[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 50 (Thursday, April 24, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1819-H1849]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




      CIVILIAN SPACE AUTHORIZATION ACT, FISCAL YEARS 1998 AND 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 128 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1275.

                              {time}  1234


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 
1275) to authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other 
purposes, with Mr. Diaz-Balart in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers] and the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Ehlers].
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time and defer to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 1275, the Civilian 
Space Authorization Act for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. I believe this 
is a good bill and that it is the result of a bipartisan effort by 
members of the Committee on Science.
  I want to congratulate the chairman of the committee, the gentleman 
from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner], the chairman of the subcommittee, 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], as well as the ranking 
member, the gentleman from California [Mr. George Brown] for their work 
in crafting this important piece of legislation.
  This provides for a balanced NASA program, fully funding its critical 
missions, and I am pleased that the bill maintains the Congress' 
commitment to the Space Shuttle and Space Station Programs. These 
programs are critical to our Nation's future in space and are the heart 
of the human space flight endeavor.
  I am sure we will hear a little more about the Space Station Program 
when we likely debate what I believe is an ill-considered amendment to 
cancel the station program. I believe the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer] will consider offering that amendment again here.
  I want to focus on many more of the positive provisions of H.R. 1275. 
This bill ensures that the taxpayers' investment in the space station 
is protected. We have erected a firewall between the funding for the 
Space Station science payloads and the funding for the space station's 
hardware development. We need to make sure that the station program 
that we are building is a productive world-class research laboratory, 
and I believe this bill goes a long way toward ensuring that that goal 
is attained.
  We heard through the committee hearing process from many different 
points of view. We heard loudly from the medical research community 
that they need the Space Station Program in order to continue to build 
on the highly effective life and microgravity science research that we 
are already conducting on the space shuttle program.
  We heard from many witnesses about advances that are being made with 
infectious disease, combatting that, advances that are being made in 
treating particular kinds of cancers, diabetes, other issues as well, 
that cannot go much further here on Earth, they need the Space Station 
Program in order to get there.
  This research has real potential for commercial development, and I 
hope those new Members of Congress that may be somewhat reserved about 
our investment in the Space Station Program will listen during this 
debate to the advances that we have made over those issues.
  H.R. 1275 provides funding in fiscal year 1998 to allow NASA to 
continue flight research activities on the shuttle until the Space 
Station Program becomes operational. H.R. 1275 also contains a number 
of tough provisions regarding the Russian participation in the Space 
Station Program. Cooperation with Russia in space offers many benefits 
to America, but that cooperation has to be based on each party living 
up to its commitments. The Space Station Program that is funded through 
the authorization of this bill sends a strong signal to Russia that we 
expect them to deliver on their promises.
  Turning to space science, I think we do an outstanding job in this 
piece of legislation to fully fund the President's request for space 
science. For example, the bill funds the continued operation of the 
Hubbell space telescope, which is making exciting scientific 
discoveries that are rewriting science textbooks.
  In all, H.R. 1275 is a strong bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
consider this bill. I have more to say, but I want to make sure that I 
give the chairman of the committee the opportunity to discuss this.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  (Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support H.R. 1275, 
the Civilian Space Authorization Act, which the Committee on Science 
recommends to the House by a wide bipartisan margin.
  In fiscal year 1998, this bill provides a modest 1-percent increase 
for NASA over its fiscal 1997 appropriated level. For fiscal year 1999 
we provide a 1\1/2\-percent increase over the 1997 level.
  As most of the Members will recognize, these increases do not keep 
pace with inflation, so NASA's real budget continues to fall. 
Nevertheless, H.R. 1275 provides NASA with the stability it requires to 
achieve our national space goals during this period of declining 
budgets.
  The bill fully funds NASA's programs and scientific research and 
includes modest increases in space science data analysis to correct 
NASA's failures to adequately fund its science investigations.
  The bill also contains funding to take our reusable launch vehicle 
programs to the next level, a generation beyond the X-33 program. X-33 
remains our first priority, but this new investment in another X plane 
concept ensures that the Nation has options for the future of its space 
transportation capabilities.
  I would like to turn now to the bill's international space station 
provisions.

[[Page H1820]]

As my colleagues are aware, the Clinton administration invited Russia 
to join the international space station in 1993.
  At the time Congress was skeptical that Russia would make a good 
partner based upon the instability associated with its transition from 
communism to democracy and capitalism. But the administration made a 
lot of promises, arguing that the Russians would never let their space 
program fall into disrepair, and that we would not be dependent upon 
the Russians for the success of the international space station.
  As most of us know, those promises have been broken. This does not 
mean that we should walk away from the space station. Its potential to 
radically improve our knowledge of human physiology, plant and animal 
biology, microgravity, and material science has been demonstrated time 
and time again on the space shuttle and in testimony before the 
Committee on Science. Congress has been right and proper in continuing 
its support for the international space station, and I hope it 
continues to do so today.
  We have been consistent and passed funding for the space station in 
the last Congress by 140 vote margins. Our mistake, which we were 
obligated to make, was to place any faith in the administration's 
promises. H.R. 1275 fixes that problem.
  In committee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and I offered 
an amendment that imposes a decision process on the administration 
relative to the Russian problem and the space station. That amendment 
was adopted by a unanimous division vote of 25 to nothing.
  Briefly, we prohibit paying Russia for its commitments to the 
international space station. They have to pay for that themselves. 
United States taxpayers' money will not be used to pay for what the 
Russians promised to build.
  Second, we put an end to the administration's practice of 
dissembling, denying, and ducking problems by forcing NASA to develop a 
contingency plan and time line for deciding whether or not to remove 
each Russian piece of hardware in the critical path.
  Third, we require NASA to certify each month that the Russians are, 
or are not, living up to their obligations, so the administration 
cannot spring surprises on us and pretend it did not know what was 
going on.
  Fourth, we require the President to certify by August 1 that he will 
or will not baseline the Russian elements in the Space Station's 
design.
  Finally, long-term stays by our astronauts on the Russian Mir space 
station require an independent review of the Mir to determine whether 
it meets or exceeds U.S. safety standards. We cannot risk our 
astronauts on Mir just to save Russia's dignity or to allow the 
administration to remain in denial.
  I would point out that there is currently a leak of antifreeze on Mir 
that has caused a partial evacuation of one of the modules of Mir. It 
does not place our astronauts in a life-threatening situation at the 
present time, but this is the latest in a long line of safety problems, 
because the Mir space station has outlived its useful and functional 
life, and is continuing to be used by the Russians.
  The bill is a good package of policy initiatives that will put the 
space station back on the right track when it comes to dealing with 
Russia. We are not imposing a solution on the administration, at least 
not yet. We are not imposing a solution because the committee still 
hopes to work with the White House to come up with a national solution 
to this problem.
  But we are imposing a decision-making process with deadlines that 
will force the administration to resolve this problem, and to prevent a 
hemorrhage of more U.S. taxpayer funds from being unnecessarily used 
because delaying the problem's resolution will simply increase costs.

                              {time}  1245

  This reason alone is enough to warrant continuing bipartisan support 
for H.R. 1275.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher], chairman of the subcommittee.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 
1275, the Civilian Space Authorization Act of 1997.
  This bill authorizes appropriations in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for 
and provides policy direction to the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration, the Office of Commercial Space Transportation in the 
Federal Aviation Administration, and the Office of Space Commerce in 
the Department of Commerce.
  Mr. Chairman, just as our Nation's efforts are helping to open up 
America's next frontier, this bill makes pioneering strides in 
bipartisanship, in funding vital scientific and technological research, 
and in promoting our Nation's emerging commercial space enterprises.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner], my chairman, for his leadership on the space issues 
within this bill and his help in my efforts to prepare this bill. I 
would also like to thank the ranking member of the full committee, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], who has been a guidepost for the 
rest of us and made major contributions as well. The gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown] is a good friend and has contributed a great 
deal to this, as has the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner].
  I might add that the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] and I have 
developed a relationship that some Members probably thought was 
impossible for a partisan guy like me to do. But the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Cramer] and I have been working for our country's space 
efforts to make sure that America has the number one space effort in 
the world. We have put together a package today, and I am very, very 
pleased with the cooperation that we have had. I pledge that I will do 
my very best to keep that level of cooperation going.
  I would also like to thank, in passing, the gentleman from Florida 
[Mr. Weldon], who is the subcommittee's capable and active vice 
chairman, who has probably been more active than any vice chairman of 
any subcommittee that I have ever been a member of. So we thank the 
gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon] as well.
  Because we do not yet have a budget resolution, this year, this 
bill's funding levels are based on the Committee on Science's views and 
estimates which call for strengthening our Nation's research and 
development investments while pursuing the bipartisan goal of balancing 
the budget. Actually this bill provides a mere 1.25 percent increase, 
that is a 1\1/4\ percent increase in the funding for NASA over last 
year, over fiscal year 1997 levels. That is less than inflation. We do 
that while holding the other two agencies basically constant.
  This bill reflects funding priorities set by the Committee on Science 
and its Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics over the last several 
years. Over the last several years, obviously, both parties have been 
in a leadership position in these committees. We strongly support human 
space flight, space science and the aeronautics and space technology 
efforts which will keep American industry number one and open the 
frontier of space to commercial enterprise.
  With a few exceptions, we have approved the President's budget 
request for NASA. It is a greatly improved budget submission over the 
one he made for fiscal year 1997, especially with regard to the 
outyears. In two areas, we have added the funds necessary to achieve 
high priority goals. In others, we have made small reductions or 
limitations on the use of funds.
  NASA Administrator Goldin has repeatedly stated to the Congress and 
audiences all over the country that his highest goal after preserving 
the safety of the space shuttle flight program is dramatically reducing 
the cost of transporting people and cargo into space. NASA has made an 
excellent start in that direction with the X-33 Program and its smaller 
sibling, X-34 Program. We are fully funding those programs and indeed 
specifically authorizing the X-33 Program.
  Unfortunately, the NASA budget only has funds to develop and flight 
test one concept for the X-33. NASA has indicated both in testimony and 
direct conversations with me and my staff that they wish to pursue 
additional X-vehicles in the future to continue pushing down the cost 
of space transportation. This bill uses most of

[[Page H1821]]

our increase over the President's request to fully fund a different 
competitively chosen X-vehicle by using the most advanced technologies 
possible as a complementary follow-on to X-33.
  This will provide technical redundancy to the X-33 in case that 
program fails, and it will enable downstream competition in the 
reusable launch vehicle industry, should the X-33 program succeed.
  It also will accelerate the drive toward cheap access to space and 
not in the long run but in the medium run save the taxpayers not only 
millions of dollars but billions of dollars by bringing down the cost 
of getting into space and making sure that as we explore and utilize 
space for national and all the purposes of mankind, that it not be, 
that the cost is not so high simply because the transportation costs 
are high.
  Another goal of the subcommittee for NASA is preserving steady 
funding for scientific research. We are providing some small increases 
to the space science accounts in this bill, particularly for the 
analysis of data coming back from science missions and also for 
initiatives like asteroid detection and NASA participation in the Air 
Force's Clementine II asteroid intercept mission. We also increase and 
specify funding for life and microgravity sciences and applications, an 
area with tremendous potential to improve our daily lives here on earth 
and also an area which the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] in his 
remarks detailed for us that we learned during our hearings of the 
tremendous potential of this life and microgravity sciences.
  Again, I would like to thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] 
for the positive role he played in those hearings and in relating that 
potential to us here today.
  Perhaps the most well-known program in the bill is the International 
Space Station Program which we are fully funding at the President's 
request so it will enable vital science and help open new frontiers to 
American free enterprise. Of course, the space station program is 
currently facing the challenge of a lack of funding from the Russian 
Government for their share of the hardware. The Subcommittee on Space 
and Aeronautics held an excellent hearing on April 9 which discussed 
both the problems with the Russian partnership and the great importance 
of completing the space station on schedule for scientific and 
commercial reasons.
  On April 16, the committee adopted without a single opposing vote a 
bipartisan amendment by the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner], and the ranking member, the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Brown], which imposes a responsible decisionmaking process on the 
administration for solving this problem.
  Now, this bill does not just fund NASA. As commercial space 
activities continue to grow, creating high-wage, high-technology jobs 
here in America, using private capital in doing so, it is vital that 
the Government can provide a stable and streamlined regulatory and 
positive business environment for this emerging space industry.

  That is why President Reagan created the Office of Commercial Space 
Transportation and the Office of Space Commerce. This bill funds and 
directs the Office of Commercial Space Transportation, now part of the 
Federal Aviation Administration, to license commercial space 
transportation vehicles and spaceports. We also fully fund and 
permanently establish the Office of Space Commerce in the Department of 
Commerce, which promotes the growth of current and emerging new 
commercial space activities.
  As I said earlier, this bill provides significant policy direction as 
well as authorizing appropriations. That direction boils down to two 
important themes: ensuring NASA's accountability in the spending of 
nearly $14 billion each year in taxpayer funds and improving the cost 
effectiveness of all Government civil space spending.
  Regarding accountability, this bill gives NASA four major directives. 
First, in the International Space Station Program, the Congress should 
be better informed as to the thinking behind and the commercial impact 
of the international hardware barter agreements NASA is negotiating 
with various foreign entities.
  Second, we want to make sure that as NASA consolidates its nonshuttle 
operational contracts and moves those activities more into the private 
sector, that NASA fully consider and inform the Congress regarding the 
issues of competition and fixed-price versus cost-plus-fee contracting. 
Third, we direct NASA to pursue independent cost analysis of its 
programs which include all costs to the taxpayers.
  Finally, we direct NASA to provide the Congress with a detailed 
report on the status of the Earth Observing System data information 
system. Of course, all of us on the committee and in this body want to 
ensure that our constituents' tax dollars are spent as effectively as 
possible, particularly as we drive toward a balanced budget in the year 
2002.
  So for civil space, like all other so-called discretionary programs, 
the Congress and the administration must work hard to continually 
improve and reform the cost effectiveness of all Federal space 
activities. To that end, this bill does several things to improve both 
efficiency and effectiveness of the taxpayers' investment.
  We include an initiative to improve NASA procurement of new 
technology. We direct NASA to actively pursue the greatest possible 
commercial participation and use of the International Space Station 
Program. We direct NASA to purchase space science data from commercial 
providers. We fund a continuing program at the Stennis Space Center to 
purchase commercial remote sensing data to more cheaply meet the needs 
of the Mission to Planet Earth Program. We strongly state our 
commitment to move from Government-operated space launch vehicles to 
the purchase of commercially provided launch services, including the 
possible option of a privatized shuttle fleet. And we place in statute 
a very important provision of the President's national space policy, 
mandating the purchase of, and preventing NASA competition with, 
commercially available space goods and services.
  In closing, let me say a few more words about the bipartisanship that 
we have enjoyed over these last few months and how critical that has 
been to this legislation.
  Our Nation's space efforts have been and should remain bipartisan in 
nature and bipartisan in their support.
  But the world is changing. The cold war that motivated our earlier 
space efforts has long since gone. Our space program and our policies 
concerning space must change as well. Bureaucracies do not like change 
and they often use partisan differences to keep the legislative branch 
from promoting positive reforms. We have in these last few months 
forged a solid bipartisan coalition which will permit us to make sure 
the taxpayers are getting their money's worth and that America will 
remain the No. 1 Nation in space, the No. 1 space power on this planet.
  The great achievement of this bill is that the funding priorities and 
policy direction we have set are supported by both policies. Together 
we are saying that the reason we are funding the space station is to do 
scientific research and to promote commercial opportunities. Together 
we are saying that the space shuttle should be upgraded to improve 
safety. Together we are saying that cheap access to space is a critical 
goal which deserves additional funding.
  Together we are saying that the space commercialization offers 
tremendous opportunities for creating new jobs and industries without 
increasing and in fact in some instances decreasing the actual funding 
level that we have to deal with. So today I would ask my colleagues to 
join me in strong support for H.R. 1275. We have found it in our 
abilities to work together, and I am sure we will continue this 
cooperation throughout this session.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], former chairman of the full 
committee, ranking member of the full committee, and strong advocate 
for NASA.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee 
ranking member for yielding me this time.
  Of course, I would also like to rise in support of H.R. 1275. I want 
to particularly note the contribution that the chairman of the 
subcommittee, the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher] has made. 
Much of the

[[Page H1822]]

detail of this bill reflects his considerable input and his commitment 
to the space program.

                              {time}  1300

  I think all of my colleagues have noticed that the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher], has made some changes. Some of these are 
highly visible, others are not quite so visible.
  I, for example, have challenged his description of himself as an 
active partisan by accusing him of becoming a pragmatic statesman. He 
may not want me to say that in public, but it does reflect the fact 
that he has been able and has worked very closely with the minority in 
developing this excellent bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BROWN of California. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I would say to the gentleman that 
serving on the Committee on Science from January 3, 1997, has been a 
tremendously maturing process for all of us.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would 
note that I completely concur with the gentleman's statement.
  Of course I will not belabor all the details of this bill, Mr. 
Chairman, which those who have worked more closely with it, including 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], and the gentleman from 
Alabama [Mr. Cramer] have already spoken to or will speak to, but I 
would like to point out, just to emphasize the fact, that this bill 
does really represent a critical turning point in terms of support and 
funding for the NASA programs and many of the critical components in 
the national programs.
  For example, I have been complaining to no avail now for several 
years that the budget for NASA, and particularly the 5-year outlook, 
was disastrous. As late as just last year, the projection was that we 
would be at about $11 billion per year by the year 2002. That has 
completely turned around, as has already been remarked by the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], and we now appear, although it is 
never wise to take too much for granted, to have stabilized NASA at a 
figure of roughly $14 billion, slightly under $14 billion.
  I personally do not consider that that gives sufficient weight to the 
many diverse contributions that NASA makes to the future of this 
country, both in terms of scientific productivity but as well in our 
opportunity to be commercial leaders in what I believe will be a huge 
market in space and in space-related activities over the near future. I 
think that a recognition of the importance of this has infused the 
gentleman from California and the gentleman from Wisconsin, and has 
encouraged them to help us to move toward taking advantage of these 
great opportunities that we will have in the future.
  Mr. Chairman, I am going to just comment very briefly about a couple 
of items that have already been mentioned.
  The amendment which the chairman and I jointly offered with regard to 
Russian participation is, I believe, both tough and prudent. We are 
aware of the need to have full Russian commitment, backed up with 
Russian dollars, for those parts of the program that they have 
committed themselves to.
  I would like to say that the chairman has been most assiduous, most 
conscientious in making sure that we were fully informed as to the 
problems that the Russians were having and the need to correct those 
problems at the earliest possible date.
  I think it needs to be said that the Russians do face a particularly 
difficult period at the present time in their evolution from their 
former status as a dictatorship to a form of democracy. That is not, I 
would say, U.S.-style democracy, but one in which there is greater 
participation by the citizens of the country, and so on. That 
transition is going to take years and, in the meantime, the Russian 
Government has severe problems which they need our help in trying to 
overcome.
  Having said that, that does not absolve them from their 
responsibility to keep their commitments, and it is this keeping of 
commitments that is spoken to in the language of the bill which we have 
adopted and which I think will be very helpful and will provide a 
little better guidance to our own Government in terms of how to operate 
in this kind of a spirit.
  I would like to indicate also that there are some areas that 
represent modest new programs in this bill, so modest I almost hesitate 
to mention them. But, for example, with regard to the Asteroid Program, 
which the gentleman from California mentioned, he and I both, I 
suspect, have a background in old science fiction novels in which 
asteroids collide with Earth.
  This may not happen for a million years, but, who knows, we ought to 
be prepared even for something that may not occur for quite a period of 
time. And the steps to take efforts to prepare are so simple, so 
rudimentary, and so inexpensive that we are hardly justified in not 
doing it. It involves a modest effort to improve our observation of 
incoming asteroids or Earth orbit-crossing asteroids as well as comets 
or whatever else may be out there.
  For a modest $1 or $2 million per year we can substantially increase 
our level of observation to the point where we are detecting if not 100 
percent, almost 100 percent of objects which might be affected. And, of 
course, programs such as the Clementine Program and others that would 
seek to actually research ways in which we might alter the path of an 
incoming object at this stage are extremely inexpensive. They fit in 
well with many programs that the Defense Department already has, and we 
would be imprudent not to begin to focus on these at this modest level 
in order to achieve the additional degree of protection which we could 
conceivably achieve at this point.
  So for these and many other reasons, I am strongly supportive of this 
bill. I look forward to, of course, another fruitful debate on whether 
or not we ought to continue with the space station. I trust that will 
not take up more time than is necessary and we can get through with it 
fairly quickly.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of H.R. 1275, the 
Civilian Space Authorization Act, Fiscal years 1998 and 1999. While 
H.R. 1275 is not a perfect bill, I believe that it represents a 
reasonable bipartisan compromise that keeps the Nation's civil space 
program on course.
  I am particularly pleased that the bill provides full funding for 
NASA's programs. It has been my belief that the Federal Government has 
not been making an adequate investment in research and development. If 
uncorrected, the consequences of the underinvestment will do serious 
damage to our long-term national competitiveness. As many of you know, 
I have introduced an investment budget proposal that addresses that 
concern. NASA's activities are an important part of our Nation's 
overall Federal investment in R&D, and I support H.R. 1275's strong 
commitment to funding those activities.
  There are many features of the bill that I could discuss, but I will 
confine my remarks to just a few. In particular, I would like to call 
attention to provisions related to the space station that were added to 
the bill by Chairman Sensenbrenner and myself.
  I believe that the provisions governing the Russian participation are 
tough and prudent. We have received much of value from our cooperation 
with Russia to date, and I hope that that cooperation will continue. 
Although I have long argued that Russia should not be on the station's 
critical path, I do not believe that we should end Russia's involvement 
in the Space Station Program.
  Nevertheless, it is important for Russia to honor its commitments to 
the International Space Station Program if we are to maintain a 
productive relationship. At the same time, we need to ensure that NASA 
has credible contingency plans in place in the event that the Russian 
contributions are further delayed. H.R. 1275 establishes a concrete 
series of steps to be taken by NASA and the administration to protect 
our investment in the Space Station Program.
  Next, I would note that the bill makes some modest, but important 
increments to the funding for NASA's science programs. These include 
funds for the analysis of the data returned from the incredibly 
productive science missions that have been undertaken over the last 
several years. In addition, the bill provides a small amount of 
additional funding to speed the rate at which NASA and the Department 
of Defense are detecting and cataloging Earth-crossing asteroid and 
comets. I believe that this investment is a prudent ``insurance 
policy'' given the consequences for life on Earth if one of these 
bodies would ever impact the Earth.
  One area of concern I have with the bill is language that would hold 
NASA's innovative Earth System Science Pathfinder Program--for which 
three contracts have already been awarded--hostage to the Earth science 
data

