U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAMS: DATA COLLECTION AND SCIENTIFIC PRIORITIES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 6, 1996 U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Washington, DC. The Committee met at 10:07 a.m., in Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Robert S. Walker, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Chairman WALKER. We will proceed to the purpose for today's meeting of the Full Committee. First of all, I want to begin by welcoming the witnesses that we've called before the Committee today and thank you for participating in what I hope will be a good overview of the whole question of the Mission to Planet Earth program. Over the past 14 months, there have been countless times that people have taken it upon themselves to theorize about this Chairman's motivations with regard to Mission to Planet Earth. Theorize isn't exactly it, though. It's amazing how people have stated with absolute conviction what my motivations are, as if they can read my mind. Well, sorry, folks. It's obvious to me that nobody I've heard from so far is gifted with clairvoyance. So let me today set the record straight. This comes straight from Bob Walker. And for those of you in the room today, you have the benefit of hearing my views firsthand without the media filtering the information or without any kind of political spin. Number one, I welcome the findings of the National Research Council and their report and commend Dr. Frieman for a job very well done. That commendation is tempered with the knowledge that Dr. Frieman and his group were specifically prohibited from considering the budgetary constraints that NASA faces. Dr. Frieman has told me himself that he was unable to look at the U.S. Global Change Research Program and the Mission to Planet Earth within this context. Congress has the task of grappling with these programs in the context of moving to a balanced budget. Let me say I do support pursuing a research program that obtains the best available research on the fundamental physics of global climate. I agree with the position of the Marshall Institute that what is needed is a stable base of unpoliticized research find (1) ings so that scientists can make long-term plans. I emphasize the concept of a stable base. Why? Because here is my fundamental question about the Mission to Planet Earth. Is this program sustainable in the out- years? Under any budget scenario, NASA funding is on a down-slope in the foreseeable future. Under the budget that was submitted by the Administration last year, NASA is supposed to go down to around $13 billion by the year 2000. Indications this year are that the OMB outlook is even gloomier over the next several years. But we don't know that for a fact because we haven't seen NASA's budget. I don't think anybody is assuming that the Administration will increase the estimate for Fiscal Year 2000. The hard fact is that NASA is faced with a shrinking pie. Some slices of the pie are fixed. The space station requires $2.1 billion annually over the next several years. The space shuttle requires a certain amount in the billions, and the type of dramatic near-term savings that I was hoping for are not expected to materialize. Savings will occur. But the question is can we expect it through the year 2000? The only specific priority the Administration listed for NASA in its 20-page budget document submitted in February was Mission to Planet Earth. Mission to Planet Earth continues to increase under the Administration's estimates each year, and in Fiscal Year 2000 reaches $1.6 million. Given the public priority that the White House has placed on Mission to Planet Earth, it would appear that the program is destined to consume an ever-increasing portion of the NASA pie. In 1995, NASA did go through a reshaping with Mission to Planet Earth. However, any savings to be produced from that effort will be reinvested into new technolologies. I have no quarrel with investing in the technologies necessary to pull the program into the 21st century. Nonetheless, the budget for the Mission to Planet Earth is still $1.6 million in the year 2000. How do we plan now for a post-2000 NASA budget that maintains a balance among the priority missions of NASA? The Mission to Planet Earth program was initiated when NASA was expected to receive ten percent increases annually. Furthermore, it was deemed a special initiative. That is, a high priority program that would be funded above the NASA baseline. Clearly, that is not the situation that we face today, and we are left with figuring out how this special initiative will fit in a declining NASA budget. According to last year's budget submission, space or science, aeronautics and technology is slated to take over a $700 million cut in Fiscal Year 2000. Due to the fact that the agency had such a short notice on the $5 billion cut from the White House, NASA submitted a budget with unresolved reductions in each account. Holding Mission to Planet Earth sacred, then what do you do? What do you cut? Do you cut life and microgravity science? Not if you intend to fully carry out the mission of space station. Do you cut space access and technology? Are you going to rob the account that provides us with the technologies of the future? Space science-let's recall. The number-one recommendation of the Augustine Commission report was that "the civilian space science program should have the first priority for NASA resources and continue to be funded at 20 percent." Instead of sticking our heads in the sand and hoping that NASA can do this program on a wish and a prayer, we should be facing the hard fiscal realities of today. Just because Mission