Conference 7.286::space

958.0. "One Small Step for a Space Activist - Vol 6 No 6" by CLOYD::DEUFEL (Oh Bother) Tue Nov 14 1995 11:41

Article: 24749
Newsgroups: sci.space.policy
From: [email protected] (Allen Sherzer)
Subject: One Small Step For a Space Activist...
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 1995 23:04:06 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
 
 
		One Small Step for a Space Activist
  			    Vol 6 No 6
                            Nov. 1995
                                by
	                   Allen W. Sherzer
 
There are a number of fundamental axioms that we as political 
activists operate under; some stated, others unstated.  One powerful 
one is the notion that space, especially manned space, just isn't 
popular in Congress. This axiom goes on to state that the smallest and 
most wasteful HUD program is considered more important in Congress 
than the most important NASA program.  On the belief that these axioms 
should be questioned now and then let's see ( a) if this axiom is 
true, and (b) if the new Republican-dominated Congress might be 
changing it.  To do this, let's look at where the rubber hits the 
road: appropriations.
 
Both houses of Congress have their own Appropriations Committee.  The 
chair of the full committee, the full committee ranking minority 
member, subcommittee chairs, and subcommittee ranking minoritie 
members make up what is known as the "College of Cardinals."  They all 
get together and decide how much they are going to spend for each 
fiscal year.  Then they fix bayonets and fight for the biggest 
possible chunk of money for each of their subcommittees.  _Then_ they 
go back and within their subcommittee they decide how to spend their 
slice.
 
Note the order here.  Sure, there's input from what was spent last 
year; sure, they look at the budget (except that in recent years there 
usually isn't one).  But at its base level it's a top down process: 
they each get their own little slice of the pie and then decide what 
to do with it.
 
Inside the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies subcommittee (in which 
NASA resides) this process begins again.  Each group fights for its 
slice of the pie.  This means that looking at Appropriations is one 
good way to measure raw political clout wihtin Congress.  The more 
clout you have in a top down process, the more you get both in raw $$ 
and as a percentage of the total.
 
Now, given the axiom in the first paragraph, what can we expect?  
Since HUD and VA are so much more popular and have so much more clout 
they should get a far larger share of the pie than NASA.  How about 
EPA which is also funded from this bucket of $$?  Well, they should 
get
much more than NASA since they are so powerful.  So we should expect 
that NASA should get a small percentage of the total and be dwarfed by 
HUD, VA, and EPA.
 
Below is a table listing the actual amounts appropriated in the FY '95 
VA/HUD/IA bill for this year (FY'95) as well as the percentage of the 
total each agency received (all $$ in billions):
 
Agency      $$      percent
Vetrans     37.7    42.4
HUD         24.7    27.78
NASA        14.46   16.26
EPA          7.2     8.09
NSF          3.4     3.82
Total       88.9    97.85
 
That doesn't look too bad.  NASA weighs in within a factor of two of 
HUD and within a factor of three of VA.  Far more powerful than the 
axiom above would have us believe.  Maybe support for NASA funding 
isn't so weak after all?
 
So how about next year?  The numbers haven't been agreed to as of this 
writing, but we _can_ take a guess.  Below is the same table, but this 
time for FY '96, using an average of the House and Senate numbers:
 
Agency      $$      percent
Veterans     38.0    46.97
HUD         19.0    23.48
NASA        13.8    17.05
EPA          5.0     6.18
NSF          3.2     3.95
Total       80.9    97.63
 
Again, NASA support seems to have far more clout than expected.  The 
NASA budget is within striking distance of HUD's and is about the same 
as the VA's.  In fact, in spite of a 10% cut in the total allocation, 
NASA's share within the VA/HUD/IA approps bill actually went up.  So 
it would seem that even the new GOP Congress places as much emphasis 
on NASA funding and perhaps even more so than previous Congresses.
 
We need to make sure we examine our fundamental beliefs every now and 
then.  Suport for NASA funding has more political clout that we have 
generally believed, and has at least for the last several years.  This 
attitude, alas, has convinced many of us to actively support wasteful 
programs which aren't advancing our goals on the belief that if we 
don't grab it, it will just go to HUD (or be wasted by somebody else). 
 Yet in the no-holds-barred hardball fight of the appropriations 
process, we have enough clout to get about 17% of the money available 
which is both pretty good and enough to accomplish our goals.
 
 
To move forward with this information, we need to ask outselves just 
where our clout comes from.  I think it comes from three sources.  
First, and most cynical, jobs.  A lot of jobs are funded by NASA in 
states like Florida, Texas, and California with large and powerful 
delegations to Congress.  But this is less important than you might 
think and has less impact on us than you might think.  First of all, 
if you want aerospace jobs in your district, pickings at NASA are 
pretty slim compared to DoD.  Second of all, a well run space program 
will produce roughly the same number of jobs as a poorly run one.  
 
The second reason is the Vision Thing.  We are one of the few special 
interest groups which is selling a truly positive image to Congress.  
This message is taking hold as should be obvious to anybody listening 
to debate on the space station every year.  Twenty years ago you would 
be laughed at for saying "spacefaring civilization" on the floor of 
Congress, but not any more.  If you don't believe me, read the chapter 
on space in Newt Gingrich's recent book.
 
The final source of our clout is...US!  In recent years we have become 
far more active politically and savy on how we do it.  We have been 
successful in both drafting and passing legislation.  The SSTO 
programs have not only been kept alive but have totally changed the 
paradigm largely because of the efforts of grassroots activists.  Even 
more contraversial programs like the space station owe their existance 
to the lobbying space activists have done.
 
So let's stop underestimating ourselves.  But at the same time let's 
have an honest understanding of how much power we have -- and then 
_use_ it to get what we want.
 
			Legislative Roundup
 
				Rockwell
 
In a recent issue I slammed Rockwell on their X-33 efforts.  I quoted 
a source who said that Dan Goldin left 5 minutes into a Rockwell 
presentation on X-33 saying they didn't get it.  I also said that 
Rockwell seemed more interested in protecting Shuttle than lowering 
costs.
 
I am very pleased to say that my sources are now saying Rockwell has 
done a 180 on this and has (in the words of one source) "got 
religion".  They are working on a far more aggressive design which 
will offer the sort of order of magnitude reductions we are expecting 
from this program.
 
			Back to the Moon Bill
 
Commercial space exploration has moved one step closer to reality as
HR-2405, the `Omnibus Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995' recently
passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, contains language from the Back
to the Moon bill that requires NASA to purchase space science data from
private vendors 'to the maximum extent possible'. For the Back to the Moon
language to become law, the U.S. Senate's NASA authorization  must contain
this data purchase  language, as well. Currently, the Senate is preparing to
vote on S-1048, the NASA Authorization Bill for Fiscal Year 1996. As the
Senate bill does *not* contain the House language, it is imperative that
space activists contact their Senators *now* to ask that the language in
Section 247 of HR-2405 be included in Senate bill S-1048.
 
-- 
*******************************************************************************
*  Allen W. Sherzer        | "Nothing of importance happened today"           *
*  [email protected]      |   --Diary of King George III, July 4, 1776       *
*******************************************************************************