[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 110 (Monday, September 18, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1509-E1510]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 1654, NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE 
                ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2000

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                      HON. ROBERT E. (BUD) CRAMER

                               of alabama

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, September 14, 2000

  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express very serious concerns 
about this legislation that we are considering on the floor today. 
Section 205 of this conference report prematurely directs NASA--and I 
stress the word ``directs''--to establish a nongovernmental 
organization to manage microgravity research and commercialization 
activities aboard the International Space Station.
  Mr. Speaker, in this Body the International Space Station does not 
have a stronger supporter than myself. While I sat on the Science 
Committee, I fought to fence-off microgravity research funds from 
hardware cost overruns and preserve the benefits of the Station for our 
taxpayers. Year after year, I'm on this Floor defending the Space 
Station against various wounding and killing amendments. But I'm 
concerned that unless we're careful, this language in Section 205 may 
move the taxpayer investments in Space Station backwards, rather than 
forwards.
  This language was not considered during the normal House subcommittee 
or full committee markup process, but was added into the bill in 
conference. The House hasn't held any hearings on this matter. It's not 
even clear to me where NASA will get the funding for this initiative. 
What will happen to the government

[[Page E1510]]

resources like the Station's new Payload Operations and Integration 
Facility at the Marshall Space Flight Center? Will there be a 
duplication of facilities at the taxpayer's expense?
  It is just not obvious to myself and others how handing this work to 
the private sector would benefit the taxpayers or NASA. In fact, it 
could be detrimental. We've found that to be the case when NASA 
management was too far removed from two recently failed missions to 
Mars. By NASA Administrator Dan Goldin's own admission, NASA moved too 
far away from the actual work taking place on its programs. We must be 
careful to avoid making a similar mistake with the science operations 
aboard the Space Station. NASA civil servants look after the nation's 
interests and report to the NASA Administrator Dan Goldin, who answers 
to us--Congress. There are no guarantees that a non-governmental 
organization will look after the nation's interests or have any direct 
responsibility to this Body. Mr. Speaker, where is the accountability 
in this plan?
  Some people argue that a non-governmental organization managing the 
Hubble Space Telescope at the Space Telescope Science Institute is 
working well. But its mission is mostly one of science management while 
the mission of this proposed organization would be one of 
commercialization--two very different animals. Common sense tells me 
that the introduction of commercialization into any process also 
introduces an entirely new set of unique and complex issues that need 
to be thoughtfully considered.
  Mr. Speaker, I'm also concerned that the civil servants currently 
managing the NASA microgravity program have had little or no meaningful 
opportunity to comment on this plan. These are our Nation's experts on 
this issue, tasked to look out for the taxpayer's interests, and 
they've not even been given an opportunity to voice their thoughts on 
this action.
  Mr. Speaker, I honestly don't know if this is a good or bad idea, but 
why is it being pushed through in such a hasty manner? Why are we 
prematurely directing NASA to implement this NGO, rather than coming 
back to us with a plan that can be examined in the light of day before 
we give them a green light? Mr. Speaker, if this really is good for our 
Nation, then nobody should object to holding hearings and giving this 
the thought that it truly deserves.
  I will vote for this conference report today, because there are a 
number of provisions in it that will be good for our space program, but 
I am going to continue to try to work with my Colleagues to take a 
closer look at this plan to transfer Space Station responsibilities to 
a non-government organization.

                          ____________________