Prepared Remarks by the Hon. Bart Gordon for the Space Transportation Association
Good morning. It’s a pleasure to be here, and I want to thank Rich Coleman for his invitation to get together with the Space Transportation Association today. I'd also like to recognize my friend and colleague, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson, who is in attendance today. And of course, I'd like to recognize Dr. Michael Griffin, the NASA Administrator, who is also here today.
Dr. Griffin is facing some enormous challenges at NASA, but I am impressed with his enthusiasm, competence, and integrity - and I want to wish him well. I look forward to working with him to address those challenges.
Now when I discovered that Dr. Griffin was going to be in attendance, my immediate reaction was to offer to sit down and let him address the group in my place. We've all been reading many things in the press over the last several weeks about the outlook for the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station and about ongoing discussions with OMB and other parts of the White House.
To date, Congress has been given only the barest of details on the latest plans for the International Space Station final configuration. And if the press reports are to be believed, even those details may be subject to drastic change in the days ahead.
So Dr. Griffin, if you'd like to take this opportunity to clarify the situation for us, I would be happy to yield you all of my time.
Well, as I have indicated, there is no lack of space-related issues to talk about these days. I'm not going to pretend to address all or even most of them in my brief remarks this morning. Instead, I'd like to focus on three main themes that keep coming up as I and other Members of Congress attempt to garner support for NASA and its programs in a very challenging political and fiscal environment here on the Hill.
Namely: Priorities, Commitments, and Credibility.
Let me first talk about priorities. As you may recall, when President Bush announced his Exploration Initiative in January 2004, the congressional reaction was decidedly mixed. Some Members strongly supported it. Other Members considered it a political gimmick. And a large number of Members in the middle supported the goal of human exploration beyond Earth orbit, but wanted more information on the costs and content of the President's proposed initiative, as well as its potential impact on NASA's other important programs.
Now some 21 months later, I believe that despite the recent release of NASA's proposed Exploration plan, the alignment of Members is not fundamentally different.
Those who were strong supporters remain so. Those who were strong opponents remain so. And those who supported the goals and the step-by-step approach of the Exploration initiative but were concerned about its potential impact on other important priorities are by and large still concerned.
I would also argue that the strong vote this summer for the NASA Authorization in the House of Representatives unfortunately was not a true indicator of the level of support for the Exploration Initiative.
We were able to hold on to a number of Members who might have voted against it by ensuring that priorities that they considered important - namely, space science, Earth science, Space Station research, aeronautics, and education - would be addressed.
We also set up some budgetary "firewalls" to help ensure that an appropriate balance between NASA's Exploration Initiative and its other core missions is maintained. And the House Members made an important policy decision in voting for the bill - that if additional funding is needed for the Exploration Initiative it should from an augmentation to NASA's bottom line - not from cannibalizing its other important activities.
That seems to me to be completely consistent with Dr. Griffin's statements that the Exploration Initiative should be carried out on a "go as you can pay" basis. I think Dr. Griffin's approach is a realistic one - and I think deviating from it could put whatever political support NASA currently enjoys at risk. Yet, we are not just dealing with the question of priorities within NASA here on the Hill.
Members also have to wrestle with the priorities level NASA receives relative to all of the other demands on the budget that are pressing in on us. I don't think I have to recount all of those other demands to a group as informed as this one.
Speaking as a supporter of exploration and of NASA as a whole, I think that the bottom line is that we're entering into a period where space supporters are going to be on the defensive against efforts by Members on both sides of the aisle to divert funding from NASA for other purposes. I think that is unfortunate - because I happen to believe NASA is a good investment for the nation - but I think that is the reality we are going to be dealing with for the foreseeable future.
Which brings me to commitments. When budgets are tight and threatening to get tighter, it is tempting to walk away from existing commitments in order to protect funding for desired new initiatives. That is understandable. And in many cases, the damage that is done doesn't become evident until sometime down the road.
However, as a NASA supporter who has to convince skeptical Members of Congress as well as my constituents back home in Tennessee of the value we get from our investments in NASA, it doesn't help when, after years of telling us one thing, NASA then shifts direction and in the process abandons long-standing commitments.
I don't want that statement to be seen as a defense of the status quo - I think we need to keep looking at what NASA is doing and assess whether or not it is something that it should still be doing. That's appropriate and healthy. However, what I'm talking about is something different.
For example, we see NASA's aeronautics budget continue to decline. And with that decline, we see NASA weakening its commitment to R&D that has a direct linkage to societal needs and economic competitiveness. That concerns me, because it's symptomatic of a larger problem.
The Science Committee held a hearing yesterday where we heard testimony from a distinguished panel on the crisis facing America’s R&D enterprise and its likely impact on our future competitiveness.
NASA's aeronautics program is one of the Federal Government's investments in R&D that is contributing directly to our international competitiveness. The message delivered at yesterday's hearing was yet another wake-up call that we need to be investing in R&D that impacts our competitiveness - not dis-investing.
We also see NASA eliminating non-Exploration-related fundamental and applied research from the International Space Station, despite fifteen years of commitments to Congress, the research community, and the American taxpayer that such research was one of the key benefits we would be getting from our investment in the Station.
And while Congress doesn't yet know what the Administration's ultimate plans for the International Space Station are, I am certainly hearing expressions of deep concern from our International Partners - partners who believe the United States needs to honor its commitments to the ISS program.
I hope we will, at a minimum because I believe we are going to need international cooperation and cost-sharing if we are to have a successful lunar exploration program.
Which brings me to credibility. Dr. Griffin brings great credibility to his current assignment as NASA Administrator. We are fortunate that he is in that job. However, he is a single individual who will be in that job for a limited amount of time.
If support for NASA's Exploration Initiative is to be sustainable, NASA's plans and budgets are going to have to be seen as credible. I think the jury is still out on that score.
We are just beginning to get the details behind the Exploration plan rolled out by NASA. We have yet to hear the final story on the plans for the International Space Station and the Space Shuttle. The agency's financial management system is still very much a "work in progress." And while NASA has come up with what appears to me to be a reasonable answer to the question of "how" we get back to the Moon…
…I think my constituents would say that NASA still has a job to do on answering the "what will we do there" and the "why" questions.
Well, I think I have talked long enough. Those of us who support NASA and want it to succeed have our work cut out for us. I look forward to working with all of you on that challenge.
Thank you.
Next Article Previous Article