Subject: Hearing on the NASA Budget Request for FY2000 before the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics (Chairman Rohrabacher) of the House Committee on Science; February 24, 1999
Members Chairman Rohrabacher
(R-MO), Ranking Bart Gordon (D-TN), Lamar Smith (R-TX),
Present: Vernon Ehlers (R-MI),
Ken Calvert (R-CA), Dave Weldon (R-FL), Mark Sanford (R-SC), George Brown,
Jr. (D-CA), Nick Lampson (D-TX), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Mark Udall (D-CO),
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), David Wu (D-OR), Anthony Weiner (D-NY), Bob
Etheridge (D-NC)
Witness: Daniel S. Goldin, Administrator,
NASA
Opening Statements:
Chairman Rohrabacher opened the hearing with a chart showing the decline in NASA’s budget which has occurred since 1994, concurrent with the unprecedented growth in the U.S. economy. The Chairman went on to praise Mr. Goldin for his reforms within the agency during this period of reduced funding. He felt that even a small cut to NASA would be misguided and place an additional burden on the space program. The Chairman was also critical of the Administration's weakening support for the space program, noting that NASA’s real progress is not reflected in the FY 2000 budget and that there appears to be a lack of recognition by the White House for the vital role of space. In addition, Mr. Goldin was praised for his openness to bringing in the private sector to help NASA maximize the potential for private/public partnerships.
Ranking Member Gordon acknowledged NASA’s accomplishments, but remarked that tight budgets produce cost efficiency. Mr. Gordon responded to the Chairman's criticism of the White House by noting that the present Administration has retained Mr. Goldin as NASA Administrator. Mr. Gordon then expressed concern about additional FY2000 funding requirements for the International Space Station, questioning whether NASA understood risk and cost growth. He requested reassurance for the Subcommittee from Mr. Goldin on this issue, and also praised the Administrator for putting a cap on agency costs.
The opening statements were followed by the swearing in of Mr. Goldin and the Associate Administrators. Mr. Goldin accompanied a visual presentation with verbal commentary about NASA’s accomplishments and future directions for the agency.
Questions and Answers:
Chairman Rohrabacher opened the Question and Answer period by noting that NASA’s budget for the next four years does not include financial support for the Russian Space Agency (RSA), and asked how NASA planned to deal with Russia's economic shortfalls. Mr. Goldin responded that it is important that Russia not count on U.S. funding; the Russian government must face its responsibilities. However, NASA will continue to monitor the situation, he said, and will take appropriate action as needed. The Chairman acknowledged that that was an acceptable answer, and recognized the flexibility that would be required of both the Congress and White House in responding to funding situations.
He then referred to a January visit to Johnson Space Center (JSC) that he took with Ranking Minority Member Bart Gordon and Administrator Goldin. He asked if the TransHab, which is being considered as a possible replacement to the Hab, would be a wise investment, considering the cost and time factors. Mr. Goldin informed him that the Hab is baselined, but Joe Rothenberg, Associate Administrator for Space Flight, is reviewing the program, and promised to confer with the Congress before a decision is taken.
Congressman Gordon expressed his concern, along with that of Cong. Weldon, about the condition of the national launch range infrastructure. Mr. Goldin told him that the Unified Space Command (USC) is doing a very valiant job with very little resources. The ranges are seriously declining, with a low state of technology, causing constant launch delays. Mr. Gordon asked the Administrator to have his staff suggest an agenda to review the situation and possible solutions. Mr. Goldin told him that the Air Force and USC are trying to do the right thing, but need funding.
Mr. Gordon was concerned about the results of the GAO audit published in January 1999, "Major Management Challenges and Program Risks, National Aeronautics and Space Administration," which indicate that NASA’s contract management has been at risk for 10 concurrent years. Mr. Goldin responded that the issue is the delay in implementation of the Integrated Financial Management Plan (IFMP). He informed the Subcommittee that the contractor, Peat-Marwick, is 6 months late in implementing the Plan, and Mr. Goldin accepted responsibility to bring the IFMP on line early in 2000 at MSFC, with the balance of the agency transitioning to the new system over a 12-month period.
Mr. Brown expressed interest in the Hubble Space Telescope follow-on program. Mr. Goldin discussed plans for the Next Generation Space Telescope which would have adaptive mirrors and inflatable structures allowing it to be built three times in diameter larger that Hubble, ten times more powerful and cost 1/5 what Hubble cost. Mr. Brown also told Mr. Goldin that he believes the international community would be interested in supplying Hubble-like instruments.
Mr. Brown also asked about NASA’s Near Earth Object (NEO) program. Mr. Goldin told the Committee that NASA had increased its funding at the Committee's direction and thanked them for providing an additional $1 million in last year's budget. Mr. Goldin explained that NASA plans to spend close to a billion dollars for seven missions to comets and asteroids to understand their make up in the event we had to have some defense against them.
