Whalen: What's the latest news from Washington on the budget?

O'Toole: Well, first of all, what you need to realize is that the budget is a fast-moving target. The status of things can change daily, so what I have to say here in universe may be old news by the time this is published. But here's where we are as we talk today, Aug. 4.

As everybody must know by now, on July 26 a subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee voted to take $1.3 billion out of NASA's budget. About half of those cuts were made in the space science area, which meant we could have taken a big hit - as much as a quarter or a third of our funding for next year was at risk. On July 30, the full committee voted to restore $400 million of the $1.3 billion budget cut. That helped JPL a lot, because most of the restored programs were JPL programs.

Fully restored are SIRTF, with $100.8 million, and Mars program future planning - for the '03, '05 missions and beyond, at $75 million. Also, $225 million was added back to cover what was taken out of technology and research, but still leaves a $95 million shortfall in those two programs - $60 million in technology and $35 million in research.

That's pretty good for JPL. But NASA is still facing a $900 million reduction, which is of great concern to Dan Goldin-and to us. The thing to stress is that this is a process, and it's not over until it's over. A lot can still happen.

Whalen: In other words, the budget is far from final, isn't it?

O'Toole: Yes, and that is very important to remember. This is simply where we are in the process, but we're a lot better off than we were July 26.

Whalen: If all of those programs named in the current budget remain either deferred or cancelled, what would be the net impact on JPL's overall budget?

O'Toole: A rough estimate is that the Laboratory would lose about $105 million for FY 2000, about 10 percent of our budget. If we do lose that $105 million, that means a loss of between $20 million and $25 million in the burden budget. Some cutbacks would have to occur there as well. So it's still very significant.

Whalen: Which JPL programs are still threatened?

O'Toole: In the focused technology area of space science, Pluto/Kuiper Express, Solar Probe and Far Infrared and Submillimeter Space Telescope (FIRST) have not been restored at this time. Future planning for the Discovery Program has not yet been restored to its original funding level, so Deep Impact could be canceled if the current budget holds. In Earth science, the Gravity Recovery and Science Experiment (GRACE), CloudSAT and LiteSAR have not yet been restored.

In addition, there is a secondary effect - which we have not yet calculated - of cuts at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in the Earth Observing System leading to reductions in our Earth science instrument program.

Whalen: How can a single year's budget affect projects that are still years away?

O'Toole: For example, the language of the subcommittee was to cancel the Discovery program. When you have a program like Discovery, that's a line item that carries an ongoing annual cost. It's not legally binding, however, because Congress has to approve the program year after year. The $60 million reduction in future planning for Discovery doesn't necessarily cancel the program, but it reduces the wedge that goes to Discovery every year, indefinitely.

Whalen: OK, now that we've discussed the specific impact on JPL, can you step back and give us some background on how these Washington budgets come to be?

O'Toole: Sure. First the White House, with assistance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), puts together its budget. It typically starts in the summer of the year before that budget takes effect. For example, the fiscal 2001 budget is being worked right now by the White House. The president presents the budget to Congress the following February.

NASA and OMB then negotiate over the summer and fall, prior to the time the president issues the budget the next February. NASA tries to explain the impacts of what OMB has given them and what programs would fit into the budget. There is a lot of trading off, with consideration to explicit constraints as set by Congress. NASA is guided by its strategic plan, and science advisory groups help to determine priorities.

Whalen: What happens next?

O'Toole: The White House comes up with its budget. Of course, Congress has its own ideas about budgets. Hammering out the differences is, of course, where we are now. What complicates matters is what's called budget caps. These cap constraints, established in 1997, specify that Congress can't spend more than a certain amount of money. The only way the caps can be exceeded is if Congress changes the law.

Whalen: Why were the budget caps were put in place? What is the budget limit now?

