[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 112 (Friday, August 1, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1625-E1626]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                   NASA LEWIS RESEARCH CENTER: PART 3

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. DENNIS J. KUCINICH

                                of ohio

                    in the house of representatives

                         Friday, August 1, 1997

  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to add further comment to the 
status and future of Lewis Research Center [LEWIS]. The following 
represents the third installment of a special report conducted by the 
Congressional Research Service and deals with changes at Lewis during 
the 1990's.
  NASA Lewis faces an optimistic future. The center has weathered some 
challenging times recently, and has emerged even stronger. Faced with 
limited budget allocations, Lewis has managed to achieve more with less 
and through careful budgeting have prospered in many areas. They have 
been designated as the No. 1 center for aeropropulsion and as center of 
excellence in turbomachinery. Lewis' other missions include aeronautics 
research, on-board space applications, and commercial communications.
  In addition to this, Lewis is also a contributor to many NASA-wide 
programs. In the past they have conducted microgravity research for the 
U.S. space shuttle. Currently, they are developing further microgravity 
technology for the international space station. They have contributed 
to the Mission to Planet Earth Program whose focus includes such things 
as analyzing ozone depletion and detecting and understanding the 
consequences and causes of destructive natural phenomena. Lewis also 
had a hand in the Mars Pathfinder mission which landed on Mars on July 
4, 1997, in order to conduct mobile geological studies.
  Although Lewis has been affected by past NASA budget limitations, 
they are currently contributing to the most exciting and dynamic of 
NASA's missions. They have and are continuing to provide for the 
future, useful, accessible, and informative research material on a wide 
array of science-based activities. Their importance to NASA and to the 
Nation is evident from the fact that their funding for 1998 has been 
recommended as $671 million, $50 million higher than that received in 
1997.
  The third installment of a report by the Congressional Research 
Center outlines the challenges that NASA Lewis has met and conquered:

                       NASA LEWIS RESEARCH CENTER


                      The 1990s--Changes At Lewis

       Budget constraints as NASA have led to an examination of 
     the agency's management structure, facilities, and center 
     roles and missions. NASA Administrator Dan Goldin has 
     attempted to meet budget reductions through an agency-wide 
     restructuring that is based on consolidating work at centers, 
     closing of facilities, streamlining of management, 
     privatization and outsourcing of some operational activities, 
     and reducing employee levels. The goal has been to meet 
     reductions without cutting programs. The major effort in this 
     area is known as the Zero Base Review, which was undertaken 
     in 1995.
       Lewis (and other NASA centers) has experienced significant 
     changes in its roles and missions as well as its workforce. 
     Several of those changes, such as workforce reductions, are 
     ongoing. Lewis' funding peaked in FY1993 at $1,002.6 million, 
     and its employee level also peaked in FY1993 at 2,823 full-
     time equivalents (FTEs). For FY1998, the request for Lewis is 
     $671.5 million with an FTE level of 2,085. A discussion of 
     the major changes follows, focusing on the space station 
     redesign in 1993 and the Zero Base Review.


                         Space Station Redesign

       In 1993, due to continued cost growth and schedule delays, 
     President Clinton ordered NASA to redesign the space station, 
     which was then known as Freedom. As part of the Freedom 
     program, Lewis was responsible for managing one of the four 
     main work contract packages--the design, development, and 
     fabrication of the space station power systems.
       As part of the redesign, Johnson Space Center (JSC) was 
     given lead center responsibility for the space station. That 
     resulted in a loss to Lewis of 260 FTEs and 400 contractor 
     employees. However, Lewis did maintain an active part in the 
     program. Its support to the space station program includes 
     technical and management support in the areas of power and 
     on-board propulsion components and systems, engineering and 
     analysis, and testing for components and systems. That 
     includes use of LeRC facilities and testbeds and construction 
     of flight hardware as required.