NASA support of education was an issue addressed by several members. They expressed concern at the reductions in the FY 2000 budget relative to the FY 1999 appropriations. The Administrator told members that he was not happy at the cuts. Mr. Etheridge asked Mr. Goldin is they were able to find additional resources if NASA could use those funds for education. The Administrator said he would work with the Congress in support of increased funding. Congressman Etheridge questioned the Administrator about specific reductions in Space Grant and research funds for the University of North Carolina in Mars research and technology development. The Administrator promised to find out about Mr. Etheridge’s concerns and personally meet with him to discuss them. Mr. Goldin did relay to the Subcommittee that NASA strongly supports education and spends nearly $900 million each year in support of research at universities.
Congressmen Wu, Weiner, Ehlers and Congresswoman Jackson-Lee also expressed concern in cuts to NASA’s education program and minority research programs. As new members, Congressmen Wu and Weiner told the Administrator that being able to explain how NASA impacts their district, particularly through support to education is a powerful tool in garnering support for the Nation's space program.
Rep. Wu questioned Mr. Goldin concerning NASA’s research results that Mr. Wu could take back to his constituency in Oregon. By way of example, Mr. Goldin told the Subcommittee about the Office of Life and Microgravity Science's work with Stanford University on virtual reconstructive surgery – the initial testbeds of telemedicine which, in future, will be performed in space. In this context, Mr. Goldin again expressed his frustration with not having enough funding for a comprehensive education program.
Rep. Weldon asked about possible research missions to fill gaps in the Space Shuttle manifest caused by delays in ISS construction. Mr. Goldin reported that the FY 1999 earmark for $15 million for a standby research mission is being used to reduce the mission lead time to 9 months from 15; however, another $35 million would be required to conduct such a mission. The Congressman asked about the possibility of commercial research on the shuttle. Mr. Goldin told him that he would love to, but Shuttle costs are so high, he doesn't see any commercialization opportunities at the moment. However, if the SFOC contractor, United Space Alliance (USA) can find commercial research, he would be glad to do it, adding that NASA would continue to be aggressive in finding additional launch opportunities. In response to the Congressman's question about NASA’s role in the launch range issue, the Administrator said that the Kennedy Space Center (KSC) could be NASA’s Center of Excellence for Launch Ranges. NASA is working with the Air Force to determine how best to handle this important issue.
Congressman Weldon also asked about the possibility of an emergency Hubble repair mission.
Rep. Weldon also inquired whether NASA is "up to speed" on the Y2K problem. Mr. Goldin noted that NASA recently received a B+ from Congressman Horn, who ranks federal agencies each quarter; NASA has aggressively attacked this problem.
Congressman Lamar Smith asked the Administrator to list two or three projects that will be initiated and completed in the next ten years that will engage the public's imagination. Mr. Goldin listed the International Space Station (ISS) because it would teach us how astronauts can live and work in space for long periods, so that someday they can travel to Mars – a four year mission where "Earth would be seen as a speck on the horizon." Mission control on the ground would not be available to astronauts on Mars; vehicle intelligence would be required.
Congressman Sanford asked Mr. Goldin why, if the Russians have added such difficulty and delay to the ISS program, do we continue to keep them in the program. Mr. Goldin referred him to the letter from the Department of State on the Administration's policy on this issue, and then responded on the technical merits. Before the Russians joined the program, there was only one vehicle capable of reaching the station – the Shuttle. Russia is the only other country with this capability. That alone is enough to keep them in the program, he stated. Without the Russians, the station would not be habitable until 2003; with them in the program, we expect to have a three-person crew on board by early next year, enabling a much greater amount of research. There is no way to study microgravity on the ground – the medical problems of long duration spaceflight must be resolved in space, he said, and listed a number of medical groups supporting ISS research. Congressman Sanford asked if it would be less expensive if done solely by the U.S. Mr. Goldin replied that NASA has learned a lot by international collaboration, although it could have been done independently, if necessary. Once we get the Service Module docked this year, and the U.S. Lab, Destiny, next year, the program will be "through the eye of the needle," allowing for greater flexibility.
Congressman Lampson asked the Administrator if Russia should seek funding from other U.S. agencies, so NASA is not taking the hit financially. Mr. Goldin told him that he believes the other international partners should be looked to first before going to the U.S. government again. The European Space Agency (ESA) has a $60 million contract with RSA for a transfer vehicle. The Japanese are also looking at potential contracts with the Russians. If it is a true partnership, Mr. Goldin said, the other partners need to bear some of the burden. He added that Nunn-Lugar funds have been discussed with the Committee.
Rep. Jackson-Lee said she understood the rationale for canceling the High-Speed Research program but expressed concern that the cut to aeronautics in the FY 2000 budget will eviscerate NASA’s involvement in aeronautics.
Administrator Goldin’s final statement
was that NASA will do what it says it will do – get the International Space
Station built first, and then go to Mars. Chairman Rohrabacher closed the
hearing by agreeing, but adding that the sequence should be ISS, the Moon,
and then Mars.