[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10029-10079]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                              {time}  1045

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Reynolds). Pursuant to House Resolution 
174 and rule XVIII, 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. 1654.
  The Chair designates the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr) as 
chairman of the Committee of the Whole, and requests the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Collins) to assume the chair temporarily.


                     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. 1654) to authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics 
and Space Administration for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002, and for 
other purposes, with Mr. Collins (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is 
considered as having been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner).
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this bill is a 3-year authorization for our civil space 
program. When combined with separate legislation authorizing 
government-wide programs and high performance computing and information 
technologies, that represents a 1 percent annual increase over NASA's 
budget requests.
  The bill provides full funding for the baselined International Space 
Station, which moved from a dream to a reality last year with the 
successful launch of the first two elements. At the same time, the bill 
promotes fiscal and programmatic responsibility by prohibiting NASA 
from adding content to the program in a costly new structure called 
Trans-Hab. Together, this constraint and the 3-year authorization will 
provide the Space Station with the stability it needs to achieve the 
same success fiscally that the program is demonstrating technically.
  The bill also includes modest funding increases in areas of key 
scientific research. In the past few years the administration has cut 
some $742 million out of life and microgravity research accounts in 
NASA. This bill restores some $228 million of that over 3 years to take 
a small step towards ensuring that the science community is prepared to 
maximize the research potential of the International Space Station.
  It also contains increases for space science to put the Near Earth 
Object Survey back on track, to promote research in space solar power 
that will have applications here on Earth, and to offset the cost of 
NASA's emergency Hubble Space Telescope repair mission.
  More importantly, the bill increases funding for NASA's work in 
advanced space transportation technologies. Last year we learned the 
perils of launching U.S.-built payloads on foreign rockets. In the last 
6 months we have seen a string of launch failures that have reminded us 
how critical reliable, low-cost access to space is for our economy, our 
scientific endeavors, and our national security.
  H.R. 1654 accelerates and increases the funding for NASA's programs 
to develop a new generation of space transportation vehicles. The NASA 
administrator and the head of the U.S. Space Command have both said 
frequently that this must be a high national priority. H.R. 1654 
ensures that it is.
  We have developed this bill on a bipartisan basis and reached 
agreement on a wide range of issues. I think our efforts to work 
together come through in the bill's list of bipartisan original 
cosponsors and its bipartisan endorsement by the Committee on Science 
last week.
  There are a few remaining points on which the majority and minority 
disagree, and I want to thank Members of both parties for working 
together to iron out most of these over the past few days. For now we 
may have to agree to disagree on the few outstanding issues that 
remain, but they should not get in the way of such a sound and 
comprehensive bill upon which to build our future in space.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would first like to include for the Record a letter 
from Administrator Goldin of the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration in which, among other things, he states ``NASA strongly 
opposes House passage of H.R. 1654.''
  The letter is as follows:
                                          National Aeronautics and


                                         Space Administration,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 1999.
     Hon. George E. Brown, Jr.,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Science, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Brown: This letter is to provide NASA's views on 
     H.R. 1654, the ``National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration Authorization Act of 1999,'' authorizing 
     appropriations for FY 2000-2002, as ordered reported by the 
     Committee on May 13, 1999.

[[Page 10030]]

       NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654. The 
     authorization levels in the bill do not conform to the 
     President's request, which is based on a balanced and 
     affordable space and aeronautics program. H.R. 1654 would 
     authorize a total of $13,625.6 million in FY 2000, $13,747.1 
     million in FY 2001 and $13,839.4 million in FY 2002. As 
     ordered reported, total funding for FY 2000 exceeds the 
     President's request by a net of $47.2 million; total funding 
     for FY 2001 is below the President's request by a net of $82 
     million. The majority of the additional funding provided is 
     for Life and micro gravity Sciences and Applications, 
     Advanced Space Transportation Technology, and Academic 
     Programs. At the same time, funding authorized in H.R. 1654 
     reflects significant reductions ($174.4 million in FY 2000, 
     $211.1 million in FY 2001, and $216.6 million in FY 2002) for 
     High Performance Computing and Communications (HPCC) and 
     Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2).
       While the Administration recognizes that the Committee 
     strongly supports NASA program efforts for which they have 
     recommended augmentations, such additional spending must be 
     evaluated against the imperative to maintain an overall 
     balance in NASA's aeronautics and space research program and 
     against the impacts resulting from the resulting reductions 
     in other critical programs. Failure to fund NASA's HPCC and 
     IT2 activities in a timely manner would be unacceptable.
       NASA appreciates the Committee's authorization of funding 
     for the International Space Station (ISS) Program consistent 
     with the President's request. That request reflects an 
     Administration policy decision to reduce the level of risk to 
     the ISS with a net increase of $1.4 billion over the next 
     five years, to enhance Station budget reserves and to make 
     NASA's Contingency Plan against potential Russian shortfalls 
     more robust. The Committee's support for these efforts is 
     appreciated, and I look forward to continuing to work 
     together on this very important program.
       While NASA supports those portions of H.R. 1654 that are 
     consistent with the President's request, we have serious 
     objections to several provisions that are contrary to the 
     President's budget. I request that you and the Committee take 
     NASA's objections, outlined below, into consideration as this 
     bill proceeds through Congress.


                                 triana

       NASA and the Administration are greatly disappointed in the 
     Committee's adoption of an amendment (Section 130) 
     terminating the Triana science mission. Triana is good 
     science, was subject to a rigorous peer review process, and 
     will provide the scientific community with valuable research 
     data. We strongly object to the Committee's arbitrary and 
     partisan recommendation to terminate the Triana science 
     mission.
       In October 1998, after an exacting peer-review evaluation 
     of nine competing proposals, NASA selected the Scripps 
     Institution of Oceanography as the Principle Investigator for 
     the Triana mission. The Conference Report accompanying the FY 
     1999 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 
     105-276) directed NASA to identify funding for the initiation 
     of Triana as part of NASA's FY 1999 Operating Plan. NASA 
     identified $35 million in the FY 1999 Operating Plan 
     submitted to this and other Committees, and responded to 
     questions thereon. NASA's FY 2000 budget requests $35 million 
     to complete development of Triana, and launch it in December 
     2000 as a secondary payload on the Space Shuttle.
       Triana has sound science objectives and will present 
     valuable practical applications in: solar influences on 
     climate; solar wind and space weather; ultraviolet (UV) 
     radiation effects of clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation; 
     cloud microphysical properties and the effect of solar 
     radiation on climate models; and vegetation canopy 
     measurements, detecting changes in the amount of vegetation-
     leaf structure, or fraction of covered land.
       NASA is also formulating an Earth Science education 
     initiative using Triana imagery, and is planning to issue an 
     open, competitive solicitation for educational tools and 
     applications this fall. NASA has received inquiries from 
     three commercial firms regarding Triana participation. The 
     Scripps Institution of Oceanography is currently working to 
     structure a commercialization approach.


                  international space station research

       Section 101 of H.R. 1654 limits the flexibility of the ISS 
     program to accommodate unforeseen requirements by restricting 
     the use of ISS research funds. Should program difficulties 
     result in further schedule delays, such a restriction could 
     result in research equipment being developed prior to the 
     Station's readiness to accommodate it. This could exacerbate 
     the delay by not allowing the flexibility to shift research 
     funds and address Station contingencies. Such restrictions 
     could, therefore, prolong delays in research flight 
     opportunities and further harm the research community 
     intended to be helped.


               earth science commercial data acquisition

       Section 126 of H.R. 1654 would require that NASA spend $50 
     million in FY 2001 and FY 2002 for the purchase of commercial 
     remote sensing data. NASA objects to a mandated minimum level 
     of spending for such acquisitions, at the expense of other 
     research opportunities in the Earth Science enterprise. There 
     is no guarantee that such commercial data will be available 
     for acquisition in such amounts stipulated in the bill. NASA 
     should not be precluded from directing its resources in the 
     most efficient and effective manner.
       As a matter of policy, NASA's Earth Science Enterprise will 
     not build new missions where commercial data is available at 
     market prices, and the Enterprise has instituted a process 
     under which all Announcements of Opportunity include 
     statements of data buy preferences. The Earth Science 
     Enterprise will release, in the near future, two Requests for 
     Information (RFI's), one for determining sources of Landsat-
     class observations, and a second for determining sources of 
     tropospheric wind measurements. The Enterprise is also 
     working toward the objective of having each scientific and 
     application research proposal identify the source of data 
     sets required, and including an estimate of the funding 
     requirement for such data sets. This approach is intended to 
     establish a direct dialog between the providers and users of 
     data, and NASA does not have to second-guess the user 
     requirements and unduly constrain the provider's 
     capabilities.
       Finally, the NASA Inspector General recently released a 
     report on the Commercial Remote Sensing Program, and 
     concluded ``additional congressionally directed data buy 
     programs are not warranted.''