                            Zero Base Review

       In 1995, as part of NASA's FY1996 request, the 
     Administration directed NASA to facilities, and management 
     practices. The goal of the review was to meet the future 
     reductions without cutting programs. This review is known as 
     the Zero Base Review (ZBR) and has resulted in a significant 
     restructuring of the agency's management and centers.
       The primary recommendations of the ZBR for Lewis follow: 
     Designate Lewis the Lead Center for Aeropropulsion and a 
     Center of Excellence for Turbomachinery; close the rocket 
     engine test facility; retain the Plum Brook facility but only 
     on a fully reimbursable basis; close facilities/structures 
     with a saving of more than $150 million by FY2000; plan to 
     transfer/consolidate research aircraft at Dryden Flight 
     Research Center (DFRC) as well as decommission aircraft whose 
     research mission has ended; adopt performance-based 
     contracting approaches to facilities maintenance reduce its 
     outyear funding requirements by $5 billion over five years. 
     Administrator Goldin directed the agency to undertake an 
     extensive review of all NASA center mission and roles, and 
     operations and other institutional support and technical 
     services contracts, yielding greater than $100 million in 
     savings by FY2000; obtain information resources system 
     services from Ames research Center (ARC) and Marshall Space 
     Flight Center (MSFC), and reduce requirements; resulting in 
     savings of $50 million by

[[Page E1626]]

     FY2000; transfer Atlas-class expendable launch vehicle (ELV) 
     management to Kennedy Space Center (KSC); phase out large 
     chemical propulsion technology development and transfer the 
     responsibility to MSFC; explore creation of an institute(s) 
     to conduct activities of microgravity research, onboard 
     propulsion, and space power; and reduce FTE level to 2,027 by 
     the end of FY2000.
       Those recommendations are to be fully implemented by 
     FY2000. Some have already been implemented and others are 
     currently in progress. A brief description of the status of 
     the above recommendations follows:
       Lewis is NASA's Center of Excellence for Turbomachinery and 
     the Lead Center for Aeropropulsion.
       The rocket engine test facility has been closed and is 
     currently being dismantled. The land that the facility 
     occupied may be transferred to the City of Cleveland which 
     has plans for expanding Hopkins International Airport. All 
     rocket engine testing is being consolidated in Louisiana at 
     Stennis Space Center (SSC) which has been designated the 
     Center of Excellence and Lead Center for rocket propulsion 
     testing.
       All testing that is now done at Plum Brook facilities is 
     undertaken on a fully reimbursable basis. All NASA programs, 
     the Department of Defense (DOD), other government agencies, 
     and companies that use Plum Brook reimburse Lewis fully for 
     all testing. NASA plans to keep Plum Brook open unless there 
     are no requirements for testing at its facilities, at which 
     point the facility would be put in a ``mothballed'' status.
       Lewis has closed several facilities/structures that were 
     not required to undertake current or planned work. Current 
     analysis shows that the closures will reach the goal of 
     achieving at least $150 million in savings through FY2000.
       The consolidation of aircraft at DFRC is currently on hold. 
     Consolidation of the aircraft became controversial in 1996. 
     NASA's Inspector General's office questioned whether the 
     consolidation would actually save the agency money and 
     whether there would be a negative impact on researchers based 
     at other centers who use the aircraft for their experiments. 
     Congress took an interest in this issue and passed 
     legislative language in the VA-HUD-IA FY1997 Appropriations 
     Act that prohibited NASA from moving aircraft to Dryden if 
     they were stationed east of the Mississippi River. Recently, 
     NASA Headquarters directed Lewis not to renew the lease on 
     its DC-9, which is used for microgravity research. Lewis 
     microgravity researchers will have to use a KC-135 based at 
     Johnson Space Center (JSC) for their airborne experiments.
       Like all NASA centers, Lewis is adopting performance-based 
     contracting approaches for its facility maintenance and 
     operations, institutional support, and technical services 
     contracts. Lewis still expects this effort to yield at least 
     $100 million in savings by FY2000.
       Lewis is in the process of determining how it will obtain 
     information system services from Ames and Marshall. This 
     effort may not achieve the $50 million in savings by FY2000 
     that was originally estimated.
       Transferring Atlas-class expendable launch vehicle (ELV) 
     management to KSC is planned, but will not occur until 1999. 
     Under current NASA Policy, Lewis is still responsible for the 
     overall management of launch services for intermediate and 
     large ELV services for NASA. The agency decided that Lewis 
     would maintain responsibility for management until all 
     planned launches took place. Only two Lewis managed launches 
     remain--the launch of the Cassini spacecraft aboard a Titan-
     IV/Centaur scheduled between October and November 1997 and 
     the Atlas launch of Earth Observing System's EOS AM-1 in 
     1998. At that point, management of Atlas-class launches is to 
     be transferred to KSC, NASA has no future plans for the 
     larger Titan-sized launches. Even if Lewis were to maintain 
     responsibility for Atlas-class launches, there are no near-
     term plans for launches for such vehicles after EOS-AM-1. 
     NASA is instead focusing on the development of ``faster, 
     cheaper, better'' spacecraft that require launch vehicles 
     smaller than the Atlas-class.
       Major chemical propulsion technology development has been 
     phased out at Lewis. MSFC is now the Center of Excellence for 
     space propulsion. Lewis, however, will retain some expertise 
     in chemical propulsion and undertake research and development 
     in this area as directed by MSFC.
       The original concept of institutes involved the conversion 
     of some civil servants to employees of an institute. Because 
     civil servant retirement portability and conflict of interest 
     issues that required legislative changes, the original 
     institute concept was dropped throughout the agency. However 
     on March 13, 1997, NASA created the National Center for 
     Microgravity Research on Fluids and Combustion, located at 
     Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland. The institute 
     is a partnership between NASA Lewis, Case Western Reserve, 
     and the Universities Space Research Association (USRA). Lewis 
     scientists involved with the center will remain civil 
     servants and stay at LeRC sites. There are no current plans 
     to create institutes on space power or onboard propulsion.
       After undergoing a FY1997 NASA-wide employee buyout, Lewis 
     has reduced its FTE level as of March 29, 1997, to 2,152. 
     This puts Lewis within 125 FTEs of reaching its FY 2000 
     target level of 2,027. Lewis expects to average 50 losses 
     each year through normal attrition over the next 3 years. 
     With normal attrition and currently assigned FTE targets, no 
     additional buyouts or a reduction-in-force (RIF) are 
     anticipated. If LeRC does not experience normal attrition or 
     if its FTE target is lowered, then limited buyouts in 
     targeted areas might be necessary. [See below for further 
     discussion of Lewis' FTE reductions].


