The runout in FY 1993 of the FY 1989 request is $14.85 billion. In constant FY 1989 dollars it is $12.3 billion.

Mr. WALKER. Okay. I suppose it depends upon what your inflation rate is, too.

Dr. FLETCHER. Well, we are obliged to use 5 percent.

Mr. WALKER. Well, the thing that I think is important in this is if I look at the commitments that we have already made and begin to project those out, let alone what all the things that this Committee would like to do, you would like to do for the future in your Pathfinder Program and so on, if we just look at the commitments that we have now made, it seems to me that the figures that we're being given through 1993 are the absolute minimum necessary to do what we're already committed to.

Is that a fair assumption?

Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Walker, I think that's exactly right. That's what I tried to imply in my opening statement and the statement for record. That's the kind of level that we're talking about to have a viable space and aeronautics program.

Mr. WALKER. Well, but the problem is that that is not necessarily a viable program because this Committee has already heard testimony that there are major needs that we're not committed to at the present time. For example, Advanced Launch System or Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle, whatever you want to call it. There are a whole series of things that there has yet to be a commitment made by even this Committee, which are your main friends on the Hill. And in that kind of a scenario we could not accommodate those kinds of things that many of us believe are necessary for the future, and, I guess, my concern is that, as I look at those figures, we are talking about a 50-percent increase in NASA's budget over the next 5 years.

Dr. FLETCHER. I think if you add all of the things that we ought to be doing, Mr. Walker, it might come out to that. What I'm trying to say is that if we just carry on the programs that we have, which, as you point out, is a bare minimum, then in constant dollars it is approximately a level budget.

But you are quite right, if you want a leadership program and do the things that we really ought to be doing, it will increase. I don't want to say it's 50 percent or anything of that sort, but it will in

Mr. WALKER. But the point is, I mean, I know we'd like to talk about inflation dollars and so on. The fact is that we in Congress, when we appropriate monies, have to appropriate in dollar levels based upon the amount of money we're going to spend out that year, and what I'm saying to you is, that the bare minimum necessary budget, which you agree with me on, calls for us to be at $15 billion by 1993, which is a 50-percent increase, more than 50 percent, over 1988 spending.

Now, agreed, that's not adjusted for inflation, but when we look at those budgets out into the future, that's what we're going to have to commit to, that's what we're going to be spending, and that's a 50-percent increase. That's the way we are going to have it evaluated as a part of the operations around here.

Here's my concern, as I hear the discussions taking place on the Hill. We understand that situation. It is apparent to me that the Budget Committee doesn't understand that situation.

The Budget Committee Chairman, his first reaction to the budget was, well, it's got too much in for houses in space and not enough for housing in the country. I mean, I regard that as a very Ludditekind of philosophy. But that fact is that we are leading with precisely that as a problem here.

What, in your opinion, can we do, and we're perfectly willing to help you, to change the attitude, the thinking, the direction on Capitol Hill? What can this Committee do that will help you make this Congress understand that these figures are not a 50-percent increase in NASA funding. They are the bare minimum necessary to do what this country has already committed itself to do, let alone what we have to do if we're really going to deal with the future? Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Walker, your comments are understood and well taken. And all I can say, is that you're doing it in these hearings. You're saying it right.

We're willing to work with you, as the Chairman indicated, to come up with innovative ways of finding the funding for this program. This country cannot afford to destroy our seed corn. I like that analogy. We cannot afford to compromise the future of our children and this whole nation by being short-sighted on what is needed for 1995.

Mr. WALKER. Well, I'd like to think that we're doing it here, but, I'll tell you, I don't think we are.

The problem is the Budget Committee around here ignores the authorizing committees, the problem is that the Appropriations Committee largely ignores the authorizing committees, and I'm not so certain that anything we say in these hearings is going to make much difference because I think that there's an attitude in the Budget Committee at the present time that NASA will get no more money this year than they got last.

And I think that will be very destructive of everything that we have to achieve as a nation. But I will tell you, I think we're riding with that kind of attitude and I don't think holding hearings of this type-it's important that we do it, but it stands even one iota of chance of moving that attitude.