[[Page H1823]]

purchase initiative. Since I interpret the data purchase provision as 
one that encourages NASA to buy such data when it is sensible and meets 
the scientific requirements of Mission to Planet Earth, these two 
activities appear to be totally unrelated and should not be linked in a 
punitive manner. Such actions send a chilling message to current and 
potential bidders of NASA programs. While I will not offer an amendment 
at this time, I hope that we can work together to remove this 
restriction prior to enactment.
  In closing, I believe that, on balance, H.R. 1275 is a good bill, and 
I would urge Members to support it.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Weldon], the distinguished vice chair of the 
subcommittee.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding 
me this time and I rise in strong support of H.R. 1275, the Civilian 
Space Authorization Act, and I commend both the chairman and the 
ranking member, as well as the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], and the subcommittee ranking member, 
the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer], as well as the staff for 
putting together what I feel is a very well balanced and good piece of 
legislation.
  In particular, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of 
the chairman regarding the Russian participation in the space station 
and, in particular, in support of the leadership that has been 
demonstrated by him as well as the ranking member in regard to the 
continuing ongoing problems with the Russian participation in this 
space station.
  We have all been made aware on the committee, as well as many others 
in this body, of the tremendous potential that will come from the Space 
Station Program. We have heard testimony from scientists regarding the 
tremendous breakthroughs in our understanding of human physiology and 
disease, in particular as it relates to heart disease, bone disease, as 
well as the development of new drugs and our better understanding of 
the transmission of some infectious diseases, such as cholera.
  Despite all these exciting developments and the reality that the 
Space Station Program is well on track, our international partners, 
such as the Europeans and the Japanese, have spent well beyond $6 
billion in preparing their hardware. A critical partner in this 
project, the Russians, who were brought into the program by the Clinton 
administration, have been failing to appropriate the necessary funds to 
fulfill their obligations associated with the program.
  Might I say that I feel very strongly that it is in the best interest 
of our country that the Russians participate in the program, and I 
would like to see them continue to do so. Reality is such that their 
economy has not allowed them to support this program, and I, along with 
the chairman of the subcommittee and the full committee, went to Russia 
in February and were able to see first hand the serious nature of their 
internal financial problems.
  What has been lacking in dealing with this problem associated with 
the program is, I believe, a failure of leadership on the part of the 
White House, and particularly the Office of the Vice President, to 
clearly define how we are going to get beyond this problem area so that 
this program can be completed on schedule.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate again the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] and the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] for their 
amendment that addresses this issue, and I am prepared to work with 
them to make sure that the space station goes on to become a reality, 
because I know first hand, as a practicing physician, the tremendous 
potential scientific benefits as well as medical benefits that we will 
see from this program.
  I also rise in support of many of the other features associated with 
the program, such as the ongoing funding for the shuttle program, X-33, 
the Venture Star, as well as X-34, an important test bed technology 
that will help us develop new technologies for use in space.
  I, additionally, want to rise in support of the space science 
features that are associated with this; and in particular, I want to 
thank the people at NASA, the men and women, who have worked very hard 
not only in helping us prepare this legislation but, as well, have been 
doing more with less for the past 5 years.
  There have been many departments within the Federal Government that 
have been complaining about receiving decreases in the size of their 
increase. Whereas, NASA has been doing things better, faster, cheaper 
for a long time; and that is because of the commitment of the men and 
women at all the NASA centers all throughout our country to making sure 
that they keep their programs running efficiently and effectively. I 
would like to rise in strong support of them and again commend the 
ranking member and the chairman of the subcommittee for their hard 
work.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to my relentless 
colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. With that generous allocation of time, Mr. Chairman, let 
me first of all thank the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] for his 
time and his hard work on this budget and this bill. Let me thank the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Sensenbrenner] and the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher].
  Certainly, the tone and the civility and bipartisanship of this 
committee have made it very, very easy to serve on for the past several 
months. In that tone, I also want to continue and say, as I rise today, 
I support about 80 percent of the NASA budget. I do not support a space 
station that started at $8 billion and now has costs of $100 billion 
over the lifetime of the contract.
  But I do support so many good things that are taking place in this 
bill that most Americans do not even know about: the great 
observatories, which includes the Infrared, X ray, the Gamma Ray, and 
the Human Eye, the Hubble, which in this latest edition of National 
Geographic we are vividly shown the phenomenal and magnificent pictures 
that this eye is returning to us here on the ground.
  I am a strong supporter of those great observatories and Hubble and 
the repair mission that the men and women pulled off so successfully in 
space. The Galileo, which explored Jupiter, has shown marvelous results 
for science. The Clementine project, which helped us map the Moon, I am 
a strong supporter; better, faster, cheaper, which allows us to get 
projects off the ground and into space with a cost efficiency that the 
taxpayer can be very proud of. And then the forgotten ``A'' in the NASA 
budget, aeronautics, where we helped develop the latest cleaner burning 
engine and helped our industry here in America compete with fledgling 
industries in Taiwan and in South Korea, in Japan and with Airbus in 
Europe.
  It is in that context, Mr. Chairman, that we have a declining budget 
in NASA. We do not want the space station to cannibalize all these 
other good programs that are going on that return the money to the 
taxpayer. We want to get NASA back to the days where, for every dollar 
invested, $7 came back in return; and that is why I will be offering 
these two amendments later on in this process.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my colleague, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Capps].
  Mr. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the bill to reauthorize 
NASA. I would like to commend the Chair and ranking member for their 
work on this legislation. The bill before us provides adequate funding 
for NASA's important programs and gives the agency needed direction on 
a number of critical areas.
  I also want to add how impressed I am with NASA projects that I have 
witnessed at close range at Vandenberg Air Force Base in the district 
that I am privileged to represent. In particular, I am pleased that the 
bill before us provides full funding for NASA's important Mission to 
Planet Earth Program.
  I am a strong supporter of Mission to Planet Earth and grateful that 
the committee can work together in a bipartisan basis on this program. 
NASA has made great strides with this program, cutting the budget bill 
some 60 percent over the past several years, while continuing to 
achieve its original goals.

[[Page H1824]]

                              {time}  1315

  Mission to Planet Earth is a critical program that will expand our 
knowledge of ourselves, our Earth, and its incredibly complex 
environmental systems. I am convinced that we should never shrink from 
the opportunity to grasp such critically important knowledge about 
ourselves.
  But Mission to Planet Earth will be more than the search for 
knowledge. With its series of orbiting satellites set to begin 
launching next year, Mission to Planet Earth's ability to accurately 
monitor and predict long-term climate variability will have great 
benefits for large sectors of our economy, including such diverse 
industries as agriculture, financial services, insurance, and disaster 
management. The ability to predict droughts, floods, and other 
cataclysmic natural events will reap huge benefits in lives and dollars 
for years to come.
  Mission to Planet Earth information will not only be useful for long-
range forecasting, but will have daily applications as well in 
agriculture. To use one example, farmers will be better able to 
anticipate irrigation and harvesting needs and disease control and 
eradication requirements.
  As NASA programs add to our knowledge of the entire solar system, we 
must not lose sight of all that we still do not know about our own 
glorious world. Mission to Planet Earth will help fill in some of these 
gaps about our environmental systems, improving our quality of life 
here on Earth, while we continue to explore the stars and the planets.
  I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Lampson].
  Mr. LAMPSON. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, for the sake of our future, I rise today to support 
full funding for the International Space Station. I represent the 
Johnson Space Center and the thousands of men and women whose 
livelihoods depend upon this project and our commitment to space 
exploration and research. I am proud to represent them, but I do not 
want my support for the space station to be viewed as pork-barrel 
politics, helping only the ninth district of Texas. In fact, we must 
all support the space station for our future.
  I stand before you today to voice this support for the station 
because of what America learned about its future in 1969. At that time 
I was teaching physical science at South Park High School in Beaumont, 
TX, and I saw firsthand how our progress in space culminating in the 
lunar landing encouraged and inspired students. The prospect of a fully 
functioning international space station will rekindle our enthusiasm 
for space and science and lead us to greater discoveries than we can 
even comprehend today.
  I have with me some of the 7,000 letters that were written by science 
and math teachers from all across America voicing their support for the 
space station. They know the space station is crucial to the future of 
science and technology in this Nation. I am proud to speak today on 
their behalf.
  We have an obligation to the future of this Nation and to that of 
humanity to use our resources to discover and interpret the scientific 
advancements that can be made through research in space.
  As the 19th century philosopher and mathematician W.K. Clifford said:

       You cannot fail to see that scientific thought is not an 
     accompaniment or a condition of human progress, but human 
     progress itself.

  Scientists performing research in zero gravity have been able to make 
tremendous breakthroughs. Their work has already provided new 
information about the makeup of diseases such as cancer, emphysema, 
diabetes, heart disease and stroke, viral hepatitis, and influenza. We 
have all been affected by these illnesses, and we want to utilize every 
possible resource to find a cure or a successful treatment.
  Despite what its detractors say, the international space station is 
not an amusement park for scientists. It has real world, real life 
implications for people on this planet. I recognize the need to balance 
our budget, but the 2.2 cents per day that it will cost each American 
to fund our portion of the international space station is an investment 
in healthier, longer lives and new high-technology industries.
  An important issue at this point in time is the participation of the 
Russians in the international space station. We all regret their 
inability to deliver on their promises. But let us not forget, though, 
that the Russians were in space before we were and they have expertise 
that will benefit the space station. While Russia endures difficulty in 
its political and economic transformation, the international space 
station keeps the Russian scientific community constructively engaged. 
This project will help solidify relations between the United States and 
Russia and all the participating nations. The Russian historian Zhores 
Medvedev described how scientific progress improves relationships 
between nations in 1970.
  He wrote:

       As science progresses, the worldwide cooperation of 
     scientists and technologists becomes more and more of a 
     special friendship, in which, in place of antagonism, there 
     is a growing up, a mutually advantageous sharing of work, a 
     coordination of efforts and a common language for the 
     exchange of information, and a solidarity, which are in many 
     cases independent of the social and political differences of 
     individual States.

  Space is not the domain of any nation. Those of us who have the 
ability to go into space are still obliged to share its wonders with 
the world.
  In 1969, I watched wide eyed as the future of humanity was instantly 
and forever changed. I was overwhelmed by the sheer magnitude of what 
man had been able to accomplish. The promise of space still lies before 
us. Through the space station we can translate a little more of that 
promise into better lives for us here on Earth. With 160,000 pounds of 
flight hardware already constructed, two-thirds of the international 
development funds already spent and with a launch scheduled, why would 
we stop now? We cannot.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland [Mr. Hoyer].
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman from 
Alabama, the subcommittee ranking member, for yielding me this time. I 
appreciate his leadership on these issues.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the civilian space authorization, 
H.R. 1275. In doing so I would like to commend the Committee on 
Science's decision to authorize the President's full fiscal year 1998 
funding request of $1.4 billion for NASA's Mission to Planet Earth. The 
committee's decision to remove from the bill a provision mandating that 
$200 million of the Mission to Planet Earth budget come from an 
existing fund, this is a welcome addition.
  Mission to Planet Earth research is expanding our understanding of 
the Earth's environment and natural processes, giving us new insights 
into how humanity affects and is affected by them, this unique research 
to yield practical, tangible benefits for all Americans and people 
around the globe.
  Having said this, Mr. Chairman, I must say that my support for this 
bill has some reservations. There is one very ill-conceived, in my 
opinion, provision in this bill. I want to declare my intention to work 
to prevent its inclusion in the Senate bill and in the conference 
report.
  This bill holds hostage one of the most low-cost, cost-effective 
programs in the NASA budget, the Earth Space Pathfinders Program. 
Section 127 precludes any and all funding for pathfinder missions 
unless and until NASA certifies that it will expend $50 million in 
fiscal 1998 for commercial data buys.
  That may be a good policy, but, Mr. Chairman, there is no good reason 
for this relationship. There is no programmatic link and no legitimate 
policy reason to justify making the funding of pathfinders projects 
contingent on expenditures for commercial data buys. This is simply an 
attempt to force NASA's hand on a program and a concept to which NASA 
has already demonstrated its commitment.
  I would point out to my colleagues that the pathfinders program is 
the direct product of a recommendation of the National Science 
Foundation, a recommendation solicited by former Committee on Science 
Chair Bob Walker. NASA has already approved two ESSP proposals and one 
alternate. Missions are selected not only for their scientific merit, 
but for their commercial application and potential as well. By changing 
the rules in midgame and

[[Page H1825]]

effectively yanking the rug from under investigators with existing 
contracts, this provision threatens not just these contracts but NASA's 
overall credibility. If enacted, it would chill the willingness of 
companies and institutions to compete for contracts or develop new 
applications.
  Mr. Chairman, I will vote for the bill because of its support for 
Mission to Planet Earth and other component parts. In the coming weeks, 
however, I will be working with my Senate colleagues to ensure that the 
Senate hopefully does not approve this restriction on the Pathfinder 
Program.
  I thank my friend the gentleman from Alabama, the chairman of the 
committee, and others for working effectively on this bill and hope 
that they would look at this particular provision and reconsider its 
impact both on NASA and on the private sector.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing on this side because we have no more 
speakers during general debate, I once again would like to congratulate 
the chairman of the committee and the chairman of the subcommittee. 
They have certainly made my few months in this job a pleasure. I have 
enjoyed working with them, and I think we have accomplished a lot. I 
particularly enjoy the way the gentleman from California [Mr. 
Rohrabacher] has approached the hearings of the committee and I look 
forward to working with him more thoroughly as we move on through the 
year.
  In closing, I would just like to make the point that NASA is an 
important part of America's total investment in R&D. NASA has pushed 
back the boundaries in countless areas of space and technology. We have 
so much to be thankful to NASA for. Their aeronautics programs have 
helped stimulate the growth and prosperity of our Nation's aviation 
industry, an industry that is the envy of all the world. Most 
importantly, NASA's programs have inspired our youth. NASA's 
achievements are a proud symbol of America's technological superiority 
and our citizens have reaped a bountiful harvest from our investment in 
the space program.
  In sum, I believe that H.R. 1275 is a bill that maintains a balanced 
civil space program and maintains America's leadership in space. I urge 
my fellow Members to support this bill.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman. I rise today to voice my strong support for 
H.R. 1275, the Civilian Space Authorization Act.
  I have said time and time again here on the House floor, and in the 
Science Committee during the last two Congresses when I had the honor 
of serving on that committee, that we must provide the Nation with an 
adequately funded civilian space program which balances human space 
flight with science, aeronautics, and technology. While we must act 
swiftly to balance the budget, I believe we must be careful to not make 
shortsighted cuts in our country's research and development efforts.
  In my view, H.R. 1275 gives our Nation a balanced space program. The 
bill moves us toward a permanent human presence in space, toward new 
and exciting scientific discoveries, and finally toward the development 
of a fully-reusable launch vehicle.
  I am particularly pleased that this legislation fully-funds NASA's 
Mission to Planet Earth. From the unique vantage point of space, NASA's 
Earth observing satellites will help us understand our changing planet. 
Mission to Planet Earth will provide us with scientific answers to a 
wide range of global change questions.
  We'll learn more about our planet's ozone layer and its polar ice 
caps. Most importantly, because of its comprehensive nature, Mission to 
Planet Earth will allow scientists to study the interplay between land, 
sea, and air here on our planet--perhaps to one day avoid the 
devastation which the residents of the Northern Plains are currently 
suffering.
  In addition to these and other scientific benefits, Mission to Planet 
Earth data will have immediate practical applications. Farmers will 
make use of soil condition information as they seek to better plant 
their crops. Firefighters are already using NASA remote sensing data to 
help them battle forest fires. The list goes on and on.
  Mr. Chairman, it was unfortunate that the 104th Congress was such a 
difficult one for Mission to Planet Earth, where the program was tossed 
around like a partisan football. But today, in a new Congress under new 
leadership, I would like to congratulate Science Committee Chairman 
James Sensenbrenner and Ranking Member George Brown; and Space 
Subcommittee Chairman Dana Rohrabacher and Ranking Member Bud Cramer 
for putting partisanship behind and unifying support for this important 
program.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, which will continue 
our country's leadership in space well into the 21st century.
  Mr. HILLEARY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to encourage the House Members to 
vote for H.R. 1275, Civilian Space Authorization Act. It is a good bill 
that authorizes vital programs and includes helpful language that 
affects the whole country.
  This bill has provisions to update the language of the Unitary Wind 
Tunnel Act of 1949 which originally declared that the NASA 
Administrator and the Secretary of Defense should jointly develop a 
plan for construction of:

       Wind tunnel facilities for the solution of research, 
     development, and evaluation problems in aeronautics at 
     educational institutions within the continental limits of the 
     United States for training and research in aeronautics, and 
     to revise the uncompleted portions of the unitary plan from 
     time to time to accord with changes in national defense 
     requirements and scientific and technical advances.

  The field of aeronautics has received many advances since this act 
was last amended in 1958--almost four decades ago. Unfortunately, as 
this Nation's facilities are showing their age, and the European 
countries, in a consortium, recently opened a new transonic wind tunnel 
which is technologically superior to any in the United States. This 
will have a direct effect on improving the competitiveness of European 
aircraft in the global market.
  Mr. Chairman, just a few short years ago, the U.S. aerospace industry 
accounted for around 70 percent of the global market, recent reports 
show that we may have dropped below 50 percent. This loss of market 
share costs us billions of dollars in our trade deficit and each 
percentage point of global aerospace market lost by our domestic 
companies translates into Americans losing their jobs.
  A study conducted by the National Research Council [NRC] in 1992 
identified that our current wind tunnel facilities are inadequate for 
maintaining aeronautical superiority into the next century.
  I believe that the integrated planning and organizational framework 
envisioned in the Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949, as amended in 
H.R. 1275, is a suitable and appropriate vehicle for the planning, 
development, and operation of aeronautics research and test facilities 
and activities in transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic flight regimes, 
since all regimes influence performance, cost and competition for civil 
aviation directly undertaken in whole or in part by NASA.
  Although plans to build a new wind tunnel facility have been 
deferred, I believe the amendment included in the bill will properly 
update the Unitary Wind Tunnel Act to account for technological 
advances.
  This will lay the proper foundation in the law should Congress and 
industry agree to construct new facilities in the future.
  I thank Mr. Rohrabacher for his foresight in adding this technical 
amendment to the manager's amendment and I encourage my colleagues to 
support this bill.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to insert attached letter in 
the Record as part of the debate on H.R. 1275 to note the interests of 
the Committee on Commerce in this piece of legislation.

                                                   April 24, 1997.
     Hon. Newt Gingrich,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: On April 17, 1997, the Committee on 
     Science ordered reported H.R. 1275, the Civilian Space 
     Authorization Act. This measure authorizes appropriations for 
     the National Aeronautics Space Administration (NASA), and 
     other space-related projects that include provisions on 
     interstate and foreign commerce, and communications issues 
     within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce.
       The bill has provisions that would regulate ``commercial 
     providers,'' defined in section 3(2) as ``any person 
     providing space transportation services or other space-
     related activities, primary control of which is'' privately 
     held. Of particular concern in this definition is the term 
     ``space-related activities,'' which would be interpreted to 
     include both commerce and communications activities. In fact, 
     this term could encompass policy and regulatory activities 
     for communications or spectrum operations, including those 
     that involve the use of satellite systems, within the 
     jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee.
       Section 303 of the bill, which establishes the Office of 
     Space Commerce, raises similar concerns. For example, one of 
     the six ``primary responsibilities'' of the Office of Space 
     Commerce mandated in section 303(b)(5) would be to represent 
     the Department of Commerce in the ``development of U.S. 
     policies and in negotiations with foreign countries to ensure 
     free and fair trade internationally in the area of space 
     commerce.'' This provision implicates the Commerce 
     Committee's jurisdiction regarding interstate and foreign 
     commerce, particularly

[[Page H1826]]

     with regard to communications policy in the international 
     marketplace.
       With regard to satellite systems, section 321 refers to the 
     use of a NASA Tracking Data Relay Satellite System (TDRSS). 
     The Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over policy or 
     regulations on communications or spectrum activities, 
     including the use of spectrum and orbital locations for 
     satellites used for communications, as well as spectrum 
     interference issues related to satellites, including but not 
     limited to the TRDSS satellites. Therefore, section 321 is of 
     jurisdictional interest to the Commerce Committee.
       Nonetheless, recognizing the desire to bring this 
     legislation expeditiously before the House, I will not seek a 
     sequential referral of the bill. However, by not seeking a 
     sequential referral, this Committee does not waive its 
     jurisdictional interest in matters within the purview of the 
     Committee. I would appreciate your support of my effort to 
     seek conferees on all provisions of the bill that are within 
     the Commerce Committee's jurisdiction during any House-Senate 
     conference that may be convened on this legislation.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Tom Bliley,
                                                         Chairman.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, 
and I also yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time for general debate 
has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill shall be considered under the 5-minute 
rule by titles and each title shall be considered read.
  During consideration of the bill for amendment, the Chair may accord 
priority in recognition to a Member offering an amendment that he has 
printed in the designated place in the Congressional Record. Those 
amendments will be considered read.
  The Clerk will designate section 1.
  The text of section 1 is as follows:

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

       (a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Civilian 
     Space Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999''.
       (b) Table of Contents.--
Sec.  1.  Short title; table of contents.
Sec.  2.  Findings.
Sec.  3.  Definitions.

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

                       Subtitle A--Authorizations

Sec. 101. Human space flight.
Sec. 102. Science, aeronautics, and technology.
Sec. 103. Mission support.
Sec. 104. Inspector General.
Sec. 105. Total authorization.
Sec. 106. Office of Commercial Space Transportation authorization.
Sec. 107. Office of Space Commerce.
Sec. 108. United States-Mexico Foundation for Science.

     Subtitle B--Restructuring the National Aeronautics and Space 
                             Administration

Sec. 111. Findings.
Sec. 112. Restructuring reports.

             Subtitle C--Limitations and Special Authority

Sec. 121. Use of funds for construction.
Sec. 122. Availability of appropriated amounts.
Sec. 123. Reprogramming for construction of facilities.
Sec. 124. Consideration by committees.
Sec. 125. Limitation on obligation of unauthorized appropriations.
Sec. 126. Use of funds for scientific consultations or extraordinary 
              expenses.
Sec. 127. Mission to Planet Earth limitation.
Sec. 128. Space operations.
Sec. 129. International Space University Limitation.
Sec. 130. Space Station program responsibilities transfer limitation.

                 TITLE II--INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

Sec. 201. Findings.
Sec. 202. Commercialization of Space Station.
Sec. 203. Space Station accounting reports.
Sec. 204. Report on international hardware agreements.
Sec. 205. International Space Station limitations.

                  TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 301. Commercial space launch amendments.
Sec. 302. Requirement for independent cost analysis.
Sec. 303. Office of Space Commerce.
Sec. 304. National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 amendments.
Sec. 305. Procurement.
Sec. 306. Acquisition of space science data.
Sec. 307. Commercial space goods and services.
Sec. 308. Acquisition of earth science data.
Sec. 309. EOSDIS report.
Sec. 310. Shuttle privatization.
Sec. 311. Launch voucher demonstration program amendments.
Sec. 312. Use of abandoned and underutilized buildings, grounds, and 
              facilities.
Sec. 313. Cost effectiveness calculations.
Sec. 314. Foreign contract limitation.
Sec. 315. Authority to reduce or suspend contract payments based on 
              substantial evidence of fraud.
Sec. 316. Next Generation Internet.
Sec. 317. Limitations.
Sec. 318. Notice.
Sec. 319. Sense of Congress on the Year 2000 problem.
Sec. 320. National Oceanographic Partnership Program.
Sec. 321. National Science Foundation Antarctic Program.
Sec. 322. Buy American.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there amendments to section 1?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute be 
printed in the Record and open to amendment at any point.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  The text of the remainder of the committee amendment in the nature of 
a substitute is as follows:

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     should aggressively pursue actions and reforms directed at 
     reducing institutional costs, including management 
     restructuring, facility consolidation, procurement reform, 
     personnel base downsizing, and convergence with other defense 
     and commercial sector systems.
       (2) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration must 
     reverse its current trend toward becoming an operational 
     agency, and return to its proud history as the Nation's 
     leader in basic scientific, air, and space research.
       (3) The United States is on the verge of creating and using 
     new technologies in microsatellites, information processing, 
     and space launches that could radically alter the manner in 
     which the Federal Government approaches its space mission.
       (4) The overwhelming preponderance of the Federal 
     Government's requirements for routine, nonemergency manned 
     and unmanned space transportation can be met most 
     effectively, efficiently, and economically by a free and 
     competitive market in privately developed and operated space 
     transportation services.
       (5) In formulating a national space transportation service 
     policy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     should aggressively promote the pursuit by commercial 
     providers of development of advanced space transportation 
     technologies including reusable space vehicles, single-stage-
     to-orbit vehicles, and human space systems.
       (6) The Federal Government should invest in the types of 
     research and innovative technology in which United States 
     commercial providers do not invest, while avoiding 
     competition with the activities in which United States 
     commercial providers do invest.
       (7) International cooperation in space exploration and 
     science activities serves the United States national 
     interest--
       (A) when it--
       (i) reduces the cost of undertaking missions the United 
     States Government would pursue unilaterally;
       (ii) enables the United States to pursue missions that it 
     could not otherwise afford to pursue unilaterally; or
       (iii) enhances United States capabilities to use and 
     develop space for the benefit of United States citizens; and
       (B) when it does not--
       (i) otherwise harm or interfere with the ability of United 
     States commercial providers to develop or explore space 
     commercially;
       (ii) interfere with the ability of Federal agencies to use 
     space to complete their missions;
       (iii) undermine the ability of United States commercial 
     providers to compete favorably with foreign entities in the 
     commercial space arena; or
       (iv) transfer sensitive or commercially advantageous 
     technologies or knowledge from the United States to other 
     countries or foreign entities except as required by those 
     countries or entities to make their contribution to a 
     multilateral space project in partnership with the United 
     States, or on a quid pro quo basis.
       (8) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration and 
     the Department of Defense can cooperate more effectively in 
     leveraging their mutual capabilities to conduct joint space 
     missions that improve United States space capabilities and 
     reduce the cost of conducting space missions.

     SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

       For purposes of this Act--
       (1) the term ``Administrator'' means the Administrator of 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
       (2) the term ``commercial provider'' means any person 
     providing space transportation services or other space-
     related activities, primary control of which is held by 
     persons other than Federal, State, local, and foreign 
     governments;
       (3) the term ``institution of higher education'' has the 
     meaning given such term in section 1201(a) of the Higher 
     Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1141(a));
       (4) the term ``State'' means each of the several States of 
     the Union, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of 
     Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the 
     Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other 
     commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States; 
     and

[[Page H1827]]

       (5) the term ``United States commercial provider'' means a 
     commercial provider, organized under the laws of the United 
     States or of a State, which is--
       (A) more than 50 percent owned by United States nationals; 
     or
       (B) a subsidiary of a foreign company and the Secretary of 
     Transportation finds that--
       (i) such subsidiary has in the past evidenced a substantial 
     commitment to the United States market through--

       (I) investments in the United States in long-term research, 
     development, and manufacturing (including the manufacture of 
     major components and subassemblies); and
       (II) significant contributions to employment in the United 
     States; and

       (ii) the country or countries in which such foreign company 
     is incorporated or organized, and, if appropriate, in which 
     it principally conducts its business, affords reciprocal 
     treatment to companies described in subparagraph (A) 
     comparable to that afforded to such foreign company's 
     subsidiary in the United States, as evidenced by--

       (I) providing comparable opportunities for companies 
     described in subparagraph (A) to participate in Government 
     sponsored research and development similar to that authorized 
     under this Act;
       (II) providing no barriers to companies described in 
     subparagraph (A) with respect to local investment 
     opportunities that are not provided to foreign companies in 
     the United States; and
       (III) providing adequate and effective protection for the 
     intellectual property rights of companies described in 
     subparagraph (A).

                TITLE I--AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS
                       Subtitle A--Authorizations

     SEC. 101. HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for Human Space Flight 
     the following amounts:
       (1) For the Space Station--
       (A) for fiscal year 1998, $2,121,300,000, of which 
     $400,500,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)--
       (i) shall only be for Space Station research or for the 
     purposes described in section 102(2); and
       (ii) shall be administered by the Office of Life and 
     Microgravity Sciences and Applications; and
       (B) for fiscal year 1999, $2,109,200,000, of which 
     $496,200,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)--
       (i) shall only be for Space Station research or for the 
     purposes described in section 102(2); and
       (ii) shall be administered by the Office of Life and 
     Microgravity Sciences and Applications.
       (2) For Space Shuttle Operations--
       (A) for fiscal year 1998, $2,494,400,000; and
       (B) for fiscal year 1999, $2,625,600,000.
       (3) For Space Shuttle Safety and Performance Upgrades--
       (A) for fiscal year 1998, $483,400,000, including related 
     Construction of Facilities for--
       (i) Repair of Payload Changeout Room Wall in Ceiling, Pad 
     A, Kennedy Space Center, $2,200,000;
       (ii) Restoration of Pad Surface and Slope, Kennedy Space 
     Center, $1,800,000; and
       (iii) Rehabilitation of 480V Electrical Distribution 
     System, Kennedy Space Center, $2,800,000; and
       (B) for fiscal year 1999, $392,900,000.
       (4) For Payload and Utilization Operations--
       (A) for fiscal year 1998, $247,400,000; and
       (B) for fiscal year 1999, $178,600,000.

     SEC. 102. SCIENCE, AERONAUTICS, AND TECHNOLOGY.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for Science, 
     Aeronautics, and Technology the following amounts:
       (1) For Space Science--
       (A) for fiscal year 1998, $2,079,800,000, of which--
       (i) $47,600,000 shall be for the Gravity Probe B;
       (ii) $5,000,000 shall be for participation in Clementine 2 
     (Air Force Program Element 0603401F ``Advanced Spacecraft 
     Technology'');
       (iii) $3,400,000 shall be for the Near Earth Object Survey;
       (iv) $529,400,000 shall be for Mission Operations and Data 
     Analysis, of which $150,000,000 shall be for data analysis; 
     and
       (v) $5,000,000 shall be for the Solar B program; and
       (B) for fiscal year 1999, $2,085,400,000, of which--
       (i) $5,000,000 shall be for participation in Clementine 2 
     (Air Force Program Element 0603401F ``Advanced Spacecraft 
     Technology'');
       (ii) $3,400,000 shall be for the Near Earth Object Survey;
       (iii) $561,100,000 shall be for Mission Operations and Data 
     Analysis, of which $184,400,000 shall be for data analysis; 
     and
       (iv) $15,000,000 shall be for the Solar B program.
       (2) For Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications--
       (A) for fiscal year 1998, $234,200,000, of which--
       (i) $2,000,000 shall be for research and early detection 
     systems for breast and ovarian cancer and other women's 
     health issues; and
       (ii) $2,000,000, shall be for modifications for the 
     installation of the Bio-Plex, Johnson Space Center; and
       (B) for fiscal year 1999, $249,800,000, of which $2,000,000 
     shall be for research and early detection systems for breast 
     and ovarian cancer and other women's health issues.
       (3) For Mission to Planet Earth, subject to the limitations 
     set forth in section 127--
       (A) for fiscal year 1998, $1,417,300,000, of which--
       (i) $50,000,000 shall be for commercial Earth science data 
     purchases under section 308(a);
       (ii) $8,000,000 shall be for continuing operations of the 
     Midcourse Space Experiment spacecraft constructed for the 
     Ballistic Missile Defense Organization, except that such 
     funds may not be obligated unless the Administrator receives 
     independent validation of the scientific requirements for 
     Midcourse Space Experiment data; and
       (iii) $10,000,000 shall be for the lightning mapper, except 
     that such funds may not be obligated unless the Administrator 
     receives independent validation of the scientific 
     requirements for lightning mapper data; and
       (B) for fiscal year 1999, $1,446,300,000, of which--
       (i) $50,000,000 shall be for commercial Earth science data 
     purchases under section 308(a); and
       (ii) $10,000,000 shall be for the lightning mapper, except 
     that such funds may not be obligated unless the Administrator 
     receives independent validation of the scientific 
     requirements for lightning mapper data.
       (4) For Aeronautics and Space Transportation Technology--
       (A) for fiscal year 1998, $1,769,500,000, of which--
       (i) $915,100,000 shall be for Aeronautical Research and 
     Technology, of which not more than $35,700,000 shall be for 
     High Performance Computing and Communications;
       (ii) $696,600,000 shall be for Advanced Space 
     Transportation Technology, including--

       (I) $333,500,000, which shall only be for the X-33 advanced 
     technology demonstration vehicle program, including 
     $3,700,000 for rehabilitation and modification of the B2 test 
     stand, Stennis Space Center;
       (II) $150,000,000, which shall only be for a program of 
     focused technology demonstrations to support the competitive 
     awarding of a contract to develop, build, and flight test an 
     experimental single-stage-to-orbit demonstration vehicle, 
     which will be a complementary follow-on to the X-33, and 
     which uses design concepts different from, and technologies 
     more advanced than, the design concepts and technologies used 
     for the X-33 program; and
       (III) $150,000,000, which shall only be for the procurement 
     of an experimental vehicle described in subclause (II), after 
     the expiration of 30 days after the Administrator has 
     transmitted to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a written report including a 
     plan for the experimental vehicle program and the projected 
     costs thereof; and

       (iii) $157,800,000 shall be for Commercial Technology, of 
     which $10,000,000 shall be for business facilitators, 
     selected by a National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     Center with an existing State partnership for the purpose of 
     developing business facilitators, from among candidates who 
     receive at least 40 percent State matching funds and who 
     obtain significant participation from local community 
     colleges; and
       (B) for fiscal year 1999, $1,816,400,000, of which--
       (i) $832,400,000 shall be for Aeronautical Research and 
     Technology;
       (ii) $818,600,000 shall be for Advanced Space 
     Transportation Technology, including--

       (I) $313,900,000, which shall only be for the X-33 advanced 
     technology demonstration vehicle program;
       (II) $425,000,000, which shall only be for the procurement 
     of an experimental vehicle described in subparagraph 
     (A)(ii)(II); and

       (III) $40,770,000, which shall only be for the Advanced 
     Space Transportation program; and

       (iii) $165,400,000 shall be for Commercial Technology, of 
     which $10,000,000 shall be for business facilitators, 
     selected by a National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     Center with an existing State partnership for the purpose of 
     developing business facilitators, from among candidates who 
     receive at least 40 percent State matching funds and who 
     obtain significant participation from local community 
     colleges.
       (5) For Mission Communication Services--
       (A) for fiscal year 1998, $400,800,000; and
       (B) for fiscal year 1999, $436,100,000.
       (6) For Academic Programs--
       (A) for fiscal year 1998, $102,200,000, of which--
       (i) $15,300,000 shall be for the National Space Grant 
     College and Fellowship Program; and
       (ii) $46,700,000 shall be for minority university research 
     and education, including $31,300,000 for Historically Black 
     Colleges and Universities; and
       (B) for fiscal year 1999, $108,000,000, of which 
     $51,700,000 shall be for minority university research and 
     education, including $33,800,000 for Historically Black 
     Colleges and Universities.

     SEC. 103. MISSION SUPPORT.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for Mission Support the 
     following amounts:
       (1) For Safety, Reliability, and Quality Assurance--
       (A) for fiscal year 1998, $37,800,000; and
       (B) for fiscal year 1999, $43,000,000.
       (2) For Space Communication Services--
       (A) for fiscal year 1998, $245,700,000; and
       (B) for fiscal year 1999, $204,400,000.
       (3)(A) For Construction of Facilities, including land 
     acquisition, for fiscal year 1998, $159,400,000, including 
     the following:
       (i) Modernization of Process Cooling System, Numerical 
     Aerodynamic Simulation Facility, Ames Research Center, 
     $2,700,000.
       (ii) Rehabilitation and Modification of Hangar and Shop, 
     Dryden Flight Research Center, $2,800,000.
       (iii) Restoration of Chilled Water Distribution System, 
     Goddard Space Flight Center, $2,400,000.
       (iv) Restoration of Space/Terrestrial Application Facility, 
     Goddard Space Flight Center, $4,600,000.

[[Page H1828]]

       (v) Construction of Emergency Services Facility, Jet 
     Propulsion Laboratory, $4,800,000.
       (vi) Upgrade of Utility Annex Chilled Water Plant, Kennedy 
     Space Center, $5,900,000.
       (vii) Rehabilitation of High-Voltage System, Lewis Research 
     Center, $9,400,000.
       (viii) Modification of Chilled Water System, Marshall Space 
     Flight Center, $7,000,000.
       (ix) Minor Revitalization of Facilities at Various 
     Locations, not in excess of $1,500,000 per project, 
     $65,700,000.
       (x) Minor construction of new facilities and additions to 
     existing facilities at various locations, $1,100,000.
       (xi) Facility planning and design, not otherwise provided 
     for, $19,000,000.
       (xii) Environmental compliance and restoration, 
     $34,000,000.
       (B) For Construction of Facilities, including land 
     acquisition, for fiscal year 1999, $188,900,000.
       (4) For Research and Program Management, including 
     personnel and related costs, travel, and research operations 
     support--
       (A) for fiscal year 1998, $2,070,300,000; and
       (B) for fiscal year 1999, $2,022,600,000.

     SEC. 104. INSPECTOR GENERAL.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for Inspector General--
       (1) for fiscal year 1998, $18,300,000; and
       (2) for fiscal year 1999, $18,600,000.

     SEC. 105. TOTAL AUTHORIZATION.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the 
     total amount authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration under this Act shall not 
     exceed--
       (1) for fiscal year 1998, $13,881,800,000; and
       (2) for fiscal year 1999, $13,925,800,000.

     SEC. 106. OFFICE OF COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION 
                   AUTHORIZATION.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Transportation for the activities of the Office of Commercial 
     Space Transportation--
       (1) for fiscal year 1998, $6,000,000; and
       (2) for fiscal year 1999, $6,000,000.

     SEC. 107. OFFICE OF SPACE COMMERCE.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary of 
     Commerce for the activities of the Office of Space Commerce 
     established by section 303 of this Act--
       (1) for fiscal year 1998, $500,000; and
       (2) for fiscal year 1999, $500,000.

     SEC. 108. UNITED STATES-MEXICO FOUNDATION FOR SCIENCE.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for the United States-
     Mexico Foundation for Science--
       (1) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1998; and
       (2) $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1999.
     Subtitle B--Restructuring the National Aeronautics and Space 
                             Administration

     SEC. 111. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the restructuring of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration is essential to accomplishing the space 
     missions of the United States while simultaneously balancing 
     the Federal budget;
       (2) to restructure the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration rapidly without reducing mission content and 
     safety requires objective financial judgment; and
       (3) a formal economic review of its missions and the 
     Federal assets that support them is required in order to plan 
     and implement needed restructuring of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration.

     SEC. 112. RESTRUCTURING REPORTS.

       (a) Implementation Report.--The Administrator shall 
     transmit to Congress, no later than 90 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, a report--
       (1) describing its restructuring activities by fiscal year, 
     including, at a minimum, a description of all actions taken 
     or planned to be taken after July 31, 1995, and before 
     October 1, 2002, including contracts terminated or 
     consolidated; reductions in force; relocations of personnel 
     and facilities; sales, closures, or mothballing of capital 
     assets or facilities; and net savings to be realized from 
     such actions by fiscal year; and
       (2) describing the status of the implementation of 
     recommendations resulting from the Zero Base Review, 
     particularly with respect to the designation of lead Centers 
     and any increases and decreases in the roles and 
     responsibilities of all Centers.
       (b) Proposed Legislation.--The President shall propose to 
     Congress, not later than 180 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, all enabling legislation required to 
     carry out actions described by the Administrator's report 
     under subsection (a).
             Subtitle C--Limitations and Special Authority

     SEC. 121. USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Authorized Uses.--Funds appropriated under sections 101 
     (1) through (4), 102, and 103 (1) and (2), and funds 
     appropriated for research operations support under section 
     103(4), may be used for the construction of new facilities 
     and additions to, repair of, rehabilitation of, or 
     modification of existing facilities at any location in 
     support of the purposes for which such funds are authorized.
       (b) Limitation.--No funds may be expended pursuant to 
     subsection (a) for a project, the estimated cost of which to 
     the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, including 
     collateral equipment, exceeds $500,000, until 30 days have 
     passed after the Administrator has notified the Committee on 
     Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate of the 
     nature, location, and estimated cost to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration of such project.
       (c) Title to Facilities.--If funds are used pursuant to 
     subsection (a) for grants to institutions of higher 
     education, or to nonprofit organizations whose primary 
     purpose is the conduct of scientific research, for purchase 
     or construction of additional research facilities, title to 
     such facilities shall be vested in the United States unless 
     the Administrator determines that the national program of 
     aeronautical and space activities will best be served by 
     vesting title in the grantee institution or organization. 
     Each such grant shall be made under such conditions as the 
     Administrator shall determine to be required to ensure that 
     the United States will receive therefrom benefits adequate to 
     justify the making of that grant.

     SEC. 122. AVAILABILITY OF APPROPRIATED AMOUNTS.

       To the extent provided in appropriations Acts, 
     appropriations authorized under subtitle A may remain 
     available without fiscal year limitation.

     SEC. 123. REPROGRAMMING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Appropriations authorized for construction 
     of facilities under section 101(3)(A) (i) through (iii), 102 
     (2)(A)(ii) and (4)(A)(ii)(I), or 103(3)--
       (1) may be varied upward by 10 percent in the discretion of 
     the Administrator; or
       (2) may be varied upward by 25 percent, to meet unusual 
     cost variations, after the expiration of 15 days following a 
     report on the circumstances of such action by the 
     Administrator to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate.

     The aggregate amount authorized to be appropriated for 
     construction of facilities under sections 101(3)(A) (i) 
     through (iii), 102 (2)(A)(ii) and (4)(A)(ii)(I), and 103(3) 
     shall not be increased as a result of actions authorized 
     under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection.
       (b) Special Rule.--Where the Administrator determines that 
     new developments in the national program of aeronautical and 
     space activities have occurred; and that such developments 
     require the use of additional funds for the purposes of 
     construction, expansion, or modification of facilities at any 
     location; and that deferral of such action until the 
     enactment of the next National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration authorization Act would be inconsistent with 
     the interest of the Nation in aeronautical and space 
     activities, the Administrator may use up to $10,000,000 of 
     the amounts authorized under sections 101(3)(A) (i) through 
     (iii), 102 (2)(A)(ii) and (4)(A)(ii)(I), and 103(3) for each 
     fiscal year for such purposes. No such funds may be obligated 
     until a period of 30 days has passed after the Administrator 
     has transmitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Science of 
     the House of Representatives a written report describing the 
     nature of the construction, its costs, and the reasons 
     therefor.

     SEC. 124. CONSIDERATION BY COMMITTEES.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law--
       (1) no amount appropriated to the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration may be used for any program for which 
     the President's annual budget request included a request for 
     funding, but for which the Congress denied or did not provide 
     funding;
       (2) no amount appropriated to the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration may be used for any program in excess of 
     the amount actually authorized for the particular program 
     under this title; and
       (3) no amount appropriated to the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration may be used for any program which has 
     not been presented to the Congress in the President's annual 
     budget request or the supporting and ancillary documents 
     thereto,

     unless a period of 30 days has passed after the receipt by 
     the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and 
     the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate of notice given by the Administrator containing a full 
     and complete statement of the action proposed to be taken and 
     the facts and circumstances relied upon in support of such 
     proposed action. The National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration shall keep the Committee on Science of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate fully and currently 
     informed with respect to all activities and responsibilities 
     within the jurisdiction of those committees. Except as 
     otherwise provided by law, any Federal department, agency, or 
     independent establishment shall furnish any information 
     requested by either committee relating to any such activity 
     or responsibility.

     SEC. 125. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATION OF UNAUTHORIZED 
                   APPROPRIATIONS.

       (a) Reports to Congress.--
       (1) Requirement.--Not later than--
       (A) 30 days after the later of the date of the enactment of 
     an Act making appropriations to the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration for fiscal year 1998 and the date of the 
     enactment of this Act; and
       (B) 30 days after the date of the enactment of an Act 
     making appropriations to the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration for fiscal year 1999,

     the Administrator shall submit a report to Congress and to 
     the Comptroller General.
       (2) Contents.--The reports required by paragraph (1) shall 
     specify--
       (A) the portion of such appropriations which are for 
     programs, projects, or activities not authorized under 
     subtitle A of this title, or which are in excess of amounts 
     authorized for the relevant program, project, or activity 
     under this Act; and
       (B) the portion of such appropriations which are authorized 
     under this Act.

[[Page H1829]]

       (b) Federal Register Notice.--The Administrator shall, 
     coincident with the submission of each report required by 
     subsection (a), publish in the Federal Register a notice of 
     all programs, projects, or activities for which funds are 
     appropriated but which were not authorized under this Act, 
     and solicit public comment thereon regarding the impact of 
     such programs, projects, or activities on the conduct and 
     effectiveness of the national aeronautics and space program.
       (c) Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, no funds may be obligated for any programs, projects, or 
     activities of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration for fiscal year 1998 or 1999 not authorized 
     under this Act until 30 days have passed after the close of 
     the public comment period contained in a notice required by 
     subsection (b).

     SEC. 126. USE OF FUNDS FOR SCIENTIFIC CONSULTATIONS OR 
                   EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES.

       Not more than $30,000 of the funds appropriated under 
     section 102 may be used for scientific consultations or 
     extraordinary expenses, upon the authority of the 
     Administrator.

     SEC. 127. MISSION TO PLANET EARTH LIMITATION.

       No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be used 
     for Earth System Science Pathfinders for a fiscal year unless 
     the Administrator has certified to the Committee on Science 
     of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate that at 
     least $50,000,000 are available for that fiscal year for 
     obligations by the Commercial Remote Sensing Program at 
     Stennis Space Center for commercial data purchases under 
     section 308(a). No funds appropriated pursuant to section 
     102(3) shall--
       (1) be transferred to any museum; or
       (2) be used for the United States Man and the Biosphere 
     Program, or related projects.

     SEC. 128. SPACE OPERATIONS.

       No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be used 
     for Phase Two of the Consolidated Space Operations Contract 
     until a period of 30 days has passed after the Administrator 
     has transmitted to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a written report which--
       (1) compares the cost-effectiveness of the single cost-plus 
     contract approach of the Consolidated Space Operations 
     Contract and a multiple fixed-price contracts approach;
       (2) analyzes the differences in the competition generated 
     through the bidding process used for the Consolidated Space 
     Operations Contract as opposed to multiple fixed-price 
     contracts; and
       (3) describes how the Consolidated Space Operations 
     Contract can be transformed into fixed-price contracts, and 
     whether the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     intends to make such a transition.

     SEC. 129. INTERNATIONAL SPACE UNIVERSITY LIMITATION.

       No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be used to 
     pay the tuition or living expenses of any National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration employee attending the 
     International Space University.

     SEC. 130. SPACE STATION PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES TRANSFER 
                   LIMITATION.

       No funds appropriated pursuant to this Act shall be used to 
     transfer any Space Station program responsibilities in effect 
     at any National Aeronautics and Space Administration Center 
     as of October 1, 1996.
                 TITLE II--INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

     SEC. 201. FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) the development, assembly, and operation of the 
     International Space Station is in the national interest of 
     the United States;
       (2) the significant involvement by commercial providers in 
     marketing and using, competitively servicing, and 
     commercially augmenting the operational capabilities of the 
     International Space Station during its assembly and 
     operational phases will lower costs and increase benefits to 
     the international partners; and
       (3) when completed, the International Space Station will be 
     the largest, most capable microgravity research facility ever 
     developed. It will provide a lasting framework for conducting 
     large-scale science programs with international partners and 
     it is the next step in the human exploration of space. The 
     United States should commit to completing this program, 
     thereby reaping the benefits of scientific research and 
     international cooperation.

     SEC. 202. COMMERCIALIZATION OF SPACE STATION.

       (a) Policy.--The Congress declares that a priority goal of 
     constructing the International Space Station is the economic 
     development of Earth orbital space. The Congress further 
     declares that free and competitive markets create the most 
     efficient conditions for promoting economic development, and 
     should therefore govern the economic development of Earth 
     orbital space. The Congress further declares that the use of 
     free market principles in operating, servicing, allocating 
     the use of, and adding capabilities to the Space Station, and 
     the resulting fullest possible engagement of commercial 
     providers and participation of commercial users, will reduce 
     Space Station operational costs for all partners and the 
     Federal Government's share of the United States burden to 
     fund operations.
       (b) Reports.--(1) The Administrator shall deliver to the 
     Committee on Science of the House of Representatives and the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate, within 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, a study that identifies and examines--
       (A) the opportunities for commercial providers to play a 
     role in International Space Station activities, including 
     operation, use, servicing, and augmentation;
       (B) the potential cost savings to be derived from 
     commercial providers playing a role in each of these 
     activities;
       (C) which of the opportunities described in subparagraph 
     (A) the Administrator plans to make available to commercial 
     providers in fiscal year 1998 and 1999;
       (D) the specific policies and initiatives the Administrator 
     is advancing to encourage and facilitate these commercial 
     opportunities; and
       (E) the revenues and cost reimbursements to the Federal 
     Government from commercial users of the Space Station.
       (2) The Administrator shall deliver to the Committee on 
     Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate, within 
     180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, an 
     independently-conducted market study that examines and 
     evaluates potential industry interest in providing commercial 
     goods and services for the operation, servicing, and 
     augmentation of the International Space Station, and in the 
     commercial use of the International Space Station. This study 
     shall also include updates to the cost savings and revenue 
     estimates made in the study described in paragraph (1) based 
     on the external market assessment.
       (3) The Administrator shall deliver to the Congress, no 
     later than the submission of the President's annual budget 
     request for fiscal year 1999, a report detailing how many 
     proposals (whether solicited or not) the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration received during calendar year 1997 
     regarding commercial operation, servicing, utilization, or 
     augmentation of the International Space Station, broken down 
     by each of these four categories, and specifying how many 
     agreements the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     has entered into in response to these proposals, also broken 
     down by these four categories.

     SEC. 203. SPACE STATION ACCOUNTING REPORTS.

       (a) Initial Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
     transmit to the Congress a report containing a description of 
     all Space Station-related agreements entered into by the 
     United States with a foreign entity after September 30, 1993, 
     along with--
       (1) a complete accounting of all costs to the United States 
     incurred during fiscal years 1994 through 1996 pursuant to 
     each such agreement; and
       (2) an estimate of future costs to the United States 
     pursuant to each such agreement.
       (b) Annual Reports.--Not later than 60 days after the end 
     of each fiscal year beginning with fiscal year 1997, the 
     Administrator shall transmit to the Congress a report 
     containing a description of all Space Station-related 
     agreements entered into by the United States with a foreign 
     entity during the preceding fiscal year, along with--
       (1) a complete accounting of all costs to the United States 
     incurred during that fiscal year pursuant to each such 
     agreement; and
       (2) an estimate of future costs to the United States 
     pursuant to each such agreement.