              Comparison of Center FTE and Budget Changes

       As of March 29, 1997, Lewis had reduced its FTE level by 
     671 since FY1993 (its peak level). This is a reduction of 
     18.96%. In addition, since FY1993, Lewis' budget has been 
     reduced by 33%. Except for a few of NASA's smaller centers 
     (Stennis and Dryden), all of NASA's centers have experienced 
     a reduction in budget and FTE levels. That reduction has not 
     been divided equally among the centers. Many employees at 
     Lewis assert that the center has had to share a greater 
     burden of the reductions than the other NASA centers. The 
     following statistics show that Lewis has shared a greater 
     burden of the reductions than most but not all, of NASA's 
     other centers.
       Through FY1997, Lewis, at 18.96%, has had the highest 
     percentage FTE reduction of all centers except KSC which has 
     had a 19.04% reduction. Although it is not a field center, 
     NASA Headquarters has had a 36.14% reduction. The agency 
     average over the same period was 13.29%.
       Through FY 1997, Lewis, at 33%, has had the highest 
     percentage reduction in its budget of all the centers. The 
     closest center at Lewis was KSC with a 17.59% reduction. NASA 
     Headquarters has had a 52.64% reduction. The agency average 
     over the same period was 5.77%.
       Taking into account planned FTE levels, Lewis is to have a 
     24.48% reduction in its FTE level from FY1993 through FY2000. 
     KSC with a 42.93% reduction and MSFC with a 29.86% reduction 
     will have higher percentage FTE reduction. NASA Headquarters 
     expects a 49.70% reduction. The total agency reduction over 
     the same period is planned at 23.96%.
       The impression that Lewis has incurred the greatest share 
     of NASA's reductions is incorrect with respect to FTEs. While 
     Lewis has had the highest percentage reduction in budget of 
     all NASA centers, KSC has had the highest FTE percentage 
     reduction, and KSC and MSFC have the highest total planned 
     FTE percentage reduction through FY2000.

     

                          ____________________