[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.
____________________