1 Statement by Administrator Daniel S. Goldin March 19, 1996 We asked for stable funding through FY 1997, and that's exactly what the President's budget gives us. We are very pleased with the FY 1997 level of $13.8 billion. This stability will enable us to continue to restructure NASA in an orderly, well-thought-out way, deliver a space and aeronautics program that's relevant, balanced and stable, and protect the human dignity of our employees and contractors. Our strategy over the last few years has been this: to absorb a 36% cut through FY 2000 and maintain funding stability in the meanwhile, through FY 1997. Continued stability in FY 1997 means we can continue to restructure NASA carefully and deliberately and assure safety, achieve real cost savings and eliminate overlap and low-priority support functions and non-essential programs. The President made good on his promise, and so did we. We have used this period of stability to reinvent the Agency, just like we said we would. Over the last several years, NASA has been dealt its fair share of deficit-reduction-driven budget cuts, and we've stepped up to them. In fact, we've done more than step up. We've aggressively used these cuts to become more efficient and more relevant, to make sweeping changes at NASA that re- calibrate the Agency for a bold, exciting aeronautics and space program that does more for less. It's been a challenge, and I'm proud of the way NASA has risen to it. We have made real changes at NASA -- real changes in our culture, real changes in our thinking, real changes in our products. We've turned around cost overruns. A General Accounting Office survey of our major programs in 1992 identified an average cost growth of 77%. Now, four years later, we are underrunning our program cost estimates from last year. We restructured our large programs, including Cassini, the Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility (AXAF), the Earth Observing System (EOS) and the International Space Station. The redesigned International Space Station is right on track. The program is now led by a single contractor, and we have streamlined the program office at the Johnson Space Center. Contractors have delivered over 80,000 pounds of flight hardware. And an important step toward the Station -- the Shuttle-Mir rendezvous -- went off perfectly. We found savings of $1 billion a year in the Shuttle program, while maintaining the same high safety level, and we are marching toward commercialization, another example of the "new-think" at NASA. We are continuing to reduce cost and development time of spacecraft. We're not just talking about it. We're doing it. Our new Discovery series of spacecraft must be developed in less than three years and for less than $150 million in FY 1992 dollars. One of them, the Near Earth Asteroid Rendezvous launched in February to orbit an asteroid, took only 26 months to develop and cost $120 million. We have nine planetary programs that, together, cost $700 million less than the single program of Galileo. There are hundreds of other examples of programs that do more for less. They do the same science, or better, at lower cost. They take years to build, not decades. They save money and resources through creative new partnerships. They advance cutting-edge technology. They are the heart and soul of the new NASA. We've also made huge strides toward restructuring NASA as an institution. A centerpiece of this is the Zero Base Review (ZBR). Hundreds of NASA employees were involved in this review. The Zero Base Review took a fresh look at what we do at NASA -- every job, every function, every facility. We're looking at NASA in a whole new way. We're using fresh ideas to adapt to a new era in government. We've made some important changes at NASA based on the ZBR. We've clearly laid out the roles and responsibilities of NASA Centers and of Headquarters. They have a new focus and a sharpened purpose. In FY 1996 and FY 1997, we will continue to implement the ZBR recommendations. We also developed a Strategic Plan, which we shared with industry, academia, the Administration and Congress. It lays out a clear vision for NASA -- where we want to be in 25 years and how to get there. We have brought down the size of NASA's workforce significantly to meet budget and personnel targets. We used buyouts and other management tools to downsize in an orderly way. We've already come down from 25 thousand to 21 thousand and we're headed for 17,500 by the turn of the century. We'll be the smallest we've been since the early 1960s. We've been way out in front in meeting these targets, and we've done it without an Agency-wide reduction in force. We are committed to meeting our targets. But we're also committed to the human dignity of our employees, and we've worked hard to reach both goals. Beyond FY 1997, there are obvious uncertainties. The out-year projections are significantly lower than previous projections: $13.1 billion for FY 1998; $12.4 billion for FY 1999; and $11.6 billion for FY 2000. Our understanding is that these projections are not chiseled in stone. As Administrator, I have decided not to take any precipitous action in FY 1996 to work toward these figures because to do so would involve a major disruption to our employees. It would not be fair to put them through this process to reach projections that are not hard and fast. We intend to concentrate on FY 1997, and we look forward to working with the Administration on out-year funding. We look to the future with optimism. It's certain that pressures on domestic discretionary funding will continue, and possibly even increase, in the foreseeable future. But we're confident that the President's strong commitment to the research and development that's so critical to America, and the commitment of our supporters in Congress, will shape a vibrant future for NASA. We're confident that NASA will continue to transform itself to meet the demands of a new age in government and a new age in exploration.