And, I guess, if you don't have an answer for me today, I would hope that some of your legislative people, and so on, begin to come up with that. It seems to me that you may have to bring people of credibility, like astronauts and so on, in here to go in and begin buttonholing Members of Congress and explain the real facts of life

to.

It seems to me that NASA is going to have to begin to get awfully aggressive in how the NASA budget is presented. You know, I don't see any other choice because we are going to suffer mightily if the attitude that I see prevailing around here continues to take place.

Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Walker, you were asking what we could ask you to do to help out, and I think that maybe I should have volunteered what we plan to do at NASA.

We plan to do exactly what you say. We plan to use all the resources that we have to make the public and the whole Congress

aware, of the dilemma that we face. And you mentioned astronauts, the astronauts-Capt. Jon McBride is here and has been talking to them and they're going to sign up to do exactly-I don't know whether buttonhole is the right word, but certainly sign up to making more visible the dilemma that this nation faces. I don't think it's the space program that faces it. It's the nation that's facing this-

Mr. WALKER. Exactly.

Dr. FLETCHER [continuing]. Difficulty.

Mr. WALKER. And I think that the American people are willing to support a rational program at the present and, given that the priorities will begin to put the proper pressure on, but there is no pressure being felt on Capitol Hill at the present time. None what

soever.

In fact, there's not even enough pressure being felt that the presidential candidates think that they have to address this issue. And I think that it is-I think it's extremely important that the political dialogue this year indicate that the people who are unwilling to address even this bare minimum are, in fact, completely out of touch with the will of the American people and are out of touch with the future.

Mr. NELSON. Mr. Walker, your comments are right on. We are frustrated because this Committee cannot, nor should it, lead the nation's space program. Dr. Fletcher, you, as the Administrator of NASA, certainly offer leadership to the nation's space program, but there's one person who can really lead the nation's space program, and that is the duly elected leader of this nation.

And whether or not, in the hard choices, in the bottom of the trench, when the dollars are getting allocated, whether or not they're going in to the nation's space program, in large part, is going to depend on the degree of commitment coming from President Reagan in this next year.

Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Chairman, I should comment on that statement.

I think the President is committed to this budget. It is not a halfhearted budget. It is a budget that he is convinced is necessary and I think he will speak out and do the appropriate things at the appropriate time in the budget process.

Mr. NELSON. Well, I'm not talking about just speeches. I'm talking about real deeds, as well as words. I'm talking about threats of vetoes that are real threats. I'm talking about sitting down at a table and working with the Congressional Leadership in the allocation. I'm talking about providing revenues over and above so that you can get 10 pounds of potatoes in a 3-pound sack.

That's the kind of commitment I'm talking about.

Dr. FLETCHER. I understand, and I can't speak for the President in that regard, but I'm hopeful, as you are, that that will be done. Mr. NELSON. Mr. Lewis.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Dr. Fletcher. I'm sorry that I missed your opening statement, but I was on the phone with a constituent and, strange as it may seem, we were talking about the space program.

I want to commend you and the President for the program that you have put together. I think for the first time we see a program,

over the past years, that looks viable and has an opportunity to be successful. I also like the long-term budget proposal and I think this is something that's been lacking for a long period of time.

I believe that with the budget proposal that you have this year that this is the make or break of the United States space program this year, and I think we're at the year of decision. We're either going to be a leader and hold the leadership in space or we're going to completely give it away, like we seem to do many other things, and be an also ran or partake in the space program with some of our allies.

The United States had a long-term program back in the Sixties. It was most successful in its commitment to go to the moon, and I believe that what you're going to hear today, and continue to hear-you're going to hear, from us, saying that we support your program and support your budget.

Now, I've heard the Chairman of this Committee just now state that we can't lead the program. I don't think he meant that altogether. I think we should be a leader in this program.

I think that's what you meant, Mr. Chairman.

I think the President has recognized the need to move ahead in space, but I also believe that this Committee has to take a leadership role as the authorization committee and advise the Appropriation Committee that we are ready to put down the gauntlet and let's go to the mats with this thing.