     SEC. 204. REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL HARDWARE AGREEMENTS.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee 
     on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a 
     report on--
       (1) agreements that have been reached with foreign entities 
     to transfer to a foreign entity the development and 
     manufacture of International Space Station hardware baselined 
     to be provided by the United States; and
       (2) the impact of those agreements on United States 
     operating costs and United States utilization shares of the 
     International Space Station.

     At least 90 days before entering into any additional 
     agreements of the type described in paragraph (1), the 
     Administrator shall report to the Committee on Science of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate the nature of the 
     proposed agreement and the anticipated cost, schedule, 
     commercial, and utilization impacts of the proposed 
     agreement.

     SEC. 205. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION LIMITATIONS.

       (a) Transfer of Funds to Russia.--No funds or in-kind 
     payments shall be transferred to any entity of the Russian 
     Government or any Russian contractor to perform work on the 
     International Space Station which the Russian Government 
     pledged, at any time, to provide at its expense. This section 
     shall not apply to the purchase or modification of the 
     Russian built, United States owned Functional Cargo Block, 
     known as the ``FGB''.
       (b) Contingency Plan for Russian Elements in Critical 
     Path.--The Administrator shall develop and deliver to 
     Congress, within 30 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, a contingency plan for the removal or replacement 
     of each Russian Government element of the International Space 
     Station that lies in the Station's critical path. Such plan 
     shall include--
       (1) decision points for removing or replacing those 
     elements if the International Space Station is to be 
     completed by the end of the calendar year 2002;
       (2) the cost of implementing each such decision; and
       (3) the cost of removing or replacing a Russian Government 
     critical path element after its decision point has passed, 
     if--
       (A) the decision at that point was not to remove or replace 
     the Russian Government element; and
       (B) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration later 
     determines that the Russian

[[Page H1830]]

     Government will be unable to provide the critical path 
     element in a manner to allow completion of the International 
     Space Station by the end of calendar year 2002.
       (c) Monthly Certification on Russian Status.--The 
     Administrator shall certify to the Congress on the first day 
     of each month whether or not the Russians have performed work 
     expected of them and necessary to complete the International 
     Space Station by the end of calendar year 2002. Such 
     certification shall also include a statement of the 
     Administrator's judgment concerning Russia's ability to 
     perform work anticipated and required to complete the 
     International Space Station by the end of 2002 before the 
     next certification under this subsection. Each certification 
     under this subsection shall include a judgment that the first 
     element launch will or will not take place by October 31, 
     1998.
       (d) Decision on Russian Critical Path Items.--The President 
     shall provide to Congress a decision, by August 1, 1997, on 
     whether or not to proceed with permanent replacement of the 
     Service Module, and each other Russian element in the 
     critical path for completing the International Space Station 
     by the end of calendar year 2002. The President shall certify 
     to Congress the reasons and justification for the decision 
     and the costs associated with the decision. Such decision 
     shall include a judgment that the first element launch will 
     or will not take place by October 31, 1998, and that the 
     stage of assembly complete will or will not take place by 
     December 31, 2002. If the President decides, after August 1, 
     1997, to proceed with a permanent replacement of the Service 
     Module or any other Russian element in the critical path, the 
     President shall certify to Congress the reasons and 
     justification for the decision to proceed with permanent 
     replacement, and the costs associated with that decision, 
     including the cost difference between making such decision by 
     August 1, 1997, and any later date at which it is made. Such 
     certification shall include a description of the costs of 
     removing or replacing each critical path item, and the 
     schedule for completing the International Space Station by 
     the end of calendar year 2002.
       (e) Astronauts on Mir.--The National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration shall not place another United States 
     astronaut on board the Mir Space Station, without the Space 
     Shuttle attached to Mir, until the Administrator certifies to 
     Congress that the Mir Space Station meets or exceeds United 
     States safety standards. Such certification shall be based on 
     an independent review of the safety of the Mir Space Station.
                  TITLE III--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 301. COMMERCIAL SPACE LAUNCH AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Amendments.--Chapter 701 of title 49, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) in the table of sections--
       (A) by amending the item relating to section 70104 to read 
     as follows:

``70104. Restrictions on launches, operations, and reentries.'';

       (B) by amending the item relating to section 70108 to read 
     as follows:

``70108. Prohibition, suspension, and end of launches, operation of 
              launch sites and reentry sites, and reentries.'';

     and
       (C) by amending the item relating to section 70109 to read 
     as follows:

``70109. Preemption of scheduled launches or reentries.'';

       (2) in section 70101--
       (A) by inserting ``microgravity research,'' after 
     ``information services,'' in subsection (a)(3);
       (B) by inserting ``, reentry,'' after ``launching'' both 
     places it appears in subsection (a)(4);
       (C) by inserting ``, reentry vehicles,'' after ``launch 
     vehicles'' in subsection (a)(5);
       (D) by inserting ``and reentry services'' after ``launch 
     services'' in subsection (a)(6);
       (E) by inserting ``, reentries,'' after ``launches'' both 
     places it appears in subsection (a)(7);
       (F) by inserting ``, reentry sites,'' after ``launch 
     sites'' in subsection (a)(8);
       (G) by inserting ``and reentry services'' after ``launch 
     services'' in subsection (a)(8);
       (H) by inserting ``reentry sites,'' after ``launch sites,'' 
     in subsection (a)(9);
       (I) by inserting ``and reentry site'' after ``launch site'' 
     in subsection (a)(9);
       (J) by inserting ``, reentry vehicles,'' after ``launch 
     vehicles'' in subsection (b)(2);
       (K) by striking ``launch'' in subsection (b)(2)(A);
       (L) by inserting ``and reentry'' after ``commercial 
     launch'' in subsection (b)(3);
       (M) by striking ``launch'' after ``and transfer 
     commercial'' in subsection (b)(3); and
       (N) by inserting ``and development of reentry sites,'' 
     after ``launch-site support facilities,'' in subsection 
     (b)(4);
       (3) in section 70102--
       (A) by striking ``and any payload'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``or reentry vehicle and any payload from Earth'' in 
     paragraph (3);
       (B) by inserting ``or reentry vehicle'' after ``means of a 
     launch vehicle'' in paragraph (8);
       (C) by redesignating paragraphs (10) through (12) as 
     paragraphs (14) through (16), respectively;
       (D) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following new 
     paragraphs:
       ``(10) `reenter' and `reentry' mean to return or attempt to 
     return, purposefully, a reentry vehicle and its payload, if 
     any, from Earth orbit or from outer space to Earth.
       ``(11) `reentry services' means--
       ``(A) activities involved in the preparation of a reentry 
     vehicle and its payload, if any, for reentry; and
       ``(B) the conduct of a reentry.
       ``(12) `reentry site' means the location on Earth to which 
     a reentry vehicle is intended to return (as defined in a 
     license the Secretary issues or transfers under this 
     chapter).
       ``(13) `reentry vehicle' means a vehicle designed to return 
     from Earth orbit or outer space to Earth, or a reusable 
     launch vehicle designed to return from outer space 
     substantially intact.''; and
       (E) by inserting ``or reentry services'' after ``launch 
     services'' each place it appears in paragraph (15), as so 
     redesignated by subparagraph (C) of this paragraph;
       (4) in section 70103(b)--
       (A) by inserting ``and Reentries'' after ``Launches'' in 
     the subsection heading;
       (B) by inserting ``and reentries'' after ``space launches'' 
     in paragraph (1); and
       (C) by inserting ``and reentry'' after ``space launch'' in 
     paragraph (2);
       (5) in section 70104--
       (A) by amending the section designation and heading to read 
     as follows:

     ``Sec. 70104. Restrictions on launches, operations, and 
       reentries'';

       (B) by inserting ``or reentry site, or to reenter a reentry 
     vehicle,'' after ``operate a launch site'' each place it 
     appears in subsection (a);
       (C) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``launch or 
     operation'' in subsection (a) (3) and (4);
       (D) in subsection (b)--
       (i) by striking ``launch license'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``license'';
       (ii) by inserting ``or reenter'' after ``may launch''; and
       (iii) by inserting ``or reentering'' after ``related to 
     launching''; and
       (E) in subsection (c)--
       (i) by amending the subsection heading to read as follows: 
     ``Preventing Launches and Reentries.--'';
       (ii) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``prevent the 
     launch''; and
       (iii) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``decides the 
     launch'';
       (6) in section 70105--
       (A) by inserting ``or a reentry site, or the reentry of a 
     reentry vehicle,'' after ``operation of a launch site'' in 
     subsection (b)(1); and
       (B) by striking ``or operation'' and inserting in lieu 
     thereof ``, operation, or reentry'' in subsection (b)(2)(A);
       (7) in section 70106(a)--
       (A) by inserting ``or reentry site'' after ``observer at a 
     launch site'';
       (B) by inserting ``or reentry vehicle'' after ``assemble a 
     launch vehicle''; and
       (C) by inserting ``or reentry vehicle'' after ``with a 
     launch vehicle'';
       (8) in section 70108--
       (A) by amending the section designation and heading to read 
     as follows:

     ``Sec. 70108. Prohibition, suspension, and end of launches, 
       operation of launch sites and reentry sites, and 
       reentries'';

     and
       (B) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by inserting ``or reentry site, or reentry of a reentry 
     vehicle,'' after ``operation of a launch site''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``launch or 
     operation'';
       (9) in section 70109--
       (A) by amending the section designation and heading to read 
     as follows:

     ``Sec. 70109. Preemption of scheduled launches or 
       reentries'';

       (B) in subsection (a)--
       (i) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``ensure that a 
     launch'';
       (ii) by inserting ``, reentry site,'' after ``United States 
     Government launch site'';
       (iii) by inserting ``or reentry date commitment'' after 
     ``launch date commitment'';
       (iv) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``obtained for a 
     launch'';
       (v) by inserting ``, reentry site,'' after ``access to a 
     launch site'';
       (vi) by inserting ``, or services related to a reentry,'' 
     after ``amount for launch services''; and
       (vii) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``the scheduled 
     launch''; and
       (C) in subsection (c), by inserting ``or reentry'' after 
     ``prompt launching'';
       (10) in section 70110--
       (A) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``prevent the 
     launch'' in subsection (a)(2); and
       (B) by inserting ``or reentry site, or reentry of a reentry 
     vehicle,'' after ``operation of a launch site'' in subsection 
     (a)(3)(B);
       (11) in section 70111--
       (A) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``launch'' in 
     subsection (a)(1)(A);
       (B) by inserting ``and reentry services'' after ``launch 
     services'' in subsection (a)(1)(B);
       (C) by inserting ``or reentry services'' after ``or launch 
     services'' in subsection (a)(2);
       (D) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``commercial launch'' 
     both places it appears in subsection (b)(1);
       (E) by inserting ``or reentry services'' after ``launch 
     services'' in subsection (b)(2)(C);
       (F) by striking ``or its payload for launch'' in subsection 
     (d) and inserting in lieu thereof ``or reentry vehicle, or 
     the payload of either, for launch or reentry''; and
       (G) by inserting ``, reentry vehicle,'' after 
     ``manufacturer of the launch vehicle'' in subsection (d);
       (12) in section 70112--
       (A) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``one launch'' in 
     subsection (a)(3);
       (B) by inserting ``or reentry services'' after ``launch 
     services'' in subsection (a)(4);
       (C) by inserting ``or reentry services'' after ``launch 
     services'' each place it appears in subsection (b);
       (D) by inserting ``applicable'' after ``carried out under 
     the'' in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (b);

[[Page H1831]]

       (E) by inserting ``or Reentries'' after ``Launches'' in the 
     heading for subsection (e); and
       (F) by inserting ``or reentry site or a reentry'' after 
     ``launch site'' in subsection (e);
       (13) in section 70113 (a)(1) and (d) (1) and (2), by 
     inserting ``or reentry'' after ``one launch'' each place it 
     appears;
       (14) in section 70115(b)(1)(D)(i)--
       (A) by inserting ``reentry site,'' after ``launch site,''; 
     and
       (B) by inserting ``or reentry vehicle'' after ``launch 
     vehicle'' both places it appears; and
       (15) in section 70117--
       (A) by inserting ``or reentry site, or to reenter a reentry 
     vehicle'' after ``operate a launch site'' in subsection (a);
       (B) by inserting ``or reentry'' after ``approval of a space 
     launch'' in subsection (d);
       (C) by amending subsection (f) to read as follows:
       ``(f) Launch Not an Export; Reentry Not an Import.--A 
     launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or payload that is launched 
     or reentered is not, because of the launch or reentry, an 
     export or import, respectively, for purposes of a law 
     controlling exports or imports.''; and
       (D) in subsection (g)--
       (i) by striking ``operation of a launch vehicle or launch 
     site,'' in paragraph (1) and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``reentry, operation of a launch vehicle or reentry vehicle, 
     or operation of a launch site or reentry site,''; and
       (ii) by inserting ``reentry,'' after ``launch,'' in 
     paragraph (2).
       (b) Additional Amendments.--(1) Section 70105 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``A person may apply'' in 
     subsection (a);
       (B) by striking ``receiving an application'' both places it 
     appears in subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``accepting an application in accordance with criteria 
     established pursuant to subsection (b)(2)(D)'';
       (C) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following 
     new paragraph:
       ``(2) In carrying out paragraph (1), the Secretary may 
     establish procedures for certification of the safety of a 
     launch vehicle, reentry vehicle, or safety system, procedure, 
     service, or personnel that may be used in conducting licensed 
     commercial space launch or reentry activities.'';
       (D) by striking ``and'' at the end of subsection (b)(2)(B);
       (E) by striking the period at the end of subsection 
     (b)(2)(C) and inserting in lieu thereof ``; and'';
       (F) by adding at the end of subsection (b)(2) the following 
     new subparagraph:
       ``(D) regulations establishing criteria for accepting or 
     rejecting an application for a license under this chapter 
     within 60 days after receipt of such application.''; and
       (G) by inserting ``, or the requirement to obtain a 
     license,'' after ``waive a requirement'' in subsection 
     (b)(3).
       (2) The amendment made by paragraph (1)(B) shall take 
     effect upon the effective date of final regulations issued 
     pursuant to section 70105(b)(2)(D) of title 49, United States 
     Code, as added by paragraph (1)(F) of this subsection.
       (3) Section 70102(5) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as 
     subparagraphs (B) and (C), respectively; and
       (B) by inserting before subparagraph (B), as so 
     redesignated by subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the 
     following new subparagraph:
       ``(A) activities directly related to the preparation of a 
     launch site or payload facility for one or more launches;''.
       (4) Section 70103(b) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in the subsection heading, as amended by subsection 
     (a)(4)(A) of this section, by inserting ``and State Sponsored 
     Spaceports'' after ``and Reentries''; and
       (B) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``and State sponsored 
     spaceports'' after ``private sector''.
       (5) Section 70105(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, as 
     amended by subsection (b)(1) of this section, is amended by 
     inserting at the end the following: ``The Secretary shall 
     submit to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and 
     Transportation of the Senate a written notice not later than 
     7 days after any occurrence when a license is not issued 
     within the deadline established by this subsection.''.
       (6) Section 70111 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting after subparagraph 
     (B) the following:
     ``The Secretary shall establish criteria and procedures for 
     determining the priority of competing requests from the 
     private sector and State governments for property and 
     services under this section.'';
       (B) by striking ``actual costs'' in subsection (b)(1) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``additive costs only''; and
       (C) by inserting after subsection (b)(2) the following new 
     paragraph:
       ``(3) The Secretary shall ensure the establishment of 
     uniform guidelines for, and consistent implementation of, 
     this section by all Federal agencies.''.
       (7) Section 70112 of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) in subsection (a)(1), by inserting ``launch, reentry, 
     or site operator'' after ``(1) When a'';
       (B) in subsection (b)(1), by inserting ``launch, reentry, 
     or site operator'' after ``(1) A''; and
       (C) in subsection (f), by inserting ``launch, reentry, or 
     site operator'' after ``carried out under a''.
       (c) Regulations.--(1) Chapter 701 of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following 
     new section:

     ``Sec. 70120. Regulations

       ``The Secretary of Transportation, within 6 months after 
     the date of the enactment of this section, shall issue 
     regulations to carry out this chapter that include--
       ``(1) guidelines for industry to obtain sufficient 
     insurance coverage for potential damages to third parties;
       ``(2) procedures for requesting and obtaining licenses to 
     operate a commercial launch vehicle and reentry vehicle;
       ``(3) procedures for requesting and obtaining operator 
     licenses for launch and reentry; and
       ``(4) procedures for the application of government 
     indemnification.''.
       (2) The table of sections for such chapter 701 is amended 
     by adding after the item relating to section 70119 the 
     following new item:

``70120. Regulations.''.

       (d) Report to Congress.--(1) Chapter 701 of title 49, 
     United States Code, is further amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``Sec. 70121. Report to Congress

       ``The Secretary of Transportation shall submit to Congress 
     an annual report to accompany the President's budget request 
     that--
       ``(1) describes all activities undertaken under this 
     chapter, including a description of the process for the 
     application for and approval of licenses under this chapter 
     and recommendations for legislation that may further 
     commercial launches and reentries; and
       ``(2) reviews the performance of the regulatory activities 
     and the effectiveness of the Office of Commercial Space 
     Transportation.''.
       (2) The table of sections for such chapter 701 is further 
     amended by adding after the item relating to section 70120, 
     as added by subsection (c)(2) of this section, the following 
     new item:

``70121. Report to Congress.''.

     SEC. 302. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS.

       Before any funds may be obligated for Phase C of a project 
     that is projected to cost more than $75,000,000 in total 
     project costs, the Chief Financial Officer for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration shall conduct an 
     independent cost analysis of such project and shall report 
     the results to Congress. In developing cost accounting and 
     reporting standards for carrying out this section, the Chief 
     Financial Officer shall, to the extent practicable and 
     consistent with other laws, solicit the advice of expertise 
     outside of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

     SEC. 303. OFFICE OF SPACE COMMERCE.

       (a) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of Commerce an Office of Space Commerce.
       (b) Functions.--The Office of Space Commerce shall be the 
     principal unit for the coordination of space-related issues, 
     programs, and initiatives within the Department of Commerce. 
     The Office's primary responsibilities shall include--
       (1) promoting commercial provider investment in space 
     activities by collecting, analyzing, and disseminating 
     information on space markets, and conducting workshops and 
     seminars to increase awareness of commercial space 
     opportunities;
       (2) assisting United States commercial providers in their 
     efforts to do business with the United States Government, and 
     acting as an industry advocate within the executive branch to 
     ensure that the Federal Government meets its space-related 
     requirement, to the fullest extent feasible, with 
     commercially available space goods and services;
       (3) ensuring that the United States Government does not 
     compete with United States commercial providers in the 
     provision of space hardware and services otherwise available 
     from United States commercial providers;
       (4) promoting the export of space-related goods and 
     services;
       (5) representing the Department of Commerce in the 
     development of United States policies and in negotiations 
     with foreign countries to ensure free and fair trade 
     internationally in the area of space commerce; and
       (6) seeking the removal of legal, policy, and institutional 
     impediments to space commerce.

     SEC. 304. NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ACT OF 1958 
                   AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Declaration of Policy and Purpose.--Section 102 of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2451) 
     is amended--
       (1) by striking subsection (f) and redesignating 
     subsections (g) and (h) as subsections (f) and (g), 
     respectively; and
       (2) in subsection (g), as so redesignated by paragraph (1) 
     of this subsection, by striking ``(f), and (g)'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``and (f)''.
       (b) Reports to the Congress.--Section 206(a) of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 
     2476(a)) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``January'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``May''; and
       (2) by striking ``calendar'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``fiscal''.
       (c) Disclosure of Technical Data.--Section 303 of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 (42 U.S.C. 2454) 
     is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(C), by inserting ``or (c)'' after 
     ``subsection (b)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) The Administrator may, and at the request of a 
     private sector entity shall, delay for a period of at least 
     one day, but not to exceed 5 years, the unrestricted public 
     disclosure of technical data in the possession of, or under 
     the control of, the Administration that has been generated in 
     the performance of experimental, developmental, or research 
     activities or programs funded jointly by the Administration 
     and such private sector entity.
       ``(2) Within 1 year after the date of the enactment of the 
     Civilian Space Authorization Act,

[[Page H1832]]

     Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, the Administrator shall issue 
     regulations to carry out this subsection. Paragraph (1) shall 
     not take effect until such regulations are issued.
       ``(3) Regulations issued pursuant to paragraph (2) shall 
     include--
       ``(A) guidelines for a determination of whether data is 
     technical data within the meaning of this subsection;
       ``(B) provisions to ensure that technical data is available 
     for dissemination within the United States to United States 
     persons and entities in furtherance of the objective of 
     maintaining leadership or competitiveness in civil and 
     governmental aeronautical and space activities by the United 
     States industrial base; and
       ``(C) a specification of the period or periods for which 
     the delay in unrestricted public disclosure of technical data 
     is to apply to various categories of such data, and the 
     restrictions on disclosure of such data during such period or 
     periods, including a requirement that the maximum 5-year 
     protection under this subsection shall not be provided unless 
     at least 50 percent of the funding for the activities or 
     programs is provided by the private sector.
       ``(4) The Administrator shall annually report to the 
     Congress all determinations made under paragraph (1).
       ``(5) For purposes of this subsection, the term `technical 
     data' means any recorded information, including computer 
     software, that is or may be directly applicable to the 
     design, engineering, development, production, manufacture, or 
     operation of products or processes that may have significant 
     value in maintaining leadership or competitiveness in civil 
     and governmental aeronautical and space activities by the 
     United States industrial base.''.

     SEC. 305. PROCUREMENT.

       (a) Procurement Demonstration Program.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall establish a 
     program of expedited technology procurement for the purpose 
     of demonstrating how innovative technology concepts can 
     rapidly be brought to bear upon space missions of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
       (2) Procedures and evaluation.--The Administrator shall 
     establish procedures for actively seeking from persons 
     outside the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     innovative technology concepts, relating to the provision of 
     space hardware, technology, or service to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration.
       (3) Special authority.--In order to carry out this 
     subsection the Administrator shall recruit and hire for 
     limited term appointments persons from outside the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration with special expertise 
     and experience related to the innovative technology concepts 
     with respect to which procurements are made under this 
     subsection.
       (4) Sunset.--This subsection shall cease to be effective 10 
     years after the date of its enactment.
       (b) Technology Procurement Initiative.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall coordinate 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration resources in 
     the areas of procurement, commercial programs, and advanced 
     technology in order to--
       (A) fairly assess and procure commercially available 
     technology from the marketplace in the most efficient manner 
     practicable;
       (B) achieve a continuous pattern of integrating advanced 
     technology from the commercial sector, and from Federal 
     sources outside the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, into the missions and programs of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
       (C) incorporate private sector buying and bidding 
     procedures, including fixed price contracts, into 
     procurements; and
       (D) provide incentives for cost-plus contractors of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration to integrate 
     commercially available technology in subsystem contracts on a 
     fixed-price basis.
       (2) Certification.--Upon solicitation of any procurement 
     for space hardware, technology, or services that are not 
     commercially available, the Administrator shall certify, by 
     publication of a notice and opportunity to comment in the 
     Commerce Business Daily, for each such procurement action, 
     that no functional equivalent, commercially, available space 
     hardware, technology, or service exists and that no 
     commercial method of procurement is available.

     SEC. 306. ACQUISITION OF SPACE SCIENCE DATA.

       (a) Acquisition From Commercial Providers.--The 
     Administrator shall, to the maximum extent possible and while 
     satisfying the scientific requirements of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration, acquire, where cost 
     effective, space science data from a commercial provider.
       (b) Treatment of Space Science Data as Commercial Item 
     Under Acquisition Laws.--Acquisitions of space science data 
     by the Administrator shall be carried out in accordance with 
     applicable acquisition laws and regulations (including 
     chapters 137 and 140 of title 10, United States Code), except 
     that space science data shall be considered to be a 
     commercial item for purposes of such laws and regulations 
     (including section 2306a of title 10, United States Code 
     (relating to cost or pricing data), section 2320 of such 
     title (relating to rights in technical data) and section 2321 
     of such title (relating to validation of proprietary data 
     restrictions)).
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``space science data'' includes scientific data concerning 
     the elemental and mineralogical resources of the moon and the 
     planets, Earth environmental data obtained through remote 
     sensing observations, and solar storm monitoring.
       (d) Safety Standards.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to prohibit the Federal Government from requiring 
     compliance with applicable safety standards.
       (e) Limitation.--This section does not authorize the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration to provide 
     financial assistance for the development of commercial 
     systems for the collection of space science data.

     SEC. 307. COMMERCIAL SPACE GOODS AND SERVICES.