                               trans-hab

       Section 128 of H.R. 1654 would prevent NASA from further 
     research on inflatable technology, such as Trans-Hab, which 
     would accommodate humans in space. Inflatable module 
     technology offers the potential for significant stowage 
     volume, crew habitability and safety advantages over current 
     approaches for building pressurized space structures using 
     reinforced aluminum. The technology holds considerable 
     potential for advancement of space exploration. NASA shares 
     the Committee's concern that added cost and risk to the ISS 
     should be avoided. NASA desires to continue to explore 
     potential commercial partnering for the development, 
     construction, and use for the ISS Trans-Hab module. We will 
     not pursue the development of a Trans-Hab module for the ISS 
     unless it can be done through a partnership with industry 
     that results in a cost-neutral solution to the baseline cost 
     for the aluminum Habitation module. Additional technical 
     definition and design work is necessary before potential 
     commercial interests can be assured of the viability of the 
     concepts. H.R. 1654 would preclude any work on this very 
     promising set of technologies.


                   ultra-efficient engine technology

       I am very concerned that Section 103(4) eliminates the 
     Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) program as a Focused 
     Program. We understand that it is the Committee's intent to 
     permit these activities to be conducted within the R&T base. 
     We strongly urge the continuation of this effort as a Focused 
     Program.
       UEET as a Focused Program gives all interested parties--
     other Government agencies (e.g., DoD) and the private 
     sector--assurances that resources have been identified to 
     meet defined goals over a specified period of time. Fully 80% 
     of program funding for UEET will be spent in-house, primarily 
     for the operation of test stands and facilities, in 
     coordination with the ongoing DoD program. The UEET Program 
     is designed to address the most critical propulsion issues: 
     performance and efficiency. The primary benefits of these 
     technologies will be to improve efficiency and reduce 
     emissions for a wide range of civil and military 
     applications.
       Loss of the UEET effort could have major consequences for 
     the future competitiveness of the U.S. aircraft engine 
     industry and the U.S. balance of trade. Research associated 
     with understanding the technical issues of engine emissions 
     supports a major portion of U.S. scientific analysis that 
     provides a basis for informed policy making and U.S. 
     influence on international civil aviation policies. Finally, 
     it should be noted that significant interaction and 
     dependencies have been formed over the years in engine 
     technology efforts between NASA's Space Programs, DoD's 
     Acquisition Programs and DOE's Energy Programs; while the 
     impact of the restriction in H.R. 1654 upon these 
     interdependencies has not yet been completely assessed, there 
     will be implications to U.S. strategic interests in these 
     critical areas.


                        administration proposals

       H.R. 1654 does not include ten important legislative 
     proposals proposed by the Administration in the draft FY 2000 
     NASA authorization bill, submitted to the Congress on April 
     28, 1999. Many of these proposed provisions are legislative 
     ``gap fillers''--providing NASA the same authority already 
     provided to the Department of Defense in title 10 of the U.S. 
     Code and to other civilian agencies in title 41 of the U.S. 
     Code.
       NASA is covered by the acquisition provisions of title 10, 
     but is frequently overlooked when amendments to that title 
     are enacted. Section 203 of the Administration's bill would 
     provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and 
     other civilian agencies to withhold contract payments based 
     on substantial evidence of fraud. Section 209 would make 
     NASA's claim payment