The situation we got into, without any hearings, on the ISF program certainly is alarming to me. When the Appropriations Committee can automatically put $25 million into the budget without the authorization of this Committee and then we talk about commercialization of space. I don't know what type of commercialization that is or what we're looking for.

I also have some serious concerns about the ability, at this point, of NASA to put a heavy payload into orbit. I'm very much concerned about that, when it's necessary to get a manned space program and deep space exploration programs moving ahead, and I notice that, also, that the Space Shuttle-C Program in your budget is not there, it's not funded, and I just wonder what your plans are for the heavy lift vehicle.

Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Lewis, you referred quite properly that the Shuttle-C ended with fiscal 1988 budget. These were studies to see how the Shuttle-C could be used as a step towards the advanced launch system that the nation is committed to.

The advanced launch system is a heavy-lift launch vehicle, and looking at what our needs were in the out years, it seemed to me wise to sign up with the Defense Department to jointly develop that advanced launch system because it does, if we do it right, give you the extra payload, it does give you the reliability that we have to have for future missions, particularly if we want to move beyond earth orbit, and it does have the possibility for lower cost, although I don't want to advertise that too soon but we're looking at the technologies that would be required to reduce the cost.

The Shuttle-C, was an attempt to develop an interim vehicle for an earlier period, the early 1990's-Mr. Myers may want to comment on that—and it is still part of the ALS program in fiscal 1988 and could conceivably be part of the ALS program. But for that

no money was required. If there is money required in fiscal 1989, it would have to come out of the ALS program.

Mr. Myers, do you want to comment on that?

Mr. MYERS. I think Dr. Fletcher covered it.

The program was really conceived to use the parts in the Shuttle and makes it, sort of, automatically come into being as a very reliable heavy lift launch vehicle.

We saw it as an opportunity for the early 1990's that might fit into the overall ALS Program. We've signed up-in our comments to Mr. Brown about cooperation with the DOD, we have agreed that we should look jointly at the issue of a heavy lift launch vehicle. We've agreed on a division of responsibilities in the project management of the program and consider the Shuttle-C as a part of the definition that will then lead to joint recommendations by DOD and NASA on the next generation of heavy lift launch vehicles.

That program is underway.

Mr. LEWIS. Thank you.

I'd like to address, if I could, the ISF program a little bit, Dr. Fletcher.

NASA has committed $700 million in an effort to the ISF Canister when completed. Maybe you do or maybe you don't want to give me your feelings about this, but if we're going to enter into a commercial space program, it would seem that our responsibility would be to go out with RFP's rather than budget. The Appropriations Committee put a certain amount of money in a budget and said, we're going to do this for a particular group. When we have all the other space contractors out there ready and willing to come forth with an RFP in the same area and the same motive.

Dr. FLETCHER. Mr. Lewis, I would like to comment on that because I think you're absolutely right. And that is our intention.

Let me just start slowly. The industrial space facility was a proposal by the Space Industries Partnership, which consists of a group from Texas, Westinghouse and Boeing, and it was a proposal to lease space on the space shuttle and then sell that space on the ISF, as they call it, to commercial companies and then pay us back for the cost of the launch. That was the original plan before the accident.

After the accident, apparently, the market for commercial customers dried up, or at least, didn't fully come forth. And so, then we began to ask ourselves, Gee, this is a program that we started. Is there some way that we can use this vehicle. And the_bottomline, after a lot of deliberations back and forth with ourselves and with the White House and with the various people interested in it, we decided that the way to go is to provide for the governmentnot just NASA. We're only the agent for the Federal Government. NAŠA, the Bureau of Standards, the DOD and so forth-to lease a portion of that facility for government use and the remainder to be used for the commercial use. And that portion, if the $700 million is correct, would probably be of the order of 70 percent.

We are in the process of asking industry for proposals. It's a competition between the aerospace companies, not just the space industry partnership, for proposals that require $700 million over a five year period of time from the Government for all its purposes, not