       The National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall 
     purchase commercially available space goods and services to 
     the fullest extent feasible, and shall not conduct activities 
     that preclude or deter commercial space activities except for 
     reasons of national security or public safety. A space good 
     or service shall be deemed commercially available if it is 
     offered by a United States commercial provider, or if it 
     could be supplied by a United States commercial provider in 
     response to a Government procurement request. For purposes of 
     this section, a purchase is feasible if it meets mission 
     requirements in a cost-effective manner.

     SEC. 308. ACQUISITION OF EARTH SCIENCE DATA.

       (a) Acquisition.--For purposes of meeting Government goals 
     for Mission to Planet Earth, the Administrator shall, to the 
     maximum extent possible and while satisfying the scientific 
     requirements of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration, acquire, where cost-effective, space-based 
     and airborne Earth remote sensing data, services, 
     distribution, and applications from a commercial provider.
       (b) Treatment as Commercial Item Under Acquisition Laws.--
     Acquisitions by the Administrator of the data, services, 
     distribution, and applications referred to in subsection (a) 
     shall be carried out in accordance with applicable 
     acquisition laws and regulations (including chapters 137 and 
     140 of title 10, United States Code), except that such data, 
     services, distribution, and applications shall be considered 
     to be a commercial item for purposes of such laws and 
     regulations (including section 2306a of title 10, United 
     States Code (relating to cost or pricing data), section 2320 
     of such title (relating to rights in technical data) and 
     section 2321 of such title (relating to validation of 
     proprietary data restrictions)).
       (c) Study.--(1) The Administrator shall conduct a study to 
     determine the extent to which the baseline scientific 
     requirements of Mission to Planet Earth can be met by 
     commercial providers, and how the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration will meet such requirements which cannot 
     be met by commercial providers.
       (2) The study conducted under this subsection shall--
       (A) make recommendations to promote the availability of 
     information from the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration to commercial providers to enable commercial 
     providers to better meet the baseline scientific requirements 
     of Mission to Planet Earth;
       (B) make recommendations to promote the dissemination to 
     commercial providers of information on advanced technology 
     research and development performed by or for the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration; and
       (C) identify policy, regulatory, and legislative barriers 
     to the implementation of the recommendations made under this 
     subsection.
       (3) The results of the study conducted under this 
     subsection shall be transmitted to the Congress within 6 
     months after the date of the enactment of this Act.
       (d) Safety Standards.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     construed to prohibit the Federal Government from requiring 
     compliance with applicable safety standards.
       (e) Administration and Execution.--This section shall be 
     carried out as part of the Commercial Remote Sensing Program 
     at the Stennis Space Center.

     SEC. 309. EOSDIS REPORT.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator shall transmit to the Committee 
     on Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee 
     on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate a 
     report which contains--
       (1) an analysis of the scientific capabilities, costs, and 
     schedule of the Earth Observing System Data and Information 
     System (EOSDIS);
       (2) an identification and analysis of the threats to the 
     success of the EOSDIS Core System; and
       (3) a plan and cost estimates for resolving the threats 
     identified under paragraph (2) to the EOSDIS Core System 
     before the launch of the Earth Observing System satellite 
     known as PM-1.

     SEC. 310. SHUTTLE PRIVATIZATION.

       (a) Policy and Preparation.--The Administrator shall 
     prepare for an orderly transition from the Federal operation, 
     or Federal management of contracted operation, of space 
     transportation systems to the Federal purchase of commercial 
     space transportation services for all nonemergency launch 
     requirements, including human, cargo, and mixed payloads. In 
     those preparations, the Administrator shall take into account 
     the need for short-term economies, as well as the goal of 
     restoring the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's 
     research focus and its mandate to promote the fullest 
     possible commercial use of space. As part of those 
     preparations, the Administrator shall plan for the potential 
     privatization of the Space Shuttle program. Such plan shall 
     keep safety and cost effectiveness as high priorities. 
     Nothing in this section shall prohibit the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration from studying, 
     designing, developing, or funding upgrades or modifications 
     essential to the safe and economical operation of the Space 
     Shuttle fleet.
       (b) Feasibility Study.--The Administrator shall conduct a 
     study of the feasibility of implementing the recommendation 
     of the Independent Shuttle Management Review Team that the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration

[[Page H1833]]

     transition toward the privatization of the Space Shuttle. The 
     study shall identify, discuss, and, where possible, present 
     options for resolving, the major policy and legal issues that 
     must be addressed before the Space Shuttle is privatized, 
     including--
       (1) whether the Federal Government or the Space Shuttle 
     contractor should own the Space Shuttle orbiters and ground 
     facilities;
       (2) whether the Federal Government should indemnify the 
     contractor for any third party liability arising from Space 
     Shuttle operations, and, if so, under what terms and 
     conditions;
       (3) whether payloads other than National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration payloads should be allowed to be 
     launched on the Space Shuttle, how missions will be 
     prioritized, and who will decide which mission flies and 
     when;
       (4) whether commercial payloads should be allowed to be 
     launched on the Space Shuttle and whether any classes of 
     payloads should be made ineligible for launch consideration;
       (5) whether National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     and other Federal Government payloads should have priority 
     over non-Federal payloads in the Space Shuttle launch 
     assignments, and what policies should be developed to 
     prioritize among payloads generally;
       (6) whether the public interest requires that certain Space 
     Shuttle functions continue to be performed by the Federal 
     Government; and
       (7) how much cost savings, if any, will be generated by 
     privatization of the Space Shuttle.
       (c) Report to Congress.--Within 60 days after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration shall complete the study required under 
     subsection (b) and shall submit a report on the study to the 
     Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the 
     Senate and the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives.

     SEC. 311. LAUNCH VOUCHER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM AMENDMENTS.

       Section 504 of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1993 (15 U.S.C. 
     5803) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) by striking ``the Office of Commercial Programs 
     within''; and
       (B) by striking ``Such program shall not be effective after 
     September 30, 1995.'';
       (2) by striking subsection (c); and
       (3) by redesignating subsections (d) and (e) as subsections 
     (c) and (d), respectively.

     SEC. 312. USE OF ABANDONED AND UNDERUTILIZED BUILDINGS, 
                   GROUNDS, AND FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--In meeting the needs of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for additional 
     facilities, the Administrator, whenever feasible, shall 
     select abandoned and underutilized buildings, grounds, and 
     facilities in depressed communities that can be converted to 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration facilities at a 
     reasonable cost, as determined by the Administrator.
       (b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the term 
     ``depressed communities'' means rural and urban communities 
     that are relatively depressed, in terms of age of housing, 
     extent of poverty, growth of per capita income, extent of 
     unemployment, job lag, or surplus labor.

     SEC. 313. COST EFFECTIVENESS CALCULATIONS.

       In calculating the cost effectiveness of the cost of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration engaging in an 
     activity as compared to a commercial provider, the 
     Administrator shall compare the cost of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration engaging in the activity 
     using full cost accounting principles with the price the 
     commercial provider will charge for such activity.

     SEC. 314. FOREIGN CONTRACT LIMITATION.

       The National Aeronautics and Space Administration shall not 
     enter into any agreement or contract with a foreign 
     government that grants the foreign government the right to 
     recover profit in the event that the agreement or contract is 
     terminated.

     SEC. 315. AUTHORITY TO REDUCE OR SUSPEND CONTRACT PAYMENTS 
                   BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.

       Section 2307(h)(8) of title 10, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``and (4)'' and inserting in lieu thereof 
     ``(4), and (6)''.

     SEC. 316. NEXT GENERATION INTERNET.

       None of the funds authorized by this Act, or any other Act 
     enacted before the date of the enactment of this Act, may be 
     used for the Next Generation Internet. Notwithstanding the 
     previous sentence, funds may be used for the continuation of 
     programs and activities that were funded and carried out 
     during fiscal year 1997.

     SEC. 317. LIMITATIONS.

       (a) Prohibition of Lobbying Activities.--None of the funds 
     authorized by this Act and the amendments made by this Act 
     shall be available for any activity whose purpose is to 
     influence legislation pending before the Congress, except 
     that this subsection shall not prevent officers or employees 
     of the United States or of its departments or agencies from 
     communicating to Members of Congress on the request of any 
     Member or to Congress, through the proper channels, requests 
     for legislation or appropriations which they deem necessary 
     for the efficient conduct of the public business.
       (b) Limitation on Appropriations.--No sums are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Administrator for fiscal years 1998 
     and 1999 for the activities for which sums are authorized by 
     this Act and the amendments made by this Act, unless such 
     sums are specifically authorized to be appropriated by this 
     Act or the amendments made by this Act.
       (c) Eligibility for Awards.--
       (1) In general.--The Administrator shall exclude from 
     consideration for grant agreements made by the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration after fiscal year 1997 
     any person who received funds, other than those described in 
     paragraph (2), appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal 
     year 1997, under a grant agreement from any Federal funding 
     source for a project that was not subjected to a competitive, 
     merit-based award process. Any exclusion from consideration 
     pursuant to this subsection shall be effective for a period 
     of 5 years after the person receives such Federal funds.
       (2) Exception.--Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the 
     receipt of Federal funds by a person due to the membership of 
     that person in a class specified by law for which assistance 
     is awarded to members of the class according to a formula 
     provided by law.
       (3) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the term 
     ``grant agreement'' means a legal instrument whose principal 
     purpose is to transfer a thing of value to the recipient to 
     carry out a public purpose of support or stimulation 
     authorized by a law of the United States, and does not 
     include the acquisition (by purchase, lease, or barter) of 
     property or services for the direct benefit or use of the 
     United States Government. Such term does not include a 
     cooperative agreement (as such term is used in section 6305 
     of title 31, United States Code) or a cooperative research 
     and development agreement (as such term is defined in section 
     12(d)(1) of the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 
     1980 (15 U.S.C. 3710a(d)(1))).

     SEC. 318. NOTICE.

       (a) Notice of Reprogramming.--If any funds authorized by 
     this Act or the amendments made by this Act are subject to a 
     reprogramming action that requires notice to be provided to 
     the Appropriations Committees of the House of Representatives 
     and the Senate, notice of such action shall concurrently be 
     provided to the Committee on Science of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, 
     and Transportation of the Senate.
       (b) Notice of Reorganization.--The Administrator shall 
     provide notice to the Committees on Science and 
     Appropriations of the House of Representatives, and the 
     Committees on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and 
     Appropriations of the Senate, not later than 15 days before 
     any major reorganization of any program, project, or activity 
     of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

     SEC. 319. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON THE YEAR 2000 PROBLEM.

       With the year 2000 fast approaching, it is the sense of 
     Congress that the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration should--
       (1) give high priority to correcting all 2-digit date-
     related problems in its computer systems to ensure that those 
     systems continue to operate effectively in the year 2000 and 
     beyond;
       (2) assess immediately the extent of the risk to the 
     operations of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration posed by the problems referred to in paragraph 
     (1), and plan and budget for achieving Year 2000 compliance 
     for all of its mission-critical systems; and
       (3) develop contingency plans for those systems that the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration is unable to 
     correct in time.

     SEC. 320. NATIONAL OCEANOGRAPHIC PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM.

       The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is 
     authorized to participate in the National Oceanic Partnership 
     Program established by the National Oceanic Partnership Act 
     (Public Law 104-201).

     SEC. 321. NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION ANTARCTIC PROGRAM.

       If the Administrator determines that excess capacity is 
     available on the Tracking Data Relay Satellite System 
     (TDRSS), the Administrator shall give strong consideration to 
     meeting the needs of the National Science Foundation 
     Antarctic Program.

     SEC. 322. BUY AMERICAN.

       (a) Compliance With Buy American Act.--No funds 
     appropriated pursuant to this Act or the amendments made by 
     this Act may be expended by an entity unless the entity 
     agrees that in expending the assistance the entity will 
     comply with sections 2 through 4 of the Act of March 3, 1933 
     (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c, popularly known as the ``Buy American 
     Act'').
       (b) Sense of Congress.--In the case of any equipment or 
     products that may be authorized to be purchased with 
     financial assistance provided under this Act or the 
     amendments made by this Act, it is the sense of Congress that 
     entities receiving such assistance should, in expending the 
     assistance, purchase only American-made equipment and 
     products.
       (c) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act or the amendments made by 
     this Act, the Administrator shall provide to each recipient 
     of the assistance a notice describing the statement made in 
     subsection (a) by the Congress.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any amendments?


               amendment no. 6 offered by mr. rohrabacher

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
       Page 31, lines 13 through 18, strike section 130.
       Page 2, in the table of contents, strike the item relating 
     to section 130.
       Page 62, lines 11 and 12, strike ``moon and the planets'' 
     and insert ``moon, asteroids, planets and their moons, and 
     comets''.
       Page 75, after line 12, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 323. UNITARY WIND TUNNEL PLAN ACT OF 1949 AMENDMENTS.

       The Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 is amended--

[[Page H1834]]

       (1) in section 101 (50 U.S.C. 511) by striking ``transsonic 
     and supersonic'' and inserting in lieu thereof ``transsonic, 
     supersonic, and hypersonic''; and
       (2) in section 103 (50 U.S.C. 513)--
       (A) by striking ``laboratories'' in subsection (a) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``laboratories and centers'';
       (B) by striking ``supersonic'' in subsection (a) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``transsonic, supersonic, and 
     hypersonic'', and
       (C) by striking ``laboratory'' in subsection (c) and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``facility''.
       Page 3, in the table of contents, after the item relating 
     to section 322, insert the following:

``Sec. 323. Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 amendments.''.

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, this bipartisan manager's amendment 
was crafted from 3 distinct minor amendments which have no impact on 
the funding level of this bill and simply fine-tune or add policy 
provisions.
  The first part authored by the distinguished ranking member of the 
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics strikes a policy provision 
relating to freezing Space Station management responsibilities we had 
included in the bill at the time of the markup, and I support the 
language of the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer]. The second part is 
a clarification of the range of scientific data we are recommending 
that NASA purchase from the commercial data providers.

                              {time}  1330

  There has been a lot of interest in comets and asteroids as of late. 
We did not want to leave them out.
  Now the third part is an amendment by the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Hilleary] which was offered successfully in the last Congress to 
perfect the language of the Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 based 
on technological progress that has been made since 1949, and I support 
Mr. Hilleary's language.
  As further evidence of how bipartisan our work in this bill has been, 
each of these parts were agreed to by the minority side, and so I 
combined them into a single amendment to save our time here on the 
floor.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer].
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the en bloc amendment. 
I will have an amendment to the amendment, but I do support the 
manager's amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.


    Amendment Offered By Mr. Cramer to the Amendment Offered by Mr. 
                              Rohrabacher

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Cramer to the amendment offered by 
     Mr. Rohrabacher: At the end of the amendment add the 
     following:
       Page 14, line 14, strike ``$915,100,000'' and insert 
     ``$920,100,000''.
       Page 16, strike lines 4 through 14 and insert the 
     following:
       (iii) 152,800,000 shall be for Commercial Technology, of 
     which $5,000,000 shall be for business facilitators, selected 
     by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration from 
     among candidates who receive at least 25 percent of their 
     resources from non-Federal sources; and
       Page 16, line 17, strike ``$832,400,000'' and insert 
     ``$837,400,000''.
       Page 17, strike lines 8 through 17 and insert the 
     following:
       (iii) $160,400,000 shall be for Commercial Technology, of 
     which $5,000,000 shall be for business facilitators, selected 
     by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration from 
     among candidates who receive at least 25 percent of their 
     resources from non-Federal sources.

  Mr. CRAMER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment to the amendment be considered as read and 
printed in the Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. (Mr. Quinn). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Alabama?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, the intent of my amendment is to insure the 
provisions in the bill dealing with the business incubators. Business 
incubators create a level playing field for the future establishment of 
additional incubators. I commend my colleague from Florida [Mr. 
Weldon], who was here earlier on his interest and support for the 
future establishment of these incubators and his willingness to work 
with me on this issue.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment enjoys bipartisan support, and I urge its 
adoption.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the change 
in language offered by the gentleman from Alabama. I have no intention 
to oppose this amendment, but accept this amendment. I am happy to 
craft the language in such a way that business incubators would be 
available at other NASA centers that currently are not taking advantage 
of this, I think an excellent tool to make sure that the technology 
that is developed within NASA is better transmitted out into the 
economy where it can accrue to the benefit of all the people of the 
United States.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the majority accepts this amendment, 
and I would like to point out that it does have an offset so there is 
no increase to the authorization of the bill. There is an offset from 
another section of the bill. I think that is the way we ought to be 
considering these amendments, and I would encourage the committee to 
adopt the amendment to the amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I also accept the amendment, and I commend both the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. 
Weldon] for the work they have put in to insuring as we did work in 
this committee that we did not overlook the very positive program that 
both of them believe in, and because of their hard work and diligence 
we have managed to fund this and make sure that it will continue 
through the years.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the NASA space, the civilian space 
authorization bill, and I commend my colleagues on the Committee on 
Science and on the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics for reporting 
out a well balanced and reasonable authorization bill that will 
maintain our Nation's leadership in using space science to enhance 
research and development efforts. The bill continues our commitment to 
the space station while improving congressional oversight of 
international cooperation in the construction of the space station. It 
moves forward in the orderly process of promoting the commercial use of 
both the space station and the space shuttle. The Office of Space 
Commerce will provide a secure location to advance this sort of 
activity.
  I am particularly impressed by the progress being made in the mission 
to Planet Earth. This project will pay major dividends for the 
understanding of our global environment. Through the Earth observing 
system that is part of this project, NASA will be able to collect very 
important data on the level of ozone in the atmosphere, the impact of 
climate changes on long-term weather patterns and the relationship 
between gases in the atmosphere and productive land use management. 
This project is providing the scientific foundation for sustainable 
development on our planet. I look forward to continued progress on 
experiments with microgravity, one of the areas of concentration of the 
NASA Lewis Research Center outside of the city of Cleveland in my 
district.
  Mr. Chairman, the international space station will provide an ongoing 
environment for advanced microgravity experiments. Those experiments 
will help our country conduct the basic research needed to treat 
diseases, develop new generations of plastics and better understand the 
growth of plants.
  Mr. Chairman, it is with pride that I urge my colleagues to support 
the civilian space authorization bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] to the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher].
  The amendment to the amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], as amended.
  The amendment, as amended, was agreed to.
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

[[Page H1835]]

  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1275. As we debate the 
authorization of the civilian space program I wish to remind my 
colleagues of the importance of investing in NASA. Throughout the years 
there have been calls to abandon our commitment to technological 
advancement by shifting funding from these important programs. Having 
the foresight to resist these efforts and invest in our future has 
yielded critical advancements in areas such as medicine, public safety, 
consumer products and transportation. These spinoffs include safety 
improvements for our school buses, water purification systems for our 
homes, emergency rescue cutters to free accident victims and enhanced 
alarm systems for our prison guards, the elderly and the disabled.
  Particularly in health care, the advancements due to NASA have been 
remarkable. We have developed a digital imaging breast biopsy system 
which greatly improves the treatment and cost of surgical biopsies. As 
we work together in this body to help women with breast cancer, this 
nonsurgical tool has been and will continue to be an essential part of 
safer, less traumatic treatment. And instead of having to use the less 
accurate, more painful thermometer, Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand, 
thanks to NASA technology, we now have this ear thermometer which would 
not have been developed if it had not been for NASA. It has helped 
physicians improve the treatment of our own children.
  I bring this device to the floor today to highlight the importance of 
this vote. This thermometer is an excellent example of the advancement 
that has developed directly from our investing in NASA.
  This is an important vote today. It is easy to say we are for 
improving people's day-to-day lives, but it is another actually to vote 
in a manner that achieves that goal. While we all are conscious of 
reining in our spending practices by cutting programs that have failed 
to meet the objective, I rise today to say that NASA is not one of 
these programs, and I urge my colleagues to support the space program 
and the space station and to allow us to continue developing critical 
technology that improves our lives.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any other amendments?


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Roemer: Page 9, line 12, through 
     page 10, line 6, amend paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       (1) For the Space Station, for expenses necessary to 
     terminate the program, for fiscal year 1998, $500,000,000.
       Page 13, line 9, strike ``308(a)'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``208(a)''.
       Page 14, line 3, strike ``308(a)'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``208(a)''.
       Page 21, line 6, strike ``$13,881,800,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$12,260,500,000''.
       Page 21, line 7, strike ``$13,925,800,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$11,816,600,000''.
       Page 21, line 18, strike ``303'' and insert in lieu thereof 
     ``203''.
       Page 23, line 21, strike ``(1) through (4)'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``(2) through (4)''.
       Page 30, line 6, strike ``308(a)'' and insert in lieu 
     thereof ``208(a)''.
       Page 31, line 13 through 18, strike section 130.
       Page 31, line 19, through page 40, line 3, strike title II.
       Page 40, line 4, redesignate title II as title II.
       Page 40, line 6, through page 74, line 17, redesignate 
     sections 301 through 322 as sections 201 through 222, 
     respectively.
       Page 2, in the table of contents, strike the item relating 
     to section 130.
       Page 2, in the table of contents, strike the item relating 
     to title II.
       Page 3, in the table of contents, redesignate title III and 
     sections 301 through 322, as title II and sections 201 
     through 222, respectively.

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on 
this amendment be limited to 1 hour, with time equally controlled by 
myself and the chairman of the committee, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is the gentleman talking about this 
amendment and all other amendments?
  Mr. ROEMER. I am talking about this particular amendment, No. 5.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Indiana?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I 
do not intend to object, let me clarify that of the time allocated to 
the proponents of the amendment, does the gentleman from Indiana intend 
to yield 15 minutes of that time to Republican supporters of the 
amendment, and then I would yield 15 minutes of my time to Democratic 
opponents of the amendment?
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. I would be happy, Mr. Chairman, to try to divide that 
equally. The sponsor of my amendment is a Republican, and it is a 
bipartisan amendment. However, I would just ask my colleague to be 
flexible with that 15 minutes, depending upon people's schedule, how 
many Republicans and Democrats we have at any given time to speak on 
the floor.
  So I will try my best to have it equally divided to answer the 
gentleman's question.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, further reserving the right to 
object, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] is saying yes and no, 
and I guess I will accept it for getting on with it.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana is talking about amendment 
No. 5 and all amendments thereto; is that correct?
  Mr. ROEMER. That is correct, on amendment No. 5.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] will each control 30 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important amendment for many reasons. We 
have all had the opportunity in a recent election to tell our 
constituents how devoted we are to balancing the budget, and we have 
all sat back home in our individual districts in Indiana and Iowa and 
California and in Maine, across this great country, that we would come 
here and work in a bipartisan way and make the tough but fair decisions 
to balance the budget. This, Mr. Chairman, is a tough decision, and it 
is fair based upon how poorly this program has performed over the last 
decade.
  Now let me give my colleagues the example, Mr. Chairman. Back in 1984 
this program started out with an $8 billion price tag. Now in 1997 it 
will cost our American taxpayer about $100 billion to finish this space 
station, $8 billion to $100 billion. That is according to the General 
Accounting Office which is a nonpartisan group of scholars and thinkers 
here that gets us research, $8 billion to $100 billion.
  That would be like an example that maybe I can relate better to, and 
some of our constituents, but because we are talking about real big 
bucks there, what about if someone as a constituent went to buy a car 
in 1984 and that car dealer said, ``Mr. Roemer, we're going to sell you 
a car for $8,000, and it's going to have power windows, it's going to 
have air-conditioning, it's going to have a tape player, it's going to 
have all these marvelous things; $8,000, sir,'' and I bought it. Now in 
1997 he comes back and says, ``Hey, I'm sorry. That car is going to 
cost you $100,000, and I am going to take the tape player away, you are 
going to have to suffer through the summertime, no air-conditioning and 
no power windows.''
  That is kind of what the space station has become. It has gone from 8 
scientific missions to 1 or 1\1/2\. It has gone from $8 billion to $100 
billion, and now the United States taxpayer has sent almost a billion 
dollars to Russia because now they are 11 months late in their 
participation in the space station, which is jacking up the cost for 
the American taxpayer.
  This is not a good deal for us. This is a terrible deal for the 
taxpayer. There is $100 billion, and more and more of it going over to 
Russia.
  Now you are going to hear, Mr. Chairman, you are going to hear this

[[Page H1836]]

argument on the floor: Well, we have already spent $18 billion, let us 
finish the job.
  How do we justify 18 billion bad dollars down a rat hole and then 
another $70 billion later on? That is what this is going to cost; $18 
billion down a rat hole and then $70 billion into a black hole in 
space. That is not a good expenditure of taxpayer dollars.
  We are also going to hear about science. We are going to hear that 
this thing is going to discover the cure to AIDS and cancer and help 
school buses. There is not anything that that space station cannot do.
  Let me read for my colleagues a couple quotes from some scientists, 
not politicians. Let me read some quotes from some scientists. This is 
a quote from a Dr. Robert Park, who is a professor of physics at the 
University of Maryland. He says:

       The greatest single obstacle to continued exploration of 
     space is the international space station. Cost overruns and 
     construction have been accommodated by postponing what little 
     science is planned for the station.

