From: Larry Klaes (lklaes@bbn.com)
Date: Wed Jul 28 1999 - 11:23:42 MDT
>From: "Tim Kyger" <kyger@spacelines.com>
>To: "Larry Klaes" <lklaes@bbn.com>
>Cc: "Leonard David" <LDAVID@DELPHI.COM>
>Subject: Here's something that I think you might want to circulate...
>Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:36:51 -0700
>X-MSMail-Priority: High
>X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
>X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
>
>Below you'll find the electronic version of the draft report language that
>the House VA/HUD Subcommittee has already written , outlining their NASA
>program "post-cut." It's already been written on the assumption that at the
>upcoming full Appropriations Committee meeting this Friday at 9:30am won't
>make any changes. It obviously outlines the cuts that they'd like to make.
>
>Please feel free to distribute this far and wide -- in fact, to every email
>address and/or listserv that you might have access to!
>
>Thanks in advance...and sorry about the length...
>
>************************************************************
>
>[[middle of p. 76 of report]]
>
>NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
>
>Fiscal year 2000 recommendation $12,253,800,000
>Fiscal year 1999 appropriation
>13,665,000,000
>Fiscal year 2000 budget request
>13,578,400,000
>Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation - 1,411,200,000
>Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request - 1,324,600,000
>
>The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was created by the
>National Space Act of 1958. NASA conducts space and aeronautics research,
>development, and flight activity designed to ensure and maintain U.S.
>preeminence in space and aeronautical endeavors.
>
>The Committee recommends a total program level of $12,253,800,000 in fiscal
>year 2000, which is a decrease of $1,324,600,000 from the budget request and
>$1,411,200,000 below the fiscal year 1999 enacted appropriation.
>
>The Committee recognizes that the funding reduction for NASA is significant.
>However, when looked at on a program-by-program or project-by-project basis,
>the recommendations are less severe than they appear at first. Projects
>which are specifically noted for cancellation are for the most part early in
>their development, so sunk costs are minimal and long-term savings are
>significant. This is true of SIRTF, Contour, and LightSAR. Additionally,
>other reductions are in the budgets for planning future missions and
>technology development, and many of these budgets have grown significantly
>over the last two years. Examples include: supporting research and
>technology within the Space Science account, which has increased by over
>$250,000,000 since fiscal year 1998; planning for future missions in the
>Explorer and Discovery programs, which have increased by $145,000,000 since
>fiscal year
>
>[[p. 77]]
>
>year 1998; Earth Probes funding has increased over $100,000,000 since fiscal
>year 1998; and the Earth Observing System Data Information System program
>has expended more than $1,600,000,000 since its inception and has delivered
>minimal products to NASA despite this expenditure. Numerous other examples
>could be cited, these are only the most compelling reasons which justify the
>reductions proposed by the Committee.
>
>HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT
>
>Fiscal year 2000 recommendation $ 5,388,000,000
>Fiscal year 1999 appropriation
>5,480,000,000
>Fiscal year 2000 budget request
>5,638,000,000
>Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation - 92,200,000
>Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request - 250,000,000
>
>This appropriation provides for human space flight activities, including
>development of the international space station and operation of the space
>shuttle. This account also includes support of planned cooperative
>activities with Russia, upgrades to the performance and safety of the space
>shuttle, and required construction projects in direct support of the space
>station and space shuttle programs.
>
>The Committee recommends a total of $5,388,000,000 for the human space
>flight account in fiscal year 2000. The recommendation is a decrease of
>$250,000,000 from the budget request and $92,000,000 below the fiscal year
>1999 enacted appropriation.
>
>The Committee recommendation includes a reduction of $100,000,000 from the
>budget request for Space Shuttle Operations. The Committee received many
>requests for additional funding for the upgrades to the shuttle but was
>unable to accommodate the additional funding at this time. The Committee
>will continue to monitor the shuttle program and may be able to address this
>issue prior to final enactment of this bill.
>
>The Committee remains committed to safe operation of the space shuttle
>program and does not believe the funding reduction proposed will jeopardize
>the program's record of safe operations.
