Views & Estimates :: March 20, 1997

Additional Democratic Views and Estimates by Rep. Tim Roemer

While I can support many of the goals and objectives in the Committee's Views and Estimates, and certainly applaud the bipartisan spirit involved, there are elements in both the Committee views and the minority views that I can not support.

Most specifically, the space station project is as objectionable as ever. It is too expensive, scientifically fruitless, unmanageable, behind schedule, over budget, and flawed in design. The Russian partnership that was supposed to "save" the station has added significant costs, and has turned the project into a management nightmare for NASA. I do not believe that proper oversight of the program by Congress is even possible now.

It would be better for the U.S. space program, our space science infrastructure, and the American taxpayer, if we were to cancel the station now. The savings could help us to more quickly develop the next generation of reusable launch vehicle, which is to replace the aging and expensive shuttle. NASA would be able to concentrate, in the meantime, on some of its great contemporary success stories, such as the Hubble telescope mission, the other great observatories, and the "smaller, faster, cheaper" missions to Mars and other destinations that cost far less and produce usable, reliable science.

Other NASA programs will teach us much, such as the Mission to Planet Earth, which I believe the Views and Estimates document is unnecessarily harsh toward. The document also fails to address the success-driven research done in the civil aviation arena, and its constant and large contribution to a positive U.S. balance of trade.

Such research should be listed as one of our priorities. NASA's mission is not solely space: it is charged with aeronautics priorities as well.

In addition, I am concerned about the negativity used in describing the National Weather Service modernization. While acknowledging the legitimate concern about development of the integration software, the modernization process itself is one we should be proud of, and certainly one that took a great deal of effort and strong management. As it nears conclusion, we should be skeptical of dubious criticism about operational effectiveness and management. To the contrary, the nation's new Doppler radar weather system is already acknowledged to have saved many, many lives and abundant amounts of property.

I support the basic thrust of the Views and Estimates, that our research infrastructure should be sound and financially responsible. The role of the government can only be enhanced by significant partnership and respect of the private sector, and a dynamic and healthy research and development infrastructure requires restraint in parceling out taxpayer dollars. But we all seem to acknowledge that there is a legitimate and proper federal role to ensure the robust and lasting contributions that the United States makes to science and technology.

"TIM ROEMER