                              {time}  1345

  There is one scientist. Another scientist, Dr. Bloomfield, professor 
of physics at the University of Virginia, he says:

       The space station is an insatiable sponge for resources, 
     drawing the life and vitality from many exciting and sorely 
     needed NASA programs.

  So that the space station is cannibalizing other very, very good 
programs that are returning good science to us.
  He also states:

       We are in danger of building a fantastically expensive 
     scientific laboratory in which no important scientific work 
     will be accomplished.

  Another scientist. There seems to be some consensus of opinion from 
some of these scientists. This is Dr. Ursula Goodenough, professor of 
biological sciences. She says:

       I am an avid fan of space science and would be very happy 
     to see the international space stations appropriations go 
     instead to aerospace contracts and NASA jobs geared to the 
     further exploration of the universe, planets and earth.

  Mr. Chairman, we all talk about balancing this budget. We all talk 
about doing things in a bipartisan way. I offer this in a bipartisan 
way with the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], a Republican.
  We all talk about not having cost overruns in our programs. This is a 
$92 billion cost overrun, and the scientists are saying, we do not want 
it. Fund NIH where we are trying to do things on breast cancer and 
Parkinson's and AIDS, and where two out of four of those grants are not 
adequately funded.
  Let us solve some of these problems right here, right now, but not 
cut off space. I am very supportive of the shuttle and the Hubble and 
the great observatories and the faster and cheaper and better programs, 
and Galileo.
  All of these things can give us a presence until we find out what 
exactly our manned presence should be in the next century. Should it 
continue to be commercial rockets and the shuttle and some other kind 
of a space station that works, or should we ultimately and finally say, 
enough is enough to the American taxpayer.
  We are not getting good science out of this project, we are not 
getting a return on the dollar. Let us have the courage to take on the 
special interests, to kill this program, and move forward and give the 
men and the women of NASA who are doing tremendously good work with 85 
percent of this NASA program and budget, let us give them the 
opportunity to continue to do that good work in these other areas I 
have outlined.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that 15 
minutes of my time be yielded to the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Cramer], and that he have the right to yield portions of that time as 
he sees fit.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] gets high marks 
for persistence. This is his annual amendment to kill the space 
station. However, he gets equally low marks for his logic, because he 
wants the American taxpayer to back away from the $18 billion that we 
have already spent on the space station, leaving this house half built, 
breaking the international commitments that we have made to our closest 
allies in Western Europe, Canada, and Japan, and stiffing them the $6 
billion that they have spent out of their own funds because he says, 
``the space station has no useful purpose.''
  The space station does have a useful purpose, and it also means that 
if we build the space station, we will continue to have the United 
States of America be the leadership in manned space flight for the next 
generation.
  If the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] has his way, not only will 
America be out of manned space flight, but so will the rest of the 
world, because these programs are so expensive they have to be 
internationalized, and no other country will be able to pick that up. I 
think that would be a shame. I think it would be shocking. I think it 
would demonstrate that the United States of America is an unreliable 
partner because of the commitments that we have asked other countries 
to undertake in building the space station, and which all but Russia 
have done so and have spent their own taxpayers' money.
  If the gentleman from Indiana has his way, it is going to be a long 
time before other countries rely on the United States of America in any 
international undertaking, whether it be in space or in science or 
anything else, because if we back away from the space station now, we 
will have burned them so significantly with funds on their own.
  The gentleman from Indiana says that if we kill the space station, we 
can save a great big bunch of money. I have heard the figure $75 
billion touted about. I do not know whether that is accurate or not. 
But that includes the cost of maintaining and operating the shuttles 
that will be used for assembling the space station. That cost is going 
to be there.
  If the space station is not set up, we are going to be using the 
shuttles for other things and expending the taxpayers' money for it, so 
very little of that $75 billion is going to be saved, because we will 
be utilizing the equipment that the taxpayers have already bought and 
paid for, as well as paying for other types of microgravity research.
  The fact is that the cost of completing and operating the space 
station between now and the year 2012 will be about $23 billion for the 
United States, about $10 billion to finish the station by the year 
2002, and about $13 billion to operate it for the next 10 years. That 
includes the cost of the shuttle flights and the research in this 
total.
  We hear the argument all along that it is no-good science. Now, I 
have heard a lot of testimony of scientists in my time on the Committee 
on Science, and many of the scientists approach the Committee on 
Science saying the science that I am doing is good science and we 
should give more money to it.
  The science that other scientists are doing I think should be a much 
lower priority, and I really do not care if you defund it. So we can 
trot out scientists on each side of the argument. But let me quote what 
some of the scientists told the subcommittee of the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Rohrabacher] a couple of weeks ago.
  Dr. Larry DeLucas of the University of Alabama at Birmingham 
testified that shuttle-based microgravity research has led to ongoing 
clinical tests in drugs for the flu, stroke, and open heart surgery. 
The shuttle's maximum duration mission is 16 days. The station is 
permanent, and we can do much more research on that.
  Dr. Jane Milburn Jessup of Harvard Medical School is researching 
colon cancer through space research. Dr. Lelund Chung of the University 
of Virginia is studying prostate cancer through space research. Dr. 
Reggie Edgerton of the Division of Life Sciences at UCLA testified that 
microgravity research is already aiding studies of neurocell 
regeneration, which can help us cure or ameliorate spinal cord and 
other nerve injuries.
  I am married to a person who has a spinal cord injury, who is 
paralyzed

[[Page H1837]]

from the waist down. It is a terrible disability for anybody to have 
that kind of an injury. If we can figure out some way, any way, to help 
regenerate those neurocells following a spinal cord injury, the grief, 
the trauma, the pain that someone like my wife has to endure can be 
solved for future people who might have those kinds of injuries.
  Now, we can accelerate this research by having a permanent space 
station rather than having 16-day shuttle missions. We are building a 
space station that allows this research to be done 365 days a year. Mr. 
Chairman, I hope the Members do not back out on their previous 
commitments to the space station. I hope the Members, once again, 
reject the Roemer amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
and I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the annual Roemer 
amendment. It is springtime and he is persistent, and here we are 
again. Since I came to the Congress in 1991, we have had more than 25 
votes on this issue in the committee and on the floor, so needless to 
say, most Members of this House, except for our new Members of the 
105th have had an opportunity to hear these arguments that we make 
every year.
  I want to echo some of the comments that the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Sensenbrenner], the chairman of the Committee on Science, has made 
already. It is just too late for us to turn our back on this program. 
It would not be the responsible thing to do. I do want to make a few 
additional points for the freshman Members that may not have heard this 
debate for the first time.
  The international space station is not a new program. Even as we 
debate today, there are thousands of engineers and scientists that are 
hard at work in the United States, Canada, Japan, Europe, and Russia, 
building and testing the space station systems and components. More 
than 160,000 pounds of hardware have already been built in the United 
States alone. The program is scheduled to start launching the first 
segments of the space station next year.
  This amendment, this annual Roemer amendment, would waste all of that 
hard work and the taxpayer dollars that have been spent today on the 
station program. That is not the fiscally responsible thing to do.
  The space station makes good sense. I wish that other Members had the 
opportunity to hear the testimony of the world class scientists that 
appeared before the committee this year and other years, as well 
regarding the advances that they believe will be responsible or will be 
possible from the research conducted in the weightless environment of 
space, research that cannot be conducted here on earth.
  These potential advances span the spectrum from increased 
understanding, development of exotic new materials that could 
revolutionize any terrestrial processes, and the design of new 
pharmaceutical processes as well.
  The space station, as has been pointed out, is an international 
cooperative venture including cost-sharing by more than a dozen 
nations. If we turn our back now, our lawyers will inherit a possible 
nightmare that we will have to sort through.
  Now, there is one issue that my colleague, Mr. Roemer, will bring up 
over and over, and that is the concern in the delays over the Russian 
involvement, the Russian funding of its space station contributions. I 
believe, under the leadership of the chairman and ranking member of the 
full committee, that this bill contains tough provisions to make it 
clear to Russia that we expect them to honor their commitments to this 
program.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment. I urge Members to defeat it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], a cosponsor of the amendment and a 
Republican.
  Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer-Ganske 
amendment. On Tuesday, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and I 
were successful in our efforts to save the taxpayers $6 million when 
NASA decided to end the Bion Program. This was a small down payment on 
the $75 billion we could save by cutting the space station.
  Space station supporters say that since we have already spent $18 
billion, well, we cannot stop now. I disagree. Now is the time to stop 
throwing money into this black hole. It would be doing our allies a 
favor if we killed this jobs program now.
  Despite repeated promises, the Russians still have not paid for 
critical space station components. As a result, the first space station 
launch will be delayed at least 11 months. The space station is already 
$300 million over budget for the next 2 years. Congress imposed a 
spending cap which lost its teeth before we even launched the first 
piece of hardware.
  The sad truth is that if we do not cancel the space station, it will 
continue to be the Pac-Man that eats up everything else at the expense 
of important other NASA programs.
  I believe the Federal Government does have a role in space research, 
but in this case, the space station will ultimately, in my opinion, 
impede our knowledge of outer space because it will eat up those funds 
for unmanned space exploration.

                              {time}  1400

  Let me explain briefly why I think the Space Station will not fulfill 
the scientific goals first envisioned.
  First, if we look at the physical sciences, years of research on the 
shuttle and on Mir have produced no evidence that microgravity offers 
any advantage for processing or manufacturing. The few experiments in 
areas such as turbulence and fluid phase transitions that might benefit 
from a microgravity environment could be conducted on unmanned 
platforms or the shuttle.
  Turning to life sciences, experiments on the shuttle and Mir have 
established that diverse organisms can go through their full life cycle 
in a microgravity environment. This fundamental question of whether 
important biological processes can occur in microgravity has already 
been answered. The answer is yes.
  It is also no surprise that vestibular organs, bones, muscles of 
larger mammals, are affected by microgravity. We have known that as 
physicians for years. If we have a bedridden patient, they lose bone 
mass. There is no evidence, however, that studies of these effects have 
contributed to an understanding of how organisms function on Earth.
  The possibility of growing better protein crystals is often cited as 
a benefit of the space station. Such crystals are important in 
determining the molecular structure of proteins. However, years of 
growing protein crystals on the shuttle and on Mir have made no 
discernible contribution to determining any new structure.
  Mr. Chairman, we came to Washington to make some tough choices. I 
hope my colleagues will agree with me that it is necessary to ground 
this orbiting erector set. One of my heroes when I was an undergraduate 
at the University of Iowa was Dr. James van Allen, discoverer of the 
van Allen radiation belt.
  I talked to him yesterday about the space station. He pointed out 
that the principal scientific achievements of NASA have been 
accomplished by unmanned exploration: Galileo, Viking, Pioneer, 
Voyager, the Mariner missions. The exceptions have been Hubble, which 
has needed some maintenance, and Apollo. But he also pointed out that 
the Russians brought back rock samples from the Moon with unmanned 
missions.
  Dr. van Allen told me, ``The Space Station purposes are grossly 
incommensurate with the cost.'' I think that says it all.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas [Mr. Brady].
  Mr. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, like other fiscal conservatives, I find this 
amendment attractive on its surface. But a closer look reveals and has 
repeatedly shown that the scientific criticism is not valid and the 
cost savings are exaggerated. Killing the space station at this point 
in its life would ultimately prove to be penny wise yet pound foolish.

[[Page H1838]]

  We all know that major leaps in mankind's progress require a major 
commitment over a long time and an ability to look beyond the immediate 
horizon. The international space station is no different. This is a 
fiscally responsible investment which will produce real benefits for 
American families.
  While the space station is long-term in nature, the return on our 
investment is significant and very well worth making: in new drugs to 
battle our most stubborn diseases; in knowledge to protect and preserve 
our earth's environment; and in the potential for a vast number of new 
jobs for the 21st century resulting from the commercial opportunities 
in space.
  We cannot afford not to continue this investment, this critical 
investment in America's future. I respectfully urge my colleagues to 
defeat this amendment and continue our historic support for the space 
station.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin, Mr. Tom Barrett.
  Mr. BARRETT of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud my 
colleagues, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] and particularly the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] for consistently fighting this very 
lonely fight.
  This fight reminds me a lot of that childhood story of the emperor 
has no clothes, because the gentleman from Indiana in particular has 
stood by the side of this parade now for many, many years.
  When this parade first started, this emperor space station was 
walking down the street and we were told that this is cloaked in fiscal 
responsibility, that this is a responsible project, it costs $8 
billion. Of course, we saw that it was not a real cloak. The emperor's 
space station was wearing no clothes at that time.
  So what happened several years later? We were told this is the 
greatest thing since the polio vaccine, that we are going to solve all 
the problems in the world with this. Again, the emperor space station 
has no clothes.
  Then they had a close call 2 years ago, 215, 214. Now we had all 
sorts of new bells and whistles and balloons that went in this parade, 
and we were told this is going to help us reach world peace because we 
are going to work with the Russians, and by working with the Russians 
we are going to really move forward.
  What have we seen in the last month? The emperor space station has no 
clothes. Those opponents of the space station have a tough fight. There 
are powerful forces that create jobs in parts of the country for people 
because of the space station.
  I have no problem with the jobs program. But if all this is a jobs 
program, let us call it that and let us spread the money out evenly 
throughout the United States. But the time has come for Congress to say 
that the emperor space station has no clothes, and to end this economic 
folly.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown], the ranking member of the full committee.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, sometimes I have difficulty determining what the value 
of these perennial debates are, but being an eternal optimist, I am 
going to assume that they will result in some enlightenment on those 
who have not been sufficiently informed.
  Mr. Chairman, the history is subject to a lot of debate. It is true 
that, as with every project I have been associated with over the last 
30-odd years, there are misrepresentations made, not intentionally but 
necessarily, as to what the final cost and parameters of any project 
like this will be, and the space station is one of those.
  We are finding out some interesting things. It represents some 
breakthroughs which we did not anticipate. for example, the inclusion 
of the Russians was never planned, it was serendipitous, and it may 
have some beneficial effects. There were over-promises made about what 
the research would do, but nobody questions the fact that there will be 
valuable results from the research.
  The most important thing is that if Members really believe that there 
is any potential for human activity in space, it has to have a space 
station. There is no other way that you can gain the experience both of 
creating the infrastructure to house these humans, and for humans to 
get the experience which will allow them to function in a near-Earth 
orbit, far-Earth orbit, on the surface of the Moon, on Mars, anywhere 
else. We have to start. Killing the space station kills the start. We 
would say, in effect, we abdicate any future for humans in space.
  The opponents have made some statements about costs, that it is going 
to cost I think the figure is $75 million more to complete the space 
station. The life of the space station is anticipated to be between 10 
to 15 years, so what we are saying is that it is going to cost more 
than twice as much per year after the space station is built as it is 
costing for the space station to be built. That is ridiculous on its 
surface.
  Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is that we are going to build 
this space station for something fairly close to the original cost, and 
then we are going to maintain it for 10 to 15 years. We are going to 
fly the shuttle to it several times a year. We are going to put new 
supplies, new experiments, new other things up there.
  All of this costs money, it is not going to cost $75 billion. But 
even if it does cost a fraction of that, half that, say, this is not 
building the space station, this is operating the space station for the 
purpose of which it was built: namely, to expand human abilities to 
live and work and produce new knowledge for the whole of human culture 
in the environment of space, which will be a landmark in the history of 
the human culture, and it is worth the effort we are making today.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I gladly yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Camp], a Republican.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me, and I thank him for his efforts in this matter.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer-Ganske amendment. This 
November NASA will begin to launch $94 billion into orbit. This is a 
project plagued with delays, cost overruns, and unfulfilled promises. 
Russian assurances have fallen short, and the American taxpayer has 
been left holding the bag. We cannot afford this big budget action 
adventure in space.
  The space station, originally budgeted at $8 billion, has become the 
black hole of the taxes of hardworking Americans. It threatens our 
ability to balance the budget. Space is infinite, but our resources are 
not.
  It is time for Congress to get its spending priorities in order, and 
admit that we cannot afford a $94 billion playground in space. We need 
to get serious about what the core functions of the Federal Government 
are while we continue to run budget deficits year after year, and have 
a national debt of almost $5.3 trillion.
  We are all amazed by the promises of space exploration and the 
excitement the space station generates. We should be amazed at the 
$200,000 every child in this country owes in interest on the national 
debt during their lifetime. Congress should invest this $94 billion in 
our children's future.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Hall], my very dedicated colleague.
  (Mr. HALL of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, once again we have a bad amendment 
offered by some good guys.
  Mr. Chairman, opponents of the space station say the station is going 
to cost the American taxpayers $94 billion by 2012, as Chairman Brown 
has pointed out and Chairman Sensenbrenner has pointed out, rather than 
the $8 billion for construction in 1994. What are the facts?
  I think we need to go back over the facts one more time. The redesign 
over the past couple of years has lowered the expected cost. That is a 
hard, cold fact. The project is two-thirds completed. It is a matter of 
math. The $94 billion figure is an overstatement because it adds 
projected operating expenses to the cost of construction.
  As the chairman has noted in a Dear Colleague that we received some 
time ago, American taxpayers have invested about $18 billion in the 
international space station, and we are more than halfway through 
building the hardware

[[Page H1839]]

we need. We will spend another $10 billion to complete the space 
station in 2002, and $13 billion to operate it until the year 2012, Mr. 
Chairman, for a total of $23 billion.
  This year's funding, like last year's funding, cost each American an 
average of 2.2 cents a day. If Members want to hear a real outcry from 
young America, cancel this space station. The cost of terminating the 
project would be far greater, thousands of jobs would be lost, and the 
potential for creating new high-technology industry would absolutely be 
lost. We also would lose the hope of curing diseases and making other 
scientific discoveries that could save or enhance the lives of everyone 
in our planet. We lose far more by terminating the space station than 
we do by keeping it.
  Opponents of that have stated that reliance on unstable partners like 
Russia could jeopardize the project. Of course, I have concern over 
their instability. But the truth is that Russian participation is still 
needed. It is very important, because of the expertise they bring to 
the project.
  The Committee on Science unanimously adopted an amendment offered by 
the chairman and the ranking member, the gentleman from California, 
[George Brown], that addresses the Russian problem. Their amendment 
prohibits U.S. funding of work pledged to be done by Russia. It 
requires NASA to develop a contingency plan should the Russians 
default, and requires the President to make a decision by August 1, 
1997, on whether to proceed with permanent replacements for the Russian 
items. I think they have covered the waterfront. It also directs NASA 
to certify that Mir meets U.S. safety standards.
  We also have to consider that we have other partners who have 
committed billions of dollars toward the space station: Japan, Canada, 
and the European community. This is an international station. Russia is 
only one of the many worthy participants.
  The opponents also argue that the project has questionable scientific 
merit. What are the facts? Biomedical and materials research in space 
has very impressive results. The ability to provide a permanent manned 
platform for conducting research has the potential for far greater 
rewards.
  We need to remember that we must pursue our dream. We must pursue 
this dream. Out of splitting the atom we got the MRI and the CAT scan. 
We have to keep going forward. We have to keep our heads up. We have to 
keep following the star that might really be a deliverance to all of 
the people, to young and old, future and present.
  The space station began as a dream, but through hard work, careful 
planning and the financial commitment of many nations, it became a 
reality. The space station represents an investment in our future.
  As we prepare for the many challenges of the 21st century and 
continue to battle many of the problems of the 20th century, the space 
station represents the combined hopes of many nations that we will find 
some of the answers beyond the Earth's atmosphere.

                              {time}  1415

  I urge my colleagues to oppose the Roemer-Ganske amendment and 
support the international space station.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska [Mr. Christensen], a pretty good basketball player, a 
Republican.
  Mr. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Indiana for 
yielding me the time.
  This has been a lonely fight for my friend, and it has gradually 
caught support. I am looking forward to helping him on this fight.
  I am hearing a lot of the arguments that remind me of the arguments 
that I watched on TV a few years ago about the superconducting super 
collider, the great atom smasher down in Texas. If that was the 
boondoggle of the 1980's, this program must be the boondoggle of the 
1990's. Because by every cost estimate that I have seen, it is way over 
budget. It is not getting the promised results that we had hoped for.
  We can disagree on whether it is $94 billion or $74 billion or $84 
billion, but it has run over cost. It is a year behind. The Russians 
have not lived up to their part of the deal, but we keep funding it 
because it is two-thirds done.
  I am not sure that is the best philosophy and the best argument to be 
selling here. Maybe there is some other issue we could be talking 
about. The facts are, it is overdone; it is overrun. They have not 
lived up to the bargain.
  We need to take a look at the fiscal responsibility of this Congress. 
We are $5.4 trillion in debt. Do we keep funding a program because it 
is already there, just because it is there, mainly because it is set in 
Florida and Texas and California? Or do we really look at some of the 
scientific aspects and can we accomplish those in a much more economic 
manner?
  I really applaud the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the 
gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] for putting effort into this. Maybe 
this year, with the help of other Members on both sides of the aisle, 
we can pass this bill and pass this amendment. But I do look forward to 
a good argument and I respect both sides.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas [Mr. Bentsen], a strong advocate for NASA and the space station.
  (Mr. BENTSEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to echo the comments made by my 
senior Member, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Hall].
  I hate to have to oppose an amendment by my good friend, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], but the fact is that we have 
invested about $18 billion in a program which from my viewpoint appears 
to work. It would be one thing if we were investing funds year in and 
year out and showing no results to walk away from the program, but that 
is not what is going on here.
  We are looking at a program where we are building up, where it is 
going to work, and it would be a grave mistake and really a bad 
business decision for us to walk away at this point, to break the 
contracts, to say that we are not going to go forward.
  The gentleman from California [Mr. Brown], the ranking Democrat, is 
also correct that if we are going to continue as a nation to lead the 
world in space exploration, we are the only ones that are going to do 
it, as the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] said. And if we 
do not do it with this, as the gentleman from California [Mr. Brown] 
says, if we do not build the station, we will stop at this point and we 
will lose ground.
  I think it would be a very serious mistake. Yes, we have spent the 
vast majority of the money, and we made progress. Yes, two-thirds of 
the hardware has been developed. Yes, there are problems with the 
Russians. I think having the Russians involved in this as well as all 
the other nations involved in this program is good foreign policy for 
America.
  If the Russians fall out, we have contingency plans in place, but I 
do not think we should focus the argument solely on the Russian 
problem. We can take care of that if they fall out of it, but it is 
still incumbent upon the United States to lead.
  I would encourage my colleagues to once again defeat this amendment. 
It is not going to balance the budget. We are fooling ourselves if we 
think that it is. We have to prioritize the budget and find where we 
can make cuts, but we have to keep the country moving forward at the 
same time.
  I would also urge my colleagues on the subsequent amendment offered 
by my friend, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], with regard to 
the agreements with the Russians, that we defeat that and pass the 
authorization.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee [Mr. Duncan].
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. Like 
so many Federal programs, Congress was given a low-ball figure at the 
first and was told in 1984 that this program would cost only $8 
billion. Now the General Accounting Office, not our figures but the 
figures from the General Accounting Office tell us that the cost will 
be at least $94 billion. Some estimates of the ultimate cost when all 
expenses are figured in are much, much higher. James J. Kilpatrick, 
nationally syndicated columnist, said: This is ``pure folly and that 
the cost itself has now gone into orbit.'' This project will ultimately 
be the most expensive single project ever funded by the Federal

[[Page H1840]]