>
>The Committee applauds the progress being made by NASA and its partners in
>the assembly of the International Space Station. However, the Committee
>remains concerned that continued progress may be hampered if Russian assets
>continue to be diverted to the MIR [[sic]] space station. It is imperative
>that the MIR space station not become a drain on the limited financial
>resources of Russia. It is also vital that the infrastructure in central
>Asia, as well as Russian Soyuz and Progress vehicles, remain dedicated to
>the priority of supporting assembly and operation of the International Space
>Station. NASA is directed to take all action necessary to ensure that the
>MIR station does not become a liability to the International Space Station
>program and that Russia lives up to its previous commitments to assist in
>the assembly and operations of the International Space Station.
>
>The Committee continues to be concerned about increasing requirements and
>costs in the International Space Station program. While Congress has
>advocated introducing more commercialization and privatization into the ISS
>program, the Committee sees little
>
>[[p. 78]]
>
>progress at NASA toward implementing this direction. The Committee believes
>long-term cost savings will result from more commercial involvement and
>endorses the White House stated policy that commercially available goods and
>services should be purchased to the maximum extent possible. To this end,
>the Committee directs NASA to aggressively consider commercial proposals for
>ISS program requirements. Except for cases involving national security or
>public safety concerns, when a commercial provider proposes a solution that
>meets mission requirements in a cost-effective manner, the agency must
>accept the commercial proposal. If NASA determines it is not in the best
>interest of the government for reasons other than national security or
>public safety, NASA must demonstrate the reasons for pursuing a
>non-commercial solution. In cases involving cost comparisons between
>government and commercial options, NASA must compare the proposed commercial
>price against the full cost associated with the government solution,
>including fixed costs for maintaining government assets. The Committee
>believes it is critical that NASA not compete with commercial providers for
>routine space hardware and service requirements. NASA must endeavor to
>create an environment that fosters the growth of a commercial space industry
>to service commercial ISS users. It is the Committee's strong belief that
>utilizing commercial services at this time will help control long-term ISS
>costs and encourage more commercial interest in the ISS program.
>
>SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS AND TECHNOLOGY
>
>Fiscal year 2000 recommendation $ 4,575,700,000
>Fiscal year 1999 appropriation
>5,653,300,000
>Fiscal year 2000 budget request 5,424,700,000
>Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation - 1,078,200,000
>Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request - 849,000,000
>
>This appropriation provides for the research and development activities of
>the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. These activities
>include: space science, life and microgravity science, earth sciences,
>aeronautical research and technology, advanced concepts and technology,
>launch services, and academic programs. Funds are also included for the
>construction, maintenance, and operation of programmatic facilities.
>
>The Committee recommends $4,575,700,000 for Science, Aeronautics and
>Technology in fiscal year 2000. The amount recommended is $849,000,000
>below the budget request. The amount provided includes a decrease of
>$640,800,000 for Space Science, and increase of $7,000,000 for Life and
>Microgravity Sciences and Applications, a decrease of $285,000,000 for Earth
>Sciences, an increase of $43,500,000 for Aero-Space Technology, no change to
>the budget request for Mission Communications Services, and an increase of
>$26,300,000 for Academic Programs. Specific program adjustments are
>explained below.
>
>SPACE SCIENCE
>
>For space science programs, the Committee recommends the following changes
>to the budget request:
>1. Cancellation of the Space Infrared Telescope Facility for a budget
>reduction of $100,800,000.
>
>[[p. 79]]
>
>2. Reduce funding for future planning for the Explorer program by
>$60,000,000.
>3. Reduce funding for future planning for the Discovery program future
>mission [[sic]] by $60,000,000.
>4. Cancellation of the Contour mission for a savings of $50,000,000.
>5. Reduce funding for future Mars missions by $75,000,000.
>6. Reducing funding for supporting research and technology by $320,000,000
>of which $200,000,000 is to be taken from the Technology program and
>$120,000,000 is to be taken from the Research program.
>7. An increase of $10,000,000 for Space Solar Power.
>8. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Science Center at Glendale Community
>College.
>9. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Louisville Science Center.
