Viewing page 8 of 53

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

                                4

a limitless sponge soaking up all the resources that are available in current, and projected budgets.

     The problem that faces this committee is that we are constrained by the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings restraints.  We cannot add money to a program that we realize is not adequately funded.  We are forced to defend the President's request level, and this year we had to fight vigorously on the floor to avoid having $155 million cut from the NASA bill to meet the unrealistic budget resolution adopted by the majority of the House Democrats.  Under the present budget system we are forced to argue at great length as to whether the appropriate funding level for NASA is 9.5 or 9.6 billion dollars a year, when the real debate should be on exactly what kind of a space program the American people want and need, and how much money they are willing to spend to accomplish the national space goals?

     We have about a year until our next manned launch.  I sense that most Americans do support our space program, but that support is not clearly focused because NASA is not focused on long-term goals.  I think that we need to start right now to build a consensus that will lead to a political understanding that NASA must receive adequate funding to accomplish the goals we set for ourselves. 

     One of the most distressing things about the problem that faces us today is that we see the continuing unwillingness of the office of Management and Budget to even consider the importance of long-term stability in the NASA