NASA FY 1999 Appropriations: Conference Report

The final FY 1999 appropriations bill (H.R. 4194) to fund Veterans Affairs, HUD, and Independent Agencies, including NASA, was approved by the House on October 6 and the Senate on October 7. Now that a compromise has been reached on language in the EPA section dealing with implementation of the Kyoto global warming treaty, President Clinton is expected to sign the bill. Of the NASA programs tracked by FYI, total NASA funding would be increased over the request, as would the Science, Aeronautics and Technology (SAT) account. The Human Space Flight (HSF) account would be funded at slightly less than the request.

NASA FY 1999 Appropriations NASA FY98 FY99 House Senate Conference Account Approp. Request Bill Bill Report (In millions) SAT $5,690 5,457 5,542 5,562 5,654 HSF 5,507 5,511 5,309 5,541 5,480 TOTAL 13,638 13,465 13,328 13,615 13,665

Accompanying the bill is a conference report (H. Report 105-769) which contains instructions from the conferees on how the money should be used. One issue reflected in the conference report is that, in the face of Russian economic collapse, NASA has recently asked Congress for permission to purchase from Russia components and services that the Russian Space Agency was supposed to contribute to the International Space Station (see FYI #131 .) In the conference report, the conferees deny these transfer payments to the Russian government until NASA submits a report exploring alternate financial arrangements, including dealing directly with Russian contractors. (One of the leading NASA authorizers, House Science Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), has also rejected NASA’s request to transfer funds to the Russian government.)

Language in the conference report would also affect several changes recommended in the Senate Appropriations Committee report. Senate appropriators had recommended two changes to NASA’s account structure. They would separate the Human Space Flight account into one account for the International Space Station and another for Launch Vehicles and Payload Operations. They would also separate the Science, Aeronautics and Technology account into one account for Science and Technology, and another for Aeronautics, Space Transportation and Technology. However, the conference report states that “The conferees agree to retain the current NASA account structure for fiscal year 1999.” With respect to the space station, the conference report adds, “The conferees direct NASA to provide as part of its fiscal year 2000 budget submission a separate account for the International space station. The conferees have taken this action because of concern that the current account structure may facilitate the easy movement of funding from other human space flight activities into the space station program without timely or adequate notification to the Congress.” To restrict such transfers in FY 1999, the conferees have included a general provision stating that “NASA must limit transfers of funds between programs and activities to not more than $500,000 without prior approval of the Committees on Appropriations. Further, no changes may be made to any account or program element if it is construed to be policy or a change in policy.”

SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND TECHNOLOGY: The science programs within SAT would be funded as follows:

Space Science:Space Science would receive $2,119.2 million, an increase of $60.8 million (or 3.0 percent) over the request, and 6.8 percent over FY 1998 funding. In the report, 14 specific projects are targeted for increases, totaling $82.0 million. This is to be taken from the $60.8 million increase, and a $21.2 million reduction to be applied to the rest of the programs within Space Science. Some of the 14 projects specified for increases are: A $20.0 million increase for the Mars 2001 program, a $12.0 million increase for Next Generation Space Telescope; a $10.0 million increase for Space Solar Power; a $1.0 million increase for the Near Earth Asteroid Tracking program; and an $11.0 million increase “for Sun-Earth connecting advanced technology development to provide full funding for Solar-B, continue microsatellite technology, and support launch of solar stereo by 2002.”

Earth Sciences:Earth Science would receive $1,413.8 million, an increase of $41.8 million (or 3.1 percent) over the request, and 3.4 percent over FY 1998 funding. The report cites nine items for specific increases, which would be taken from the $41.8 million increase and an $11.2 million reduction to be applied to the rest of the Earth Sciences programs. The largest increase, of $25.0 million, is “to support [the] EOS AM-1 launch requirement, including interoperability of the EOS ground systems.”

Life and Microgravity Sciences:This account would receive $263.5 million, an increase of $21.5 million (or 8.9 percent) to the request, and 23.0 percent over FY 1998 funding. The $21.5 million increase is designated as follows: $6.5 million for space radiation research, and $15.0 million for an additional shuttle mission which accommodates research payloads. The conferees believe “additional research missions during space station assembly are critical for providing scientists the opportunity to develop research capabilities needed for optimal utilization of the International Space Station.”

HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT: Within this account, the Space Shuttle would receive $3,028.0 million, while Payload and Utilization would get $182.0 million. International Space Station development related activities would receive $2,270.0 million, equal to the request.

The report reviews the status of the space station, noting that while the first and second elements are essentially ready for launch” later this year, “the critical third element, the Russian-provided service module, still requires some assembly and has been scheduled for launch in April of 1999. Currently the launch date of the service module is in a state of flux and further delay will most likely occur. The conferees are very concerned about the status of the space station development schedule and in particular the impact of the economic and political situation in Russia. Because of this concern, the conferees will not endorse fiscal year 1999 transfer payments to the Russian Government at this time.” The report instructs NASA to “explore avenues other than government to government transfer payments to ensure adequate funding finds its way to the enterprises which are providing services and equipment.... The conferees will not approve any movement of funds to compensate for Russian nonperformance until a report is provided to the Committees on Appropriations...detailing the reasons for accepting or rejecting alternative financial arrangements, including government to government transfers, U.S. government to foreign contractor arrangements, and U.S. contractor to foreign contractor arrangements. The conferees expect to receive the report within 60 days of enactment of this Act.”