to Planet Earth has undergone three restructurings and one reshaping, should we stop reviewing a program that GAO estimates will cost $33 billion to complete? I come back to the same question-Is Mission to Planet Earth Sustainable in the out-years? I'm deeply concerned about the state of the current debate on U.S. global change research program. Instead of a healthy and open scientific debate, this whole thing has turned into a political circus complete with name-calling. The purpose of today's hearing is to review the state of the science involved and to review options for fulfilling the Mission to Planet Earth mission with cheaper, faster, and better alternatives. We have witnesses that represent all different types of viewpoints, including several witnesses who will represent the view of the Administration. What I seek in this hearing is an open and healthy debate. We should not recoil in fear from diversity of opinion. We should embrace it. Yesterday, I participated in a round-table discussion of two commercial space bills that I authored. It was a free- flowing discussion, with numerous criticisms and accolades for the bill. I welcome that kind of free and open exchange and I would welcome that in today's discussion as well. Vice President Gore has been quoted as saying the greenhouse warming is "an ecological crisis without precedent in historic times," and that any dispute of this judgment is not "worthy of recognition." At the AAAS meeting in February, the Vice President, in reference to congressional funding of science stated, "They're approaching science with all the wisdom of a potted plant." Earlier in the same speech, Vice President stated, and I quote: “Much of the power of science also comes from open criticism and communications across disciplines. Indeed, some of the most significant discoveries have emerged from the productive friction that occurs when different perspectives rub against each other and produce the spark of new insight." I could not agree more with that statement. For those who attempt to stifle debate and ridicule those with diverse views, I would remind you that the new knowledge that is essential for our civilization's vitality is created out of the right kind of debate. What we should be striving for is an environment of scientific integrity and freedom of inquiry. That's what I hope that this particular discussion will be about today. I hope that we can have the kind of open discussion that gives us a better perspective on where we go, not only now, but in the future. With that, I'd be happy to turn it over to Mr. Brown. Mr. BROWN [OF CALIFORNIA). Mr. Chairman, let me begin by commending you on your decision last year to commission a major re view of the Earth Observing System program by the National Research Council. This review was sorely needed and there should be little doubt that the results of the exercise have strengthened the EOS program and helped to reduce its cost. Mr. Chairman, I am also slightly but not entirely reassured by your own statement that this review is not politically motivated and that you are looking forward to open discourse on this whole subject of the Mission to Planet Earth, and your basic concern is sustainability, something that I've long expressed my own concern for in many different areas. Economic or budgetary sustainability in this case is a very important question, but one that does need to be thoroughly reviewed. And I understand that the academy rightfully doesn't think that this is necessarily the province within which their expertise is most useful. However, I do believe that their review has contributed a great deal to understanding the scientific validity of the program and this is the area in which we can expect the greatest hope. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield briefly as part of my time to Ms. Harman from Los Angeles, whose district probably contains more of the work going on under this program than any other district in the United States, for a brief comment from her standpoint. Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Brown, I thank you for your yielding and hope that the whole Committee will join me in wishing you a Happy Birthday today. Mr. BROWN [OF CALIFORNIA]. I don't. [Laughter.] Ms. HARMAN. And Mr. Chairman, I really welcome your opening remarks and your invitation to free and open exchange, and want to be certain that you know that. There was only one word missing from what you just said, and that word is bipartisan. I assume that you would wish to correct the record and insert that, too, because all of us here should be working together on the right structure for the Mission to Planet Earth program for the future. Above your left shoulder is the statement-"Where there is no vision, the people perish" I think we are in need of a long-term vision for the Mission to Planet Earth program. I agree with you that the long-term funding profile is one we need to address, especially as NASA's budget declines. I agree with you that better, faster, cheaper technology must play a large role in the long-term. But I disagree that we should put the short-term at risk while we reconsider or consider additionally what needs to happen in the long-term. And specifically, I strongly support and I think the majority of this Committee and this Congress strongly supports moving without delay on the first group of EOS components-specifically, PM1 and CHEM-1. I understand that they are large satellites. But from everything I have learned and certainly from the keen witness of my many constituents who work on these programs, if we don't have a large testbed, we will not achieve the long-term results that are in all of our interests. |