Government, and that is really saying something.
  An editorial in the Washington Post in 1991, when the cost estimates 
were much lower than now, said this ``The diversion of $30 billion 
would be a sad thing even if the Federal Government had money to burn. 
Money for the space station will have to be squeezed out of other 
research of value to society and to science, including space science.''
  Mr. Chairman, we do not have money to burn. We need to support this 
amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida [Mr. Weldon].
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to 
the Roemer amendment.
  We have heard a number of points made repeatedly today that I would 
like to address, one of them being that this project somehow costs $100 
or $90 billion. To say that this project costs that much money would be 
similar to saying that the Louisiana Purchase did not cost $14 million. 
It cost billions of dollars for all of those settlers to move into the 
West and build all those cities. Included in that figure is the cost of 
all the shuttle missions and all of the research that is going to be 
done on the space station. It is very, very unfair to make those kinds 
of comparisons.
  We heard firsthand in our committee the tremendous amount of good 
quality scientific research that will be possible on the space station. 
We research into areas like the treatment of existing diseases, 
development of new technologies that can help deal with problems like 
spinal cord injuries and bone disease and heart disease.
  I would also like to point out that there have been a number of 
Members who have mentioned about all these cost overruns that have 
occurred in the program already. The vast majority of those cost 
overruns were caused by this body redesigning the space station over 
and over and over again. Once we, the House of Representatives, stopped 
monkeying with it, lo and behold, NASA has been able to stay on budget 
and on schedule. They have done a darn good job on it.
  Finally I would like to say one additional thing. I believe when 
Queen Isabella was approached about funding Columbus, there were those 
who said, no, no, no, do not do it. Each time he wanted to go back, 
there were people who said do not give him any more money. Likewise, 
during the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Programs, I know that there were 
Members in this body, probably motivated by the fact that the program 
had absolutely no funding coming into their district, chose to oppose 
it and vote against it. I am sure none of those Members today would 
stand up and speak proudly of the fact that they were opposed to one of 
the greatest accomplishments in the history of American exploration.
  I encourage Members to vote against Roemer.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Upton], my good friend and a Cubs fan.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I prefer to talk about the Wolverines 
instead of the Cubs, I would have to say, this year.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer-Ganske 
amendment. Before I was in the Congress, this Congress made the 
decision to go ahead with the space station; but when they made the 
decision to go ahead with it, I in fact worked at the Office of 
Management and Budget. And I remember well the argument that took place 
within the Office of Management and Budget in terms of what the cost 
was going to be. The suggested cost was about $8 billion. Then it was 
$12, then it was $15, now I understand we have spent $18 billion 
already. Three years ago I took to this floor and argued in support of 
this amendment, they were saying then that the cost was going to be $45 
billion. I come today and it is $94 billion. No, that is not million, 
that is billion dollars.
  I listened to the comments of the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] 
today about one of the great NASA supporters of all time, Dr. van 
Allen, what he had to say. It is not worth the bang for the buck. I can 
remember talking to some of my colleagues in the past years about how 
this amendment or how this space station is so important for the 
advancement of science. They said: Fred, go back to your districts and 
talk to your pharmaceutical folks, talk to some of the people there and 
find out what this science will do.
  I did. And they came back and they said, it is not worth the bang for 
the buck. It is not worth it; $94 billion.
  Mr. Chairman, we have heard from a lot of newspapers, and some of 
them have suggested that we just simply vote for the continuation of 
this program to keep the dream alive. Well, I have to say something, 
that when we see a budget increase grow from $8 billion to $94 billion, 
it sounds more like a nightmare, it does not sound like a dream. The 
Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Citizens Against Government Waste all 
say support the Roemer amendment. As we think about our children and 
their future, the $5.5 trillion national debt, the almost $300 billion 
that we are going to spend on interest. We have to start making some 
tough choices. One of those is supporting this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer] has 11\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Cramer] has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Sensenbrenner] has 6 minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey [Mrs. Roukema].
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer-
Ganske amendment. At an estimated cost of $94 billion, this space 
station has become Congress's latest sacred cow. And this at a time 
when we are trying to balance the budget, we are cutting very important 
social programs and we are substantially cutting other research 
projects.
  I rise in strong support of the Roemer-Ganske amendment to terminate 
space station funding. Simple put, the Space Station Program is a 
luxury item the United States cannot afford when the national debt 
exceeds $4.5 trillion.
  At an estimated cost of $94 billion, the space station has become 
Congress' new sacred cow, at a time when we are trying to balance the 
budget and important social programs and other research projects are 
being deeply cut, it is unconscionable that once again this bill 
includes full funding of the space station which is already vast 
billions over the original estimates.
  It is absolutely unconscionable that we are again including full 
funding for this which is already vast billions over the original 
estimates.
  The Space Station Program is so fundamentally flawed that when 
President Clinton selected a new scaled-back design for the space 
station in 1994, the chosen design satisfied only one of the eight 
original design objectives. Despite the substantial redesign, 
scientists across the spectrum remain critical of the station because 
of its costs and irrelevance to real science. Many contend that the 
research proposed for the station could be conducted for far less money 
on the space shuttle, on smaller spacecraft, or through the use of 
satellites, with the money saved being used for projects having more 
scientific merit or for environmental protection, housing needs, 
emergency food and shelter programs, veterans programs, and deficit 
reduction.
  This is despite the fact that continuous redefinition of the goals 
and designs have inflated the cost of this project more than $86 
billion. The originally cost being $8 billion, with construction 
scheduled for 1994. Now, the Government Accounting Office estimates 
that it will cost the American taxpayers $94 billion to build the space 
station by 2012.
  Taxpayers have already spent $18 billion on the space station since 
1984, with few tangible results. Furthermore, with NASA's poor track 
record on cost-overruns, it is doubtful that NASA has any idea how much 
it will cost American taxpayers to maintain and operate the space 
station.
  With reference to Mr. Sensenbrenner's remarks which characterizes the 
space station as the primary source of research for medical procedures. 
Please, if we were to put a fraction of these billions on medical 
research here at home. Instead we are cutting medical research in our 
pressing need to balance the budget.
  We need the space station $4.2 billion here on Earth. I urge my 
colleagues support of this important amendment.
  Come back to Earth--we can't keep chattering about balancing the 
budget.
  Threatening to take food out of the mouths of little babies--the WIC 
Program cutbacks,

[[Page H1841]]

while still funding this enormous pork barrel--lets use some common 
sense and set our priorities so that the people will again respect this 
elected body and trust us to keep our word.
  Now, both the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and the gentleman 
from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] have fully and rationally explained the 
alternative programs that are conducting research. They have explained 
the deficiencies in the space station project. They have adequately 
outlined the fact that the authoritative scientific community is deeply 
split on this project. But I would like to refer in my limited time to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] comments and others 
who have referred specifically to medical research projects leaving the 
impression here with our colleagues that this is the only source of 
research funding for new medical procedures. That is not anywhere near 
accurate.
  The gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske] spoke eloquently to that 
subject. But, let me put it this way. If we were to put only a fraction 
of those billions of dollars into the medical research here at home, we 
would be doing vast good for the American people. Instead, we are 
cutting medical research in our very pressing need to balance the 
budget.
  That brings me to the point. Come on back down to Earth. We cannot 
keep chattering about balancing the budget and threatening to take food 
out of the mouths of little babies and cutting enormous amounts from 
other medical research projects when we are funding this enormous pork 
barrel. Let us call it what it is, pork barrel. Let us use some common 
sense and set our priorities so that the people will again respect this 
elected body and trust us to keep our promises.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. LoBiondo].
  (Mr. LoBIONDO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Roemer amendment to terminate funding for the international space 
station. In my view the space station is not a responsible use of 
taxpayer dollars. It was originally projected to cost $8 billion. 
Recent estimates put the price tag at $94 billion. The $18 billion that 
has been spent thus far in construction only began in 1995.

                              {time}  1430

  It is time for the taxpayers to cut their losses. Eliminating the 
program now will save $78 billion, four times what has been spent this 
far, dollars that are desperately needed for programs here at home. 
NASA is projecting the space station budget to be an average of 75 
percent over budget from what they originally planned.
  As somebody who spent over 25 years in a small business, I find that 
spending dollars wisely and cost efficiently is not only critical, it 
is essential. While I think our space program can provide significant 
scientific contributions to society, I do not think the space station 
is worth the price.
  Of the eight original scientific objectives for the program, only two 
remain, just two out of the eight. Many of the proposed experiments can 
be done on unmanned satellites or aboard the space shuttle for just a 
fraction of the cost.
  NASA now says that the primary reason to build the space station is 
for the sake of learning how to build a Space Station. In the wake of 
our $5 trillion national debt, I do not think we can afford to pursue a 
multibillion dollar endeavor of questionable scientific merit.
  I hope my colleagues will make their stands for the taxpayers today 
and vote for the Roemer amendment, because once again, my colleagues, 
as we struggle with how to find sufficient dollars for education, for 
seniors, for our environment, this spending is critical.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida, [Mr. Stearns].
  (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, I have heard some of these arguments. The 
problem is that this project is two-thirds complete in operation. We 
are not talking about something like the super collider here where we 
are just starting it and then we killed it. Even then there were large 
termination fees. Here is a project that is two-thirds complete into 
the operation.
  Now, these folks keep talking about a $92 billion overrun. That is 
over 15 years. That is about $6 billion a year. This is a project that 
we are almost already about to see the light at the end of the tunnel, 
so I think we are too far along to consider terminating it. It may be 
$92 billion in overruns, however it turns out to be a very small number 
over the 15-year period.
  This amendment lost by 65 percent last year in the 104th Congress. I 
will bet that the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] and everybody 
else in the House would love to win an election by 65 percent. The 
majority of people here in Congress believe this space program is a 
good project, yet time and time again the gentleman, Mr. Roemer brings 
this up. I will bet on the last day of the project the gentleman will 
bring up the fact that we have to shut this program down. Another thing 
is that we will not be able to shut this project down because of our 
agreements with many, many countries.
  I would point out to those that keep coming to the House floor and 
saying this is fiscally irresponsible to push this space station, I 
went back to the vote on the National Endowment for the Arts on June 
22, 1994, and almost without an exception these people could not even 
reduce and do away with a program that was $160 million. We are not 
talking billions, we are talking about millions.
  In fact, my good friend from Indiana did not agree to substantially 
reduce or shut down the National Endowment for the Arts.
  Another point I want to make is that we are talking about a program 
that only is $23 billion to completion. So we are not talking about 
billions and billions of dollars, but $10 billion for completing it and 
$13 billion for the operation for the next 10 years.
  My friends, there is no parallel between this and the super collider. 
We have promises we have made to other countries. We must keep them.
  Author J.G. Holland said, ``Heaven is not reached by a single bound. 
But we build the ladder by which we rise.'' We are currently building 
that ladder, in a series of bounds. What we find at the top of this 
ladder will inspire future generations to imagine, explore, and 
actually see, first hand, the unprecedented advances that the space 
station will provide. We must retain funding for the space station. I 
urge a ``no'' vote on the Roemer-Ganske amendment.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Sherman] who is a new Member and new to this debate.
  (Mr. SHERMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, when Columbus set sail, 
about two-thirds of the way into the journey a group of his sailors 
rose up and urged that the project be defunded. America would not be 
here today if that amendment had not been defeated.
  There are many reasons to support the International Space Station. It 
is a way for us to build bridges with other countries, including former 
adversaries. It is a way to build our own aerospace industry, which is 
already our leading source of exports.
  I wish my colleagues had been able to join me at Rocketdyne, where I 
saw how they are developing batteries for a space station that could 
well lead to breakthroughs in an electric automobile.
  We will find cures for diseases, perhaps AIDS, cancer, influenza, or 
diabetes. Most important of all, humankind belongs in space. The space 
station is our stepping stone to where we belong in the next millennia.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I would inquire how much time is left.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer] has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] has 4 minutes remaining; and the gentleman from Alabama 
[Mr. Cramer] has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, let me just say, first of all, that I am delighted that 
we have been able to, for the most part, conduct

[[Page H1842]]

this debate in a very civil and bipartisan way. A number of Republicans 
and Democrats have stood up on both sides of this great Chamber and 
disagreed on whether or not to support this particular amendment. I 
would urge my colleagues to support this amendment to cancel the space 
station.
  A number of groups that are devoted day in and day out to deficit 
reduction support this legislation, and let me read a few of them. This 
amendment is endorsed by the Taxpayers for Common Sense, the National 
Taxpayers Union, the Citizens Against Government Waste, the Concord 
Coalition, and the Citizens for a Sound Economy.
  Now, Mr. Chairman, those groups do not go around, I do not think, 
saying we need to spend more money here and protect these jobs, and we 
need to do a little more money here, and would you please vote for this 
increase across the board here. Their mission, which is a difficult one 
in America today, is to try to get to a balanced budget.
  We all come here, Democrats and Republicans alike, and we all talk 
about balancing that budget, but then we delay some of the tough votes. 
I think this is an appropriate vote to signal to our Democratic 
leadership at the White House and here in the House and over in the 
other body and to the Republican leadership in this body and over in 
the other body that we want these talks to balance the budget to 
continue; that we are willing to make tough choices over here; and that 
we can anticipate even tougher choices coming at us in the next few 
weeks.
  There are going to be proposals to cut different defense projects. 
There have already been proposals in the Committee on Appropriations to 
cut the WIC Program for women, infants and children. We will see 
proposals to cut back on different discretionary spending programs for 
education.
  This is the choice, ladies and gentlemen. We can vote to cut a 
program like this that is $75 to $80 billion over budget; that has gone 
from eight scientific missions to 1 or 1\1/2\; that is not performing 
the way that the taxpayers deserve; and that is going to send off 
almost $1 billion to Russia of our taxpayers money under the guise of 
the NASA budget.
  Now, I think that is not such a tough choice. I think we should send 
a signal to the American people and the respective Democratic and 
Republican leadership that we are serious about deficit reduction; that 
we will make tough choices; and that we are going to make fair choices, 
and they are not going to be choices that hurt children and hurt 
families and hurt those that need a safety net.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, yes, it is my annual fight; yes, when 
the springtime comes and the cherry blossoms are out, I offer this 
amendment, and I do it because I believe it is the right thing to do. I 
believe that for the taxpayer, for the United States of America, and 
for good science we should kill this project. I would encourage my 
colleagues to take a good look at this, to read their DSG, which really 
outlines the arguments on both sides, and vote a tough vote that will 
upset some special interest groups. It might take away some support, 
but it will resonate with the American people that we need to balance 
the budget.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio 
[Mr. Kucinich], also a new voice in this debate.
  (Mr. KUCINICH asked for and was given permission to revise and extend 
his remarks.)
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, skepticism is a healthy expression in a 
democracy, but skepticism should never permit us to stop reaching 
upward in establishing new frontiers. In the words of the poet, ``A 
man's reach should exceed his grasp or what is a heaven for?''
  We should not let skepticism blind the American willingness and 
ability to envision a better future. In the words of the prophet 
Isaiah, ``Without vision, a people perish.'' We, in this Congress, are 
called upon to see the health care benefits, to see the medical 
technology benefits, to see the industrial technology benefits which 
comes from the space program.
  We are called to join with those visionaries who have given this 
country the ability to adapt to an undreamed of future. America's 
destiny is to keep reaching onward and upward.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee], a very dedicated member of the committee.
  (Ms. JACKSON-LEE) of Texas asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman from 
Indiana [Mr. Roemer] he is a good friend, and I recognize that this is 
an annual rite of passage. But let me join with my colleague by saying 
that the American people do have vision and we will not perish.
  NASA and the space station represents success, success in efficiency, 
success in downsizing effectively, success in outsourcing and giving 
opportunity to commercial enterprises, success in microgravity 
research, where finite results help in our pharmaceutical industry, 
success in health research that helps diabetes, AIDS, health disease, 
and cancer.
  Finally, might I say, what will we do with $500 million to destroy 
the program? That is down a hole and we will never find it. Let us save 
the space station, for it is for our children, it is for our future, it 
is for our health, it is the right thing to do. The space station 
deserves our further consideration. It is a vision for tomorrow. It is 
a vision of America.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). The gentleman from Alabama [Mr. 
Cramer] has 30 seconds remaining.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Texas, [Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson].
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, let me simply say 
that my colleague here is right when he wants to stop a lot of the 
spending. I fully agree, but I do not want to stop it where there is a 
penny-wise and a pound-foolish.
  We have gone into the unknown in research, all of our existence as a 
nation. This research has brought us many answers. If we do not explore 
the unknown, we cannot remain on the cutting edge, we cannot continue 
to battle diseases that plague us and the viruses and all.
  We also know that we can commercialize many of the products and offer 
jobs and give good income for our country. I fully support the space 
station.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson, has expired. All time that was yielded to the 
gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Cramer] has expired.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the final 4 minutes to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Rohrabacher], the subcommittee chairman.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
[Mr. Sensenbrenner] for yielding the time.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, I would like to congratulate the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer], who again has drawn our attention 
to the fact that we should not rubberstamp any major programs or even 
minor programs that go through the House of Representatives. His 
diligence over the years has prevented us from becoming complacent. His 
diligence has ensured that we have tried to make this program, to the 
very best of our ability, to be as cost effective and as efficiently 
run as possible, if nothing else, to detour the criticism of the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] that comes up on the floor every 
year.
  To that regard, he is serving a useful function, and this is a very 
fine example of bipartisan democracy at work in the sense there are 
people on both sides of the issues and we have people who are very 
sincere in what they are trying to say.
  I may have agreed with the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] had we 
been making this decision 10 years ago or 12 years ago. I may have 
agreed with him perhaps even 8 years ago, perhaps. But today we have 
gone down the road, and to turn back now after this long journey has 
only begun but as we are halfway down the road to the destination would 
be irresponsible on our part and would actually cause more waste than 
what the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] would save by cutting the 
program.

[[Page H1843]]

  The gentleman from Indiana suggests that he supports the shuttle 
program, but many of the savings that he talks about that would be 
saved as part of slicing off the Space Station Program were achieved 
only by the fact that the space shuttle would not be used to put the 
space station up; the shuttle would be used for other things, as well.

                              {time}  1445

  We will not make savings in that area until we develop a new and less 
costly way of putting people and payloads into space, which is 
something we are trying to do in our budget.
  The international space station will be a magnificent technological 
achievement of historic proportions. It will be of significance, 
historical significance. People will remember that it was this 
generation that stepped forward and placed our first frontier post, 
manned frontier post into the next frontier. It is from that post, it 
is from this penetration of that great barrier, that great frontier 
that now is beyond us and confronts us, that will be the moment that 
people will say, this is where the conquest of space began for this 
generation.
  Whatever great leap forward mankind has ever taken has always had a 
situation where there were people who, No. 1, said that we should not 
go, or, No. 2, this is not the right method, or as the program 
proceeded, they were doubters about the program and doubters about the 
specific goal that the people had in mind.
  Six years ago, I sat on this floor and we came very close to 
canceling the C-17 project. The C-17, which is a magnificent aircraft, 
an aircraft that now ensures that the United States is the No. 1 
aerospace power in the world, that we can project our forces anywhere 
in the world now, and people all over the world look to us in awe of 
this great achievement.
  The C-17 almost went down for the same arguments that the gentleman 
from Indiana [Mr. Roemer] is now making against the space station. 
After that vote, my father called me. My father was a pioneer in air 
transport aviation. He flew DC-3's all over the Pacific in World War 
II. He reminded me that every time they had come up with a new 
aircraft, there had been cost overruns, there had been kinks in the 
program, and there had been problems that were unforeseen and they had 
to overcome those problems and overcome the naysayers in order to make 
those achievements.
  We must overcome our doubters to make this next great achievement for 
mankind, the great achievement that will be in the history books, a 
manned space station. This is our job.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Quinn). All time having expired, the 
question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 112, 
noes 305, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 90]

                               AYES--112

     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Carson
     Chabot
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cunningham
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Dellums
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ensign
     Evans
     Fattah
     Foglietta
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gutierrez
     Hamilton
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Inglis
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klug
     LaFalce
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Levin
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     McCarthy (MO)
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Molinari
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Neumann
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Poshard
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schaffer, Bob
     Schumer
     Shays
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Solomon
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tierney
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Woolsey

                               NOES--305

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fawell
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Fox
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hobson
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Livingston
     Lofgren
     Lucas
     Maloney (CT)
     Manton
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHale
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     Meek
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Ortiz
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Sisisky
     Skaggs
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Adam
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Stump
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Andrews
     Bishop
     Clement
     Cubin
     Furse
     Hefner
     Hoekstra
     Manzullo
     Porter
     Schiff
     Smith (OR)
     Tanner
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Weldon (PA)
     Yates

                              {time}  1509

  The Clerk announced the following pair:
  On this vote:

       Ms. Velazquez for, with Mr. Towns against.

  Mr. SKAGGS and Mr. SALMON changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Messrs. OWENS, SHUSTER, SCHUMER, and DELLUMS changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. HINOJOSA. Mr. Chairman, today on rollcall vote No. 90 I was 
recorded as voting ``yes.'' I meant to cast a ``no'' vote. I oppose 
eliminating funding for the space station. This is a project which has 
my wholehearted support.


                    amendment offered by mr. roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:


[[Page H1844]]


       Amendment offered by Mr. Roemer:
       Page 40, after line 3, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 206. CANCELLATION OF RUSSIAN PARTNERSHIP.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator shall terminate all contracts and 
     other agreements with the Russian Government necessary to 
     remove the Russian Government as a partner in the 
     International Space Station program. The National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration shall not enter into a new 
     partnership with the Russian Government relating to the 
     International Space Station. Nothing in this section shall 
     prevent the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     from accepting participation by the Russian Government or 
     Russian entities on a commercial basis as provided in section 
     202. Nothing in this section shall prevent the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration from purchasing elements 
     of the International Space Station directly from Russian 
     contractors.
       Page 2, in the table of contents, after the item relating 
     to section 205, insert the following:

``Sec. 206. Cancellation of Russian partnership.''.

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very, very simple. All it 
does is to cancel out the Russian participation in the international 
space station.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is simple and concise. It simply says 
that the Russians have not fulfilled their obligation under the 
contract of an international space station and, therefore, we should 
cancel the Russians out of this participation.