>10. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Science Center Initiative at Ohio
>Wesleyan University.
>11. An increase of $5,000,000 for the Polymer Energy Rechargeable System.
>12. An increase of $2,000,000 for the center on life in extreme thermal
>environments at Montana State University in Bozeman.
>13. An increase of $3,000,000 for the Adler Planetarium in Chicago,
>Illinois.
>14. NASA is directed to provide a total of $20,000,000 for fundamental
>physics research.
>
>LIFE AND MICROGRAVITY SCIENCES
>
>For Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications, the Committee
>recommends the following adjustments to the budget request:
>1. An increase of $1,000,000 for the "Garden Machine" program at Texas
>Tech University.
>2. An increase of $4,000,000 for the Space Radiation program at Loma Linda
>University Hospital.
>3. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Neutron Therapy facility at Fermilab.
>As part of the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill, the Congress provided
>$15,000,000 and directed NASA to conduct research using the shuttle for a
>dedicated mission. NASA declined to pursue such a mission, citing a lack of
>resources. The Committee reiterates that providing regular research flight
>opportunities for life and microgravity during space station assembly is
>critical for providing scientists the opportunity to develop research
>capabilities needed for optimal utilization of the station. The Committee
>is dismayed that, despite numerous expressions of concern from the Congress
>on this issue, and the provision of extra funds, NASA has not yet responded
>to include additional research flights in its shuttle launch schedule. The
>current plan includes only one life and microgravity research shuttle
>mission over at least a 5-year period from 1999 through 2004. This is
>unacceptable. The Committee directs NASA to use the $15,000,000 provided in
>fiscal year 1999 to pursue near-term flight opportunities for life and
>microgravity sciences. Specifically, NASA should use the funding to
>increase the research allocation on STS-107 and to initiate work on a new
>research mission
>
>[[p. 80]]
>
>in the early fiscal year 2002 timeframe. The Committee believes annual
>dedicated life and microgravity research flights during the space station
>assembly period are essential and directs NASA to actively pursue this goal.
>
>EARTH SCIENCES
>
>For Earth Sciences, the Committee recommends the following adjustments to
>the budget request:
>1. Cancellation of the GLOBE program for a savings of $5,000,000.
>2. A reduction of $100,000,000 from the Earth Probes program, including
>cancellation of the TRIANA [[sic]] program, the LightSAR program, and the
>Earth System Science Pathfinders program.
>3. The Earth Observing System budget request is reduced by $150,000,000,
>consisting of $60,000,000 from the Technology Infusion program, $40,000,000
>reduction in algorithm development, and $50,000,000 from the EOS follow-on
>effort.
>4. The Earth Observing System Data Information System budget request is
>reduced by $50,000,000.
>5. An increase of $2,000,000 for a Remote Sensing Center for Geoinformatics
>at the University of Mississippi.
>6. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Advanced Tropical Remote Sensing Center
>of the National Center for Tropical Remote Sensing Applications and
>Resources at the Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science.
>7. An increase of $10,000,000 for the Regional Application Center in Cayuga
>County, New York.
>8. An increase of $2,500,000 for a joint U.S./Italian space-based research
>initiative for the study and detection of forest fires.
>9. An increase of $3,000,000 for continuation of programs at the American
>Museum of Natural History.
>10. An increase of $1,500,000 for a remote sensing center at the
>Fulton-Montgomery Community College in New York. The center is to work
>through the Regional Application Center at Cayuga County, New York.
>The Committee is disappointed in NASA's effort to use unmanned aerial
>vehicles (UAVs) to meet science requirements. The ERAST program has spent
>in excess of $100,000,000 over the past five years to push the development
>of operational UAV platforms. ERAST is close to completing its technology
>objectives, and the Office of Space Science should now design a robust
>program to utilize this new science platform.
>
>The Committee understands that NASA's current plans include only a minimal
>UAV science demonstration, to provide an individual scientist with a flight
>opportunity on an aircraft of choice. This level of commitment is
>inadequate. The National Academy of Sciences has urged that there be a
>sound balance between "in situ" and space-based observations in the Global
>Climate Change Program. Further, they have stated that "innovative
>treatment of the nation's research aircraft capability, both piloted and
>robotic is strongly advised."
