Dana Rohrabacher: “this is a classic example of the thinking that we sometimes hear from across the aisle. Instead of focusing on the…”

“this is a classic example of the thinking that we sometimes hear from across the aisle. Instead of focusing on the policy goal, they focus on the bureaucratic program. Instead of measuring results, they measure resources and effort expended. Over the past year and a half the Science Committee has witnessed a growing dispute about global climate change. There is perhaps even greater dispute about whether Mission to Planet Earth is the right way to study climate change. But there is 100-percent dispute--nobody agrees--that the original baselined Earth observing system is the most cost-effective way to collect the data required for Mission to Planet Earth. Only the gentlewoman from Texas--plus a few contractors and bureaucrats--seem to think that we should do this project the old and expensive way. Several weeks ago the Space Subcommittee heard testimony from multiple witnesses that using small satellites to collect Earth science data would be cheaper and easier than the larger satellites currently planned for the Earth observing system. We have also heard testimony that the new commercial remote sensing industry should be able to save us a great deal of money in collecting and distributing data. So it seems clear that we can achieve the scientific goals of this program much more cheaply than is currently projected. But only if we allow budgetary necessity to be the mother of programmatic invention and reform.”