O'Toole: The reason for the caps was to eliminate the nation's budget deficit. We've eliminated the deficit already; the trouble is, they didn't know that back in '97, so the strict spending caps were put in place to lead to a balanced budget in 2002. The spending cap for FY 2000 on domestic discretionary programs was $538 billion. The actual spending level in FY '99 was $544 billion. So there is about $6 billion less available for FY 2000. On top of that, both Congress and the White House have agreed to increase defense spending by nearly $18 billion. This means the impact on the rest of the programs is a shortfall of up to $24 billion. That's why NASA and other federal agencies are facing budget cuts.

Whalen: Where does NASA's budget fit in?

O'Toole: NASA's budget is allocated by a subcommittee that also provides funds for the Veterans Administration, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and other independent agencies. This subcommittee was allocated $66 billion for all of the programs under its jurisdiction for FY 2000, compared to $72 billion for FY '99. So they are facing a $6 billion shortfall. That's why they're asking NASA to take a cut of about 10 percent compared to FY '99. It's important to point out that no one singled out or targeted NASA in this whole process.

Whalen: So where did the full Appropriations Committee find the $400 million it has already restored to NASA's budget?

O'Toole: The full committee, which met on Friday, July 30, did not have any additional funds beyond those offered to the subcommittee. It added $400 million back into NASA's budget by taking $400 million back out of another program within its jurisdiction, the Americorps, which is the president's youth service program.

Whalen: But we keep hearing about budget surpluses. Why can't Congress allocate more money to NASA or other federal programs?

O'Toole: We're back to the question of the spending caps. There's money, yes, but there's also the spending cap law. That has to be worked through to some resolution. What is done with that money is very much up to the discretion of Congress and the White House, but it would technically break the spending caps if it was spent on federal programs as the law now stands.

Whalen: So what happens next?

O'Toole: Now that we're out of full House committee, the full House votes next. Then attention is turned to the Senate. The Senate has yet to start its FY 2000 NASA budget process; they have decided to defer their budget work until after the Labor Day recess. The Senate will come up with its own budget number for NASA. Then both Houses of Congress will have to get together and agree upon a final number before the bill goes to the White House. The President, of course, has the option of signing or vetoing.

Whalen: What would happen if the bill were vetoed, but not overridden, by Oct. 1, the beginning of the fiscal year?

O'Toole: There would be a short-term continuing resolution for a period of weeks while Congress and the White House negotiate a compromise on spending and tax policy. This would allow the government to continue to operate at the lower of the fiscal '99 or fiscal 2000 level.

Whalen: How might that affect JPL's work?

O'Toole: We've been through this before, and it's not a problem for projects whose budgets are flat or declining. For example, SIRTF would be OK, because the lower of the two budgets fully funds them on what they planned. But projects such as Mars '03/'05 and Europa would only be allowed to spend at last year's level. So a short-term resolution wouldn't hurt that much, but if it went on for months, that could mean problems for some of our projects in meeting their development milestones.

Whalen: Any prediction on how it's going to turn out?

O'Toole: None at all. The thing is to understand - and to take comfort in - is that this is a process. It would be easy to let headlines distract people away from their work. But we're already in a lot better shape than we were just a week ago. People should know that NASA is doing all it can to defend its budget. Dan Goldin has said he won't rest until every nickel is restored. What we here at JPL can do to support him is to concentrate on our work and our missions - and share NASA's concern that the whole program needs to be restored to preserve balance in NASA between the human, space science and Earth science programs. We're all committed to that overall goal.

Via Washington - SpaceDaily Special Report

Community
Email This Article
Comment On This Article

Related Links
Space

Memory Foam Mattress Review

SPACE MEDIA NETWORK PROMOTIONS Solar Energy Solutions Tempur-Pedic Mattress Comparison ... Newsletters :: SpaceDaily :: SpaceWar :: TerraDaily :: Energy Daily XML Feeds :: Space News :: Earth News :: War News :: Solar Energy News

SPACEDAILY

Satellite Launch To Boost DTH In India
Calcutta, India (SPX) Dec 28, 2005
The successful launch Thursday of India's heaviest satellite from spaceport of Kourou in French Guyana may have boosted the country's space research efforts to yet another level, but it has also lifted the spirits of at least three Direct-To-Home televisions broadcasters, one of which has been waiting for years to launch its services in India.