                              {time}  1515

  Simply put, in the amendment it says: However, nothing in this 
section shall prevent NASA from accepting participation from the 
Russian Government or Russian entities on a commercial basis as 
provided in section 202. That means they could be a tenant. They could 
add on something to the international space station.
  Mr. Chairman, they are 11 months behind in fulfilling their fiduciary 
responsibility to the American taxpayer and to NASA to build the 
service module. The service module would keep the rest of the space 
station up, yet they have not built it, so the American taxpayer is 
going to assume the costs.
  Now, there is a great line in the movie ``Jerry McGuire,'' and it is 
exchanged between the Academy Award winner, Cuba Gooding, and Tom 
Cruise. And he yells at the top of his lungs to Tom Cruise: Show me the 
money. He is yelling over and over, show me the money.
  This relationship that we have between NASA and the United States 
could best be termed, throw me some money. Throw me money, American 
taxpayer, to the Russian space agency.
  Let me go through some of the expenditures that the NASA budget is 
now throwing toward Russia. Let me remind the Members of the body that 
this is not the foreign aid bill that we are dealing with today, this 
is the NASA bill. Yet, in this bill and through the last several years 
with the Russians being our partner, we have paid them $463 million to 
rent Mir, and our distinguished chairman said earlier that that is not 
a very safe space station at this point, with a leak.
  We have spent $215 million of U.S. taxpayer money on the service 
module, which is now 11 months late. We are taking $200 million out of 
the shuttle program and creating a new line item called the Russian 
cooperation program. We will probably send a couple hundred million 
more. That is close to $1 billion, Mr. Chairman, $1 billion of NASA 
money going to the Russians.
  Now, if they were on time and on schedule and helping us in an 
international way, in a scientific manner complete the space station on 
time, I would say, let us go, let us have the participation.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] has tried to tighten 
up the accounting practices and put a better accountability into the 
bill, but if we cannot pay, and as Reuters, the news center says, the 
Russians are probably not going to have the money to pay; those 
accounting practices and principles do not do any good.
  So I would really urge this body to even go further than the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] has gone in this bill with 
his language and really try to get the Russians to live up to their 
responsibility.
  I will not call for a rollcall vote on this amendment, Mr. Chairman. 
I think this body has determined that they want to proceed with the 
space station with the last vote. But I would hope that this body would 
go beyond what the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] has 
done in this bill and at some point say to the Russians if they are not 
reliable partners, if they are not living up to their fiduciary 
responsibility of the contract, then we eliminate them.
  It cannot just be foreign policy or goodwill. This is $1 billion in 
American taxpayer money being taken out of good projects in NASA to go 
to the Russian space agency. That is not wise, prudent science; that is 
not fair to our taxpayers. I would offer this amendment if I thought it 
had a good chance to pass. Based on the last vote, I am smart enough to 
know that it would not pass.
  I will continue to fight the space station and try to get 
accountability in this account. I think the distinguished chairman from 
Wisconsin should go farther than he has done in this bill language, 
which I supported in committee. And I hope that the Russians, if they 
continue to be as unreliable as they have been, that the White House 
and the legislative body would come together and ask them to be removed 
from this partnership.
  This is not an anti-Russian measure, Mr. Chairman. I think we should 
have a good, close engagement with the Russians, but we should not have 
foreign aid in the NASA bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I will ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment, 
but first the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] may like to comment on this.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment can be appropriately dubbed the 
dumb like a fox amendment, because if it is passed and the Russians are 
kicked out now, that will result in a huge unanticipated cost that will 
bust the $2.1 billion cap that we have had, and then the gentleman from 
Indiana will come back and say, I told you so, there is a cost overrun, 
and we ought to pass my amendment to kill the space station to begin 
with.
  So I do not think that we should pass this amendment, even though I 
have probably been the most severe critic of the Russian participation 
in this program in the entire Congress.
  The problem, Mr. Chairman, is not the Russian technicians or the 
Russian manufacturers, it is the Russian Government and not making the 
payments to their contractors and subcontractors to do the work on 
those elements of the space station that the Russians agreed to build.
  I certainly hope that Russia will clean up its act and live up to its 
international obligations, because this is the first test of whether 
the new Russia will do so; and so far, the Russians have flopped. They 
have broken promise after promise after promise made to me, made to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], who is the subcommittee 
chairman; made to the Vice President of the United States, made to the 
NASA administrator, and made to the President of the United States.
  The problem, as I see it, is the fact that when this problem started 
to fester, the Clinton administration trusted the Russians to live up 
to their promises; and after they broke one promise after the other, 
the Clinton administration was not willing to admit that it made a 
mistake.
  The provisions that we have in this bill are designed to make the 
Clinton administration reach timely decisions so that we do not have to 
spend an undue amount of extra money to replace what the Russians do 
not appear with, should that happen.
  There is a provision in this bill that specifically prohibits NASA 
from paying the Russians to construct replacements for what the 
Russians promise to pay for in the original agreement. There are 
reporting requirements monthly so that NASA has to say in public 
whether Russia is completing its agreement or not. There is a deadline 
of August 1 for the President of the United States to make a 
certification of whether we go ahead with Russia included in this 
project.
  To sum up, the decision to include the Russians and the details on 
the inclusion of the Russians were made not by the Congress but by the 
Clinton administration. If it does not work out

[[Page H1845]]

the way they advertised, then they are the ones that ought to admit 
that they made a mistake. This bill forces them to make a decision on 
that question one way or the other. If the decision is to disengage the 
Russians, the President of the United States will have to tell us that 
and the President of the United States will then have to tell us how 
much it will cost to make up for what the Russians were supposed to 
have done, and the Clinton administration relied on them, and their 
reliance was in error.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, very quickly, since my colleague from Indiana [Mr. 
Roemer], says that he will withdraw this amendment, I want to take this 
time to once again congratulate the chairman of the committee, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] and the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown] for making sure that this Russian issue was 
settled within the committee and facing off with the administration, 
because H.R. 1275 does contain a number of tough provisions regarding 
the Russian participation in the Space Station Program.
  Cooperation with the Russian Government does offer many benefits to 
this country in terms of the space program. However, that cooperation 
has to be based on each party living up to its commitments. The space 
station provisions in this bill send a strong signal to Russia that we 
expect them to deliver on their promises. The provisions also direct 
NASA and the administration to prepare credible contingency plans in 
case the Russian contributions are further delayed.
  So I think we have accomplished what my colleague would set out to 
accomplish by this amendment. I am opposed to the amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. Under the 5-minute rule, the gentleman's time expired.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words, and I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the kindness of the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Lewis]. I would only say that I did vote for the 
Sensenbrenner and Brown language in committee, which does establish 
some accounting and some different monitoring mechanisms and does try 
to establish a structure to make the Russians more accountable for the 
rest of their participation.
  I would hasten to add that I hope that, if the administration 
certifies in August that they still think that the Russians should be a 
participant, then we might visit this as a Congress again if the 
Russians are still not performing up to the tasks that are outlined 
under the agreements to pay for certain things on time, which if they 
do not, delays the rest of the schedule and increases the cost of the 
space station, that Congress would have a discussion with the 
administration and potentially revisit this issue again.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I first 
would like to indicate that I very much appreciate on the one hand the 
gentleman suggesting that the amendment is going to be withdrawn; but 
on the other hand, I think it is very valuable that the gentleman 
brought this matter up in this fashion, for it is important that the 
House be aware of these problems and it is important that the committee 
be responsive to these concerns.
  There is little doubt in my mind's eye that having this international 
cooperative effort go forward positively is extremely valuable to 
everybody involved. Indeed, the foreign policy implications are obvious 
to anybody who would look. But in turn, as these difficulties have 
arisen relative to Russia's commitment, it is vital that the committee 
be responsive and make sure that we have mechanisms for judging the 
progress in the months ahead. So I am very appreciative of the work 
that the committee has done.
  I would be happy to yield further to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the kind words of the 
gentleman. I just hope that we are not doing too little too late. That 
the Russians, if they are going to be genuine partners, that they pay 
their bills on time, that they genuinely perform the services that they 
are contracted under, and I would hope, and I have confidence in the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Lewis], and the Committee on 
Appropriations and the gentleman from Wisconsin on the authorizing 
committee, that if it continues to slip like it has been slipping, that 
we really hold them to task and revisit this entire issue.
  I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment at the 
appropriate time, given the fine assurances that I have from the 
gentleman from California and the concern expressed from the gentleman 
from Wisconsin.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, just by way of closing 
comment, let me say that I have long appreciated the gentleman's 
involvement in this issue. Who knows, with the progress we are making 
here, my colleague may one day support space station, and I would 
appreciate that as well.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Indiana?
  There was no objection.
  Are there further amendments?

                             {time}   1530


             amendment offered by ms. jackson-lee of texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 31, strike lines 8 through 12 and insert the 
     following:

     SEC. 129. INTERNATIONAL SPACE UNIVERSITY.

       Funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may be used by the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration to pay the 
     tuition expenses of any National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration employee attending programs of the 
     International Space University held in the United States. 
     Funds appropriated pursuant to this Act may not be used to 
     pay tuition costs of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration employees attending programs of the 
     International Space University outside of the United States.

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin?
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first let me thank the 
chairman of the Committee on Science for his cooperation and his 
staff's cooperation, along with the ranking member, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Brown], and the staff that worked with my office on an 
issue that has been consistently an important part of my commitment to 
science. That is the issue of education.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment involves the support of the 
International Space University, but as well, it recognizes the value 
that it has to our own NASA employees.
  We have already acknowledged that the NASA employees are both 
dutiful, certainly, and dedicated to the idea of science and research. 
The International Space University was founded in 1987 in Cambridge, 
MA, as an international institution of higher learning dedicated to the 
development of outer space for peaceful purposes through multicultural 
and multidisciplinary education and research programs. Frankly, it is a 
diplomatic way to say that space belongs to all of us, but we must do 
it in a cooperative way.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the 
gentlewoman's amendment prohibits NASA from paying tuition for 
employees' courses at the International Space University for programs 
outside the United States, but allows for NASA to pay tuition and fees 
for programs within the United States.
  I ask the gentlewoman, is my impression correct?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is in fact 
correct on that.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. With that explanation, Mr. Chairman, let me say 
that I support the amendment and I do hope it is adopted.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that 
clarification of the gentleman. I think with

[[Page H1846]]

that clarification, it will still be of great assistance to the 
training of our NASA employees.
  Might I say in closing two points: NASA has been involved with ISU 
since 1988 with the signing of a memorandum of understanding. In fact, 
we will have the International Space University housed in Houston, TX, 
this summer. It travels throughout the United States and the world. I 
look forward to it going to many of our jurisdictions and being of 
value.
  Mr. Chairman, I quote for the Record from a letter from J. Wayne 
Littles, director of the NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, who 
indicates that NASA is very supportive of the International Space 
University. It is part of the agency's training.

       . . . ISU provides a unique opportunity for NASA employees 
     to interact with others in an international setting. In an 
     expanding global economy and at a time when space and 
     aeronautics activities are increasingly international in 
     scope, this training is extremely valuable for NASA 
     employees.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record the letter from J. Wayne 
Littles.
  The letter referred to is as follows:

                                          National Aeronautics and


                                         Space Administration,

                                   Washington, DC, April 24, 1997.
     Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee,
     U.S. House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Ms. Jackson-Lee: It is my understanding that you plan 
     to introduce an amendment to H.R. 1275, the Civilian Space 
     Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1998 and 1999, concerning 
     Sec. 129, International Space University Limitation.
       NASA is very supportive of International Space University 
     (ISU). As part of the agency's training program, ISU provides 
     a unique opportunity for NASA employees to interact with 
     others in an international setting. In an expanding global 
     economy and at a time when space and aeronautics activities 
     are increasingly international in scope, this training is 
     extremely valuable for NASA employees.
       Past participants have rated ISU as a very high quality 
     training experience. In addition to an excellent curriculum, 
     ISU has afforded participants an opportunity to learn from 
     other space agencies and multinational organizations, 
     especially in areas such as strategic business practices, 
     technical strengths and weaknesses, and cultural traditions 
     in the workplace.
       The realities of limited Government funding for space 
     activities worldwide require NASA to be a skilled 
     international player. We believe that participation in ISU 
     helps NASA maintain its leadership position in the world 
     space community. Current and future NASA personnel must be 
     able to participate effectively in this community, and ISU 
     provides an excellent venue for developmental opportunities 
     for the NASA workforce. The international perspective gained 
     by NASA staff who participate in ISU programs will contribute 
     strongly to the success of NASA's mission.
       We appreciate your work on behalf of this unique 
     institution.
           Sincerely,

                                             J. Wayne Littles,

                                           Director, NASA Marshall
                                              Space Flight Center.

  Mr. Chairman, I ask my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of this amendment. I 
admire my colleague, the gentlewoman from Texas. She is certainly a 
tireless advocate for NASA, for space station, for all of NASA's 
issues. I congratulate the chairman for supporting this amendment. I, 
too, believe that ISU is a useful, innovative approach. It is educating 
the young people who will lead the international space ventures of the 
future.
  I also, in endorsing the International Space University, want to 
endorse, as the gentlewoman read, the letter from my director of 
Marshall Space Flight Center, Dr. Wayne Littles.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  The amendment was agreed to.


             Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment dealing 
with essential NASA employees.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 75, after line 12, insert the following new section:

     ``SEC. 323. TREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES IN CASE OF LAPSE OF 
                   APPROPRIATIONS.

       In any case in which the Congress fails to make 
     appropriations for the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration for a fiscal year in advance of the fiscal 
     year, every employee of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration shall be considered as essential.''
       Page 3, in the table of contents, after the item relating 
     to section 322, insert the following:

``Sec. 323. Treatment of employees in case of lapse of 
              appropriations.''

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support and offer 
this amendment in order, frankly, to save money.
  We have determined in the last Government furlough, which none of us 
certainly would have welcomed, and certainly do not welcome that in the 
future, that in actuality we lost money. There were millions and 
millions of dollars spent by way of employees being furloughed for the 
backlog that had to be recouped upon their return.
  NASA has essential duties, if you will. For if, for example, during a 
future Government shutdown that none of us would argue for, a shuttle 
flight is in progress, this amendment would ensure against unintended 
results because of budget negotiations. In fact, this would protect 
lives and provide a measure of safety for the utilization of the right 
employees and using them in the proper manner.
  This amendment would designate NASA employees as essential personnel, 
causing important duties to be carried on, and furthermore, causing 
NASA to value and save necessary dollars.
  This amendment, as well, Mr. Chairman, does give the opportunity for 
the director of NASA to make selections, but it does say that in order 
to ensure the safe, ongoing responsibilities of NASA that these 
employees be declared as essential, saving us money, and again, 
protecting the responsibilities and duties of NASA.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is micromanagement in its worst way. The 
NASA administrator has got the power to declare all employees in his 
agency essential, should there be a Government shutdown. He has the 
discretion to make a determination on which employees are vital for the 
health and safety of continued operations of NASA.
  So to say that mission control walks off the job if there should be a 
Government shutdown while a space shuttle mission is up is ridiculous, 
because that is not going to happen. The NASA administrator has the 
power to make sure that those people who are responsible for the safe 
operation of the shuttle mission report to work and do their jobs as 
usual. That is what happened during the unfortunate Government 
shutdowns that we had in the last 2 years.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is also unfair because it singles out 
NASA employees. Why should all NASA employees be declared essential but 
not all employees of the FBI, not all employees of the Treasury 
Department, not all employees of the Department of Health and Human 
Services, or any other department?
  Mr. Chairman, I know that having a broader amendment would be ruled 
out of order as nongermane, but I think that it shows the terrible 
precedent this sets if we legislatively decree that employees of one 
department are all essential but not decree that employees of other 
departments are all essential.
  Having said that, Mr. Chairman, let me say that it is my hope that we 
never have another Government shutdown. There are Members that are 
working on legislation that provide for a continuation of 
appropriations if a budget deal is not reached by September 30. We have 
had a similar law on the books in the State of Wisconsin, where I 
served in the State legislature for 10 years before I was elected to 
Congress.
  When the budget was not passed on time, which was more often than 
when the budget was passed on time, the agencies simply continued at 
the existing level of appropriations, or at some other level that was 
determined by State law, and nobody was furloughed. Mr. Chairman, I 
hope that before September 30 we are able to get a similar law like 
that on the books. I can pledge my support to it.
  That is the right way to go about this problem. The amendment offered 
by the gentlewoman from Texas is the wrong way. I would urge its 
defeat.

[[Page H1847]]

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the intent of this amendment. I think we talk 
too little about NASA employees. I am proud of their dedicated work. 
Unfortunately, they are held hostage every year as we face these 
relentless amendments that are offered on the floor, particularly by 
the gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Roemer].
  The NASA employees are not faceless bureaucrats, they are people who 
have been downsized and streamlined, and year after year they are asked 
to do more with less, but they have delivered. I think the gentlewoman 
from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee] is doing them a valuable service by 
offering this amendment here today. They deserve our support. Let us 
keep them on the job.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CRAMER. I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding. Let me respond to the chairman and his comments. He is right, 
for us to do anything else today for the Department of Health and Human 
Services, Department of Justice, the FBI, would certainly be far-
reaching.
  The question of NASA's essentiality has to do a lot with NASA's 
agenda. That is, NASA is not on the ground, it is in space. On many 
occasions the need to be able to respond to the urgencies of space and 
a space shuttle being in need of the whole team being in place is the 
real issue behind making these employees essential.
  Let us not in any way think about shutting down the Government again. 
I agree with the chairman, I do not want to shut down the Government. I 
agree with the ranking member, we never want to see that happen. But I 
do believe that because of the unique nature of NASA's business, it 
would be appropriate to declare these particular employees essential.
  Mr. Chairman, might I say, however, I would inquire of the chairman, 
the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Sensenbrenner] on the basis the 
uniqueness of NASA's responsibilities, do we have any reason to believe 
that we would be able to find compromise on this language?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The answer is no, Mr. Chairman, because I think 
the principle of the amendment is bad. We should not be micromanaging 
the agency. If there is an emergency like a Government shutdown, I have 
every confidence in the NASA administrator to do the right thing.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
that. I vigorously disagree, however, Mr. Chairman. I am going to 
pursue this language further, and work to be able to define further the 
language that will appropriately separate out NASA employees for what I 
think is a very important responsibility.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman 
from Texas?
  There was no objection.


             Amendment offered by Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment on 
minority university research and education programs.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
       Page 17, line 22, strike ``$102,200,000'' and insert 
     ``$110,300,000''.
       Page 18, line 4, strike ``$46,700,000'' and insert 
     ``$54,800,000''.
       Page 18, line 8, strike ``$108,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$116,100,000''.
       Page 18, line 9, strike ``$51,700,000'' and insert 
     ``$59,800,000''.

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, this follows a line of 
consistency as it relates to education and science. This restores the 
dollars of this present level of authorization to the minority 
university research and education programs. It acknowledges the wealth 
of diversity in this country. It respects the excitement and, of 
course, the wealth of experience and diversity brought to us by the 
different communities in our Nation.
  The minority university research and education programs are 
beneficial to developing national research that uses all of our 
Nation's strength in the sciences. This in particular covers Hispanics 
and all other minorities other than African-Americans. It restores the 
minority university funding to the fiscal year 1997 funding.
  HBCU's and other minority universities are considered minority 
categories within the budget of NASA. Therefore, we are very much 
interested in being consistent in ensuring that Hispanic universities, 
those who are serving Hispanic constituencies and other minority groups 
have the same fair access to research dollars. This is not taking away 
to give to others, this is restoring dollars that were allotted in 
fiscal year 1997 funding.
  Mr. Chairman, it is a known fact that this country is becoming 
increasingly diverse. It is a known fact that the Hispanic population 
is increasing. Therefore, I would argue that it is only fair to keep at 
the same level the funding to enhance research in the area of science 
in these universities that serve Hispanic populations.
  Mr. Chairman, I would ask my colleagues to join me in equalizing 
science research by supporting this amendment that helps Hispanic 
universities or those universities serving Hispanic populations to be 
an equal player in the area of research and education as it relates to 
science.
  In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would simply say that we can do this 
certainly in a manner that answers the question that I have always 
raised: Is science going to be the work of the 21st century? I believe 
it is. If it is going to be the science of the 21st century, we need to 
prepare Americans for that.
  Americans are diverse. They live in diverse areas. This assures that 
universities that serve Indian populations, Hispanic populations, Asian 
populations, and other populations predominantly, other than African-
Americans, will be able to play in the arena of science research.

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I respectfully disagree with the gentlewoman from Texas 
saying this amendment is necessary to equalize money that is spent 
between minority and nonminority students at universities that get NASA 
education funds. The figures are exactly the opposite and if we were to 
equalize the amount of money that was spent, we would be cutting the 
minority account even further than what is proposed in the bill.
  Let me give you those figures. For the nonminority students and 
faculty, approximately 700,000 to 750,000 faculty and students benefit 
by the education programs of NASA every year. In the bill's figures in 
fiscal 1998, that amounts to approximately $76.55 spent per faculty or 
student from the education and program account in the nonminority 
institutions.
  Using the bill's figures in the minority institutions in fiscal 1998, 
there will be 50,000 faculty and students benefited, and of those 
50,000 students, approximately $934 will be spent per faculty and 
student in the minority research and education programs. So the 
minority research and education programs are getting 11 to 12 times the 
amount of money per student than the nonminority research and education 
programs, and the amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas wants to make 
that disparity still bigger. I think that is unfair.
  Second, the amendment of the gentlewoman from Texas does not increase 
the total authorization for NASA. So while she pluses up the education 
account for NASA, that means that the other accounts will end up having 
their programs and their people reduced as a result of what is 
effectively an earmark. That means less money for science, less money 
for Mission to Planet Earth, less money for human space flight, less 
money for the Johnson Space Center in Houston, less money for the 
Kennedy Space Center in Florida, simply because of the direction that 
she is putting the capped amount of money in the authorization bill 
into this particular program.

[[Page H1848]]

  So for this reason and the fact that we already are spending 11 to 12 
times as much per faculty and student in the minority programs and 
should not increase that still further, contrasted to the nonminority 
programs, I would hope that this amendment would be defeated.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in support of the intent of this 
amendment. There is no question that we need to do all we can to ensure 
that all of our young people have an equal opportunity to an education. 
Our Nation will need the skilled scientific and engineering personnel 
that we can educate if we are to remain competitive in the 21st 
century.
  However, I would hope that we could conduct hearings to examine how 
these academic programs are working as well as what additional 
resources might be needed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-
Lee].
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
kind inquiries.
  I do agree that we can in the long run look at this as a global 
issue, how do we train our young people for the 21st century.
  I would simply say, in response to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. 
Sensenbrenner] that this is a restoration of funds that were allotted 
in fiscal year 1997 when Mission to Planet Earth was funded, when the 
manned space shuttle was funded, when research was funded. So, 
therefore, we are not in a situation where we would be denying the 
funding to those particular items in fiscal year 1998.
  This is a mere restoration of funds that will help in large part 
Hispanic universities, those that are traditionally serving Hispanic 
populations, those that are serving other minorities. As I indicated, 
this is an increasingly diverse country, and what we want most of all 
is to prepare professionals that would be able to take on the 
requirements of space and science in those careers.
  Therefore, it is important that we support institutions that serve 
these minorities in the area of science and research. This does that. 
It gives them the latitude to draw down on funds that will allow them 
to have professors, to do research, to provide dollars in those 
particular areas.
  Often we find out that in those areas that serve Hispanics and other 
minorities, there is a shortage of funds. They have to make choices. In 
many instances, they make the choices contrary to science and math and 
research.
  This is to emphasize that we believe that they should be brought into 
the 21st century as well and to give them the opportunity to use these 
funds so that in the future that we see a rainbow array of astronauts, 
a rainbow array of scientists and engineers and those that work on 
planning the space station because they have been trained in these 
disciplines.
  I think that this is a worthwhile investment, not only in these 
institutions but, frankly, in America. It is a worthwhile investment in 
what we purport to be as we move toward the 21st century. I think that 
we should have the whole net included, Hispanics, other minorities, 
African-Americans and all others, excited about space, researching in 
space, being taught, learning and, of course, having institutions with 
the quality of expertise so that we can produce these kinds of 
professionals.
  I ask my colleagues to consider this amendment and consider 
broadening the net and allowing us to invest in our future.
  Mr. BROWN of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, as I understand the amendment of the gentlewoman from 
Texas, it proposes to increase the education funding back to the same 
level as the current year, which requires about an $8.1 million 
increase, which is offset in her amendment. I would be unfaithful to my 
district if I did not support this, because I have a district which is 
predominantly Hispanic. And we have a number of institutions in 
southern California which meet the criteria of institutions that would 
be benefited by this.
  I am also aware of the fact that we have in some of our own 
territories institutions of higher education which would benefit from 
the additional funds that this amendment would produce and particularly 
need and would appreciate the additional assistance, even if for only a 
few hundred thousand dollars, to the improvement of math, science, and 
engineering education.
  I think this is a worthy educational initiative. It goes to a 
category of students who we are seeking most assiduously to bring into 
these areas, and we are not going to bring them into these areas if we 
do not provide the additional assistance, as well as provide the hope 
of career opportunities in these fields which I think that we are 
beginning to do at the present time but still in insufficient numbers.
  So for all of these reasons, I would like to support this amendment 
and hope that the Members will vote for it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Ney]. The question is on the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee].
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             recorded vote

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 186, 
noes 226, not voting 21, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 91]

                               AYES--186

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Baldacci
     Barrett (WI)
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brown (CA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Carson
     Clayton
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dellums
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Edwards
     Engel
     Ensign
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Fazio
     Filner
     Flake
     Foglietta
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fox
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green
     Gutierrez
     Hall (TX)
     Hamilton
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hooley
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (WI)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (MA)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kennelly
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Lazio
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manton
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDade
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (CA)
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pitts
     Poshard
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schumer
     Scott
     Serrano
     Shays
     Skaggs
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith, Adam
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stokes
     Tauscher
     Thompson
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Torres
     Traficant
     Turner
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weygand
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                               NOES--226

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baesler
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady
     Bryant
     Bunning
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Christensen
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crapo
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeLay
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fawell
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger

[[Page H1849]]


     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inglis
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kim
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Klug
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Livingston
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McHale
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Molinari
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nethercutt
     Neumann
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pappas
     Parker
     Paul
     Paxon
     Pease
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Riggs
     Riley
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryun
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaefer, Dan
     Schaffer, Bob
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith, Linda
     Snowbarger
     Solomon
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Upton
     Walsh
     Watkins
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     White
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--21

     Andrews
     Clay
     Clement
     Condit
     Cubin
     DeFazio
     Furse
     Hall (OH)
     Hefner
     Hoekstra
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     Myrick
     Nussle
     Porter
     Schiff
     Smith (OR)
     Tanner
     Towns
     Velazquez
     Yates

                              {time}  1614

  The Clerk announced the following pairs:
  On this vote:

       Mr. Towns for, with Mr. Manzullo against.
       Ms. Velazquez for, with Mrs. Cubin against.

  Messrs. GEJDENSON, DOOLEY of California, WAMP, and QUINN changed 
their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                          personal explanation

  Mr. MANZULLO. Mr. Chairman, due to an illness in my family, I was 
unable to be present for two House recorded floor votes on Thursday, 
April 24. Had I been present, I would have voted as follows:
  On rollcall vote No. 90: ``Yes'' (Roemer amendment).
  On rollcall vote No. 91: ``No'' (Jackson-Lee amendment).

                              {time}  1615

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore [Mr. Ney]. Are there further amendments?
  If not, the question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute, as amended.
  The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, 
was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore [Mr. 
Barrett of Nebraska] having assumed the chair, Mr. Ney, Chairman pro 
tempore of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, 
reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill 
(H.R. 1275) to authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration for fiscal years 1998 and 1999, and for other 
purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 128, he reported the bill back 
to the House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment to the committee 
amendment in the nature of a substitute adopted by the Committee of the 
Whole? If not, the question is on the amendment.
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________