>
>The Committee urges NASA's Office of Earth Science to make a strategic
>commitment to UAV platforms by devising a program that is structured to
>create a business incentive for platform providers.
>
>[[p. 81]]
>
>In this regard, the Committee requests a report outlining NASA's five year
>plan for UAVs as a scientific platform, including a projected budget profile
>that is not confined within the existing manned aircraft budget. In
>particular, NASA should closely examine the alternative of leased services
>or fractional ownership arrangements to meet these goals. The Committee
>requests this report by November 15, 1999 and expects NASA's fiscal year
>2001 budget request to reflect this plan.
>
>AERO-SPACE TECHNOLOGY
>
>For Aero-space [[sic]] Technology, the Committee recommends the following
>adjustment [[sic]] to the budget request:
>1. An increase of $25,000,000 for Ultra Efficient Engine Technology.
>2. An increase of $1,800,000 for phase two of the synthetic vision
>information system being tested at the Dallas-Ft. Worth Airport.
>3. An increase of $1,200,000 for continued support of the Dynamic Runway
>Occupancy Measurement System demonstration at the Seattle-Tacoma Airport.
>4. An increase of $2,000,000 to facilitate the acquisition of a 16 beam
>SOCRATES system and integration of SOCRATES into the AVOSS program.
>5. An increase of $5,000,000 for the Trailblazer program at the Glenn
>Research Center.
>6. An increase of $500,000 for the Institute for Software Research to
>continue its collaborative effort with NASA-Dryden, focusing on adaptive
>flight control research and fault tolerant systems.
>7. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Software Optimization and Reuse
>Technology Program.
>8. An increase of $2,000,000 for the establishment of the NASA-Illinois
>Technology Commercialization Center as an extension of the Midwest Regional
>Technology Transfer Center, to be located at the DuPage County Research
>Park.
>9. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Florida Technological Research and
>Development Authority to develop a technology-oriented business incubator in
>Homestead, Florida.
>10. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Earth Alert program for a test of the
>system throughout the State of Maryland.
>11. An increase of $1,500,000 for the National Technology Transfer Center,
>to bring total funding for the center up to $7,200,00.
>Last year the Committee noted its interest in the work being done for NASA
>by the Schepens Eye Research Institute. The Committee is aware that much of
>the research being conducted by the Institute's Center of the Aging Eye may
>be of use to NASA when astronauts begin to spend extended periods of time in
>space. With this in mind, the Committee directs NASA to provide a report
>which addresses the research conducted by the Institute for NASA and further
>opportunities for research.
>
>The Committee encourages NASA to work in coordination with the Department of
>Energy and other interested federal agencies on an investigation of the
>cavitative physics behind the patented Micro-Combustion Heat Engine
>prototype technology developed by Micro-Combustion L.L.P. The Committee is
>encouraged by initial NASA investigations and believes this new technology
>represents
>
>[[p. 82]]
>
>an energy breakthrough deserving of further study. Understanding the
>national security concerns associated with this technology, the Committee
>requests NASA inform the Committee in writing, which respect to its
>intentions, no later than January 30, 2000.
>
>The Committee is aware of the unique closed system capabilities of Biosphere
>2 Center, the earth system research facility located in Oracle, Arizona.
>The Committee directs NASA, after consultation with Biosphere 2, to submit a
>report to the Committee on Appropriations within 90 days of enactment of
>this Act, that details potential partnerships between NASA and Biosphere 2
>to enhance the research capabilities of NASA.
>
>The Committee is pleased to note that NASA has included in the budget
>request $18,000,000 for the NASA-Ames Software Independent Verification and
>Validation Facility in Fairmont, West Virginia.
