Agency Battles Proposed Congressional Budget Cut
In what NASA
Administrator Sean O'Keefe described as the first inning of a long
ball game, the first attempt by Congress to cut the substantial
budget increase the White House wants for NASA in 2005 was
reversed.
The Senate Budget Committee, citing the record budget deficits
the United States is experiencing, cut back the money it would make
available for many White House spending priorities, including a
proposed 5.6 percent budget hike for NASA for 2005. The committee's
budget resolution, adopted March 4, would have trimmed about $600
million from President George W. Bush's $16.2 billion request for
NASA.
But by the time the budget resolution cleared the Senate not
long after midnight March 12, it had been amended to fully fund the
president's NASA request. The amendment was offered by Sen. Jeff
Sessions (R-Ala.) with the backing of Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.),
the chairman of the Senate Commerce science, technology and space
subcommittee. Brownback's subcommittee is responsible for
authorizing NASA programs and spending.
Bush wants to increase NASA's 2004 budget of $15.4 billion by
$800 million next year to serve as a down payment on a new
exploration agenda that aims to send humans back to the moon as
early as 2015 in preparation for more ambitious missions to Mars
and beyond.
Both the Senate and the House of Representatives must pass
budget resolutions and work out any differences they have before
appropriators in both chambers are issued their spending guidance
for the year. That guidance, which is called a 302B allocation,
sets firm guidelines that limit how much money can be contained in
each of the 13 annual spending bills that fund the federal
government.
The House Budget Committee had not finished work on its spending
resolution for 2005 before members left town for the weekend.
Chairman Jim Nussel (R-Iowa) opened the proceedings March 11 urging
fiscal restraint and setting a goal for crafting a budget that
would cut the federal deficit in half in four years, one year
sooner than called for by the president.
Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.), who also serves on the House
Budget Committee, said during a March 10 House Science Committee
hearing that the Budget Committee would likely endorse the
president's space exploration vision but not provide the full
increase he is seeking for NASA for 2005. The House Budget
Committee was expected to return to the budget resolution March
15.
Hours before the Senate adopted its budget resolution for 2005,
the chairman of the Senate panel that controls the NASA purse
strings warned that this could end up being a bad year for funding
what he thinks is an admirable, if perhaps too ambitious,
exploration agenda for NASA.
I am afraid you are being asked to do too much with too little
in not enough time, Sen. Christopher Kit Bond (R-Mo.), chairman of
the Senate Appropriations Veteran's Affairs, Housing and Urban
Development and independent agencies subcommittee, told O'Keefe
during the first NASA budget hearing of 2004 (NASA is classified as
an independent agency). And then you have the bad luck of asking
for more money for a new program in a time of severe budget
constraints.
On the other side of
Capitol Hill, members of the House Science Committee continued to
register their discontent with NASA's lack of specificity about the
likely long-term cost of the vision and sought second opinions
about the wisdom of the vision from a panel of outside experts
I think all I need to say about my views this morning is to
reiterate that I remain undecided about whether and how to
undertake the exploration program, House Science Committee Chairman
Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) said. I would add that, as the outlines
of the likely fiscal 2005 budget become clearer, my questions about
the initiative only become more pressing.
Boehlert said the merits of the NASA vision must be judged
against competing science spending priorities. Boehlert and some of
his colleagues have said they are disappointed with Bush's proposed
science budget for 2005 and have vowed to fight proposed reductions
in research spending at the National Science Foundation (news - web
sites), the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, the
Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) and others.
A society unwilling to invest in science and technology is a
society willing to write its own economic obituary, he said.
Rep. Bart Gordon (D-Tenn.), the committee's ranking Democrat and
long time NASA supporter, remained tepid on the president's
exploration agenda.
I support the goal of exploring our solar system, Gordon said
during the hearing. However, until I am convinced that the
president's plan to achieve that goal is credible and responsible,
I am not prepared to give that plan my support.
Testifying before the
committee, Donna Shirley, director of the Science Fiction Museum
and Hall of Fame in Seattle and former Mars Exploration Program
manager at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, suggested a return to
the moon could be an unnecessary detour on the way to Mars. She
warned lawmakers to be on guard against an infrastructure-obsessed
NASA getting bogged down with building a lunar outpost or some
similarly grand undertaking and never quite making it to Mars.
Mike Griffin, president and chief operating officer of
Arlington, Va.-based In-Q-Tel — a venture capital firm funded
by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites) —
defended the moon as an appropriate first step for a space agency
that has not left Earth orbit for 30 years. Griffin also said a
manned lunar mission need not cost the roughly $55 million NASA has
built into its long-term budget projections.
Griffin, who led NASA's last concerted effort to get out of its
low Earth orbit rut under the first President George H.W. Bush,
told members that studies he has participated in suggest that NASA
could send humans back to the moon for about $30 billion, or 40
percent less. He also said that the United States could send the
first humans to Mars for about $130 billion, an amount comparable
to the Apollo budget in today's dollars.