FY 1999 request “is predicated on the assumption that [the total $200 million in transferred funds] would be available” for the station. If it is not made available in FY 1998, he said, NASA will need those funds in FY 1999. Goldin argued that uncosted carryover funds from Earth and space science (unspent funds from previous years) could be shifted to station development without hurting the science programs. Currently, a Senate-passed version of the FY 1998 supplemental denies NASA the transfer authority it is seeking, while a House version, which would give NASA that authority, awaits floor action.

Congress is due back in session the week of April 20. As Lewis’s VA/HUD subcommittee drafts its bill, it will be watching for the outcome of the mid-May decision on the status of Russia’s space station effort and what that means for the U.S. program. It will receive NASA’s comments on the independent panel’s station cost estimate. Whether NASA is given the transfer authority it seeks for FY 1998 funds will also be a factor. In recent years, the VA/HUD bill has usually been sent to, and passed by, the full appropriations committee in mid-June or July. Based on past history, it seems unlikely that the authorization bills will see much further progress.