>
>The Committee supports NASA's plan to transition the ERAST alliance into a
>competitive process to meet its original ERAST objectives. Further, the
>Committee is aware of NASA's interest in reaching 100,000 feet using solar
>power. However, the Committee urges NASA to ensure that the project's
>primary focus support technologies that will enable an operational unmanned
>aerial vehicle (UAV) platform to meet the established science requirements
>of the Office of Space Science. In particular, NASA should support
>over-the-horizon command-and-control protocols and work to ensure platform
>integration within the national airspace system. As NASA "down-selects" to
>one consumable fuel UAV, the Committee believes NASA must ensure an
>appropriate transition phase for other alliance partners. Although the
>change in direction of the ERAST program is warranted, the Committee urges
>that the transition be implemented in such a manner that it not undermine
>the viability of NASA's investment in the alliance member companies.
>
>ACADEMIC PROGRAMS
>
>For Academic Programs, the Committee recommends the following adjustments to
>the budget request:
>1. An increase of $6,500,000 for the National Space Grant College and
>Fellowship program, bringing the total funding for this program to
>$19,100,000.
>2. An increase of $1,500,000 for the Franklin Institute for development of
>an exhibit on astronomy.
>3. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Sci-Quest, the North Alabama Science
>Center.
>4. An increase of $2,300,000 for the JASON Foundation's JASON XI expedition,
>"Going to Extremes."
>5. An increase of $1,000,000 for the Carl Sagan Discovery Center at the
>Children's Hospital at Montefiore Medical Center.
>6. An increase of $4,000,000 for the Texas Learning and Computational Center
>at the University of Houston.
>7. An increase of $5,000,000 for the Space Science Museum and Educational
>Program at Downey, California.
>8. An increase of $2,000,000 for the Ohio View Project.
>9. An increase of $2,000,000 for continued academic and infrastructure needs
>related to the computer sciences, mathematics and physics building at the
>University of Redlands.
>10. An increase of $1,000,000 for the NASA Minority University Research
>Program to provide support for the establishment of a center of excellence
>in Mathematics and Science at Texas College.
>
>MISSION SUPPORT
>
>Fiscal year 2000 recommendation $2,269,000,000
>Fiscal year 1999 appropriation
>2,511,100,000
>Fiscal year 2000 budget request 2,494,900,000
>Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation - 241,800,000
>Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request - 225,600,000
>
>The appropriation provides for mission support, including: safety,
>reliability, and quality assurance activities supporting agency programs;
>space communication services for NASA programs; salaries and related
>expenses in support of research in NASA field installations; design, repair,
>rehabilitation, and modification of institutional facilities and
>construction of new institutional facilities; and other operational
>activities supporting the conduct of agency programs.
>
>The Committee recommends a total of $2,269,300,000 for the mission support
>account. The recommended amount is $241,800,000 below the fiscal year 1999
>appropriation and $225,600,000 below the budget request.
>
>The Committee recommendation includes deferral of all Construction of
>Facilities projects, to be accomplished at some future date. This results
>in a budget reduction of $67,100,000. In addition, given the programmatic
>changes directed in other NASA activities, personnel and related costs are
>reduced by $100,000,000 and research and operations support funding is
>reduced by $50,000,000.
>
>The Committee continues its prohibition on the use of funds appropriated or
>otherwise made available to the National Aeronautics and Space
>Administration by this Act, or any other Act enacted before the date of
>enactment of this Act, by the Administrator of NASA to relocate aircraft of
>the National Aeronautics and Space Administration based east of the
>Mississippi River to the Dryden Flight Research Center in California.
>
>OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
>
>Fiscal year 2000 recommendation $20,800,000
>Fiscal year 1999 appropriation 20,000,000
>Fiscal year 2000 budget request 20,800,000
>Comparison with fiscal year 1999 appropriation +800,000
>Comparison with fiscal year 2000 request 0
>
>The Office of Inspector General was established by the Inspector General Act
>of 1978 and is responsible for audit and investigation of all agency
>programs.
>
>The Committee recommends $20,800,000 for the Office on Inspector General in
>fiscal year 2000, an increase of $800,000 to the amount provided in fiscal
>year 1999 and the same as the budget request for fiscal year 2000.
>
>ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
>
>The bill continues the current four administrative provisions as proposed in
>the budget. An additional administrative provision is included this year
>which addresses the need for NASA to transition to full cost accounting.
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:36 MST