[[Page 10031]]

     process consistent with procedures already required by other 
     law and with those used by other agencies. Section 210 would 
     provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and 
     other civilian agencies to exempt contractor proposals from 
     release under the Freedom of Information Act.
       The remaining provisions contained in the Administration's 
     bill address the need to adapt NASA's legal authorities to 
     the world in which we now operate. The role of the commercial 
     sector has been ever increasing. With the support of this 
     Committee, NASA has been changing the way it does business, 
     looking for opportunities to engage in joint endeavors with 
     industry, and attempting to leverage the private sector 
     investment in space and aeronautics research and development. 
     These activities present new and different working 
     relationships and legal hurdles. We are asking the private 
     sector to invest not only money, but also ideas. We must be 
     able to protect these ideas from disclosure to competitors--
     foreign as well as domestic--which have not invested their 
     time or capital. In order to attract industry partners and 
     their investments, we must be able to grant them some form of 
     exclusive right to use the software or other inventions 
     arising from their joint endeavor with us before it is 
     released to the general public. Our space program should 
     benefit not only from the increased investment of private 
     capital, but also from the royalties derived from such 
     licensing authority. We must be able to attract more private 
     investment--and thus reduce the cost to the Government--by 
     being able to transfer title to personal property used in our 
     joint endeavors to the partner whom we are asking to invest 
     the capital. I urge the Committee to incorporate these 
     provisions as the bill progresses through Congress.


                              hpcc and it2

       As reported, H.R. 1654 deletes all funding for NASA's High 
     Performance Computing and Communication program (HPCC) and 
     Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2) initiative, 
     including the very important Intelligent Synthesis 
     Environment (ISE) program. Although the Committee has 
     indicated its intent to hold hearings and mark up a separate, 
     multi-agency, ``computer research'' bill later this year, in 
     the absence of the introduction of a companion measure that 
     fully funds those activities, NASA's support for H.R. 1654 
     will continue to be qualified.
       Not authorizing funding requested for NASA's HPCC and IT2 
     would essentially remove all of the Agency's research in 
     information technology, and severely impact NASA's remaining 
     programs and missions. Both programs are structured to 
     contribute to broad Federal efforts, but also to address 
     NASA-specific computational, engineering, and science 
     requirements spanning many programs. Not authorizing HPCC and 
     IT2 would severely limit NASA's ability to deliver key 
     capabilities needed to support Earth, space, and aeronautical 
     programs, with impacts such as the following:
       Cut Earth and Space Sciences and directly impact NASA's 
     ability to use advanced computing technology to further our 
     ability to predict the dynamic interaction of physical, 
     chemical and biological processes affecting the Earth, the 
     solar-terrestrial environment, and the universe;
       Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's capability to 
     develop low-power, fault-tolerant, high-performance, 
     scaleable computing technology for a new generation of micro-
     spacecraft;
       Cut Aero-Space Technology and eliminate critical advances 
     in aeronautics algorithms and applications, software, and 
     computing machinery needed to enable more than 1000 fold 
     increases in systems performance in the 21st century;
       Cut Aero-Space Technology and limit implementation of the 
     tools and processes for a revolution in engineering practice 
     and science integration in modeling, design, development and 
     execution of all NASA's missions; and,
       Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's Self-Sustaining 
     Robotic Networks program to develop the critical set of 
     technologies necessary to support potential future decisions 
     on establishing outposts of self-tasking, self-repairing, 
     evolvable rover networks at key sites of scientific interest 
     throughout the solar system.
       We are preparing a more detailed analysis of additional 
     concerns regarding H.R. 1654, which we believe will hamper 
     our ability to manage our space and aeronautics research 
     programs most effectively. I urge the Committee to consider 
     these concerns as the bill proceeds through the legislative 
     process.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program to submission of this report for the Committee's 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Daniel S. Goldin,
     Administrator.
                                  ____

                                          National Aeronautics and


                                         Space Administration,

                                     Washington, DC, May 19, 1999.
     Hon. Bart Gordon,
     Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, 
         Committee on Science, House of Representatives, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Gordon: This letter is to provide NASA's views on 
     H.R. 1654, the ``National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration Authorization Act of 1999,'' authorizing 
     appropriations for FY 2000-2002, as ordered reported by the 
     Committee on May 13, 1999.
       NASA strongly opposes House passage of H.R. 1654. The 
     authorization levels in the bill do not conform to the 
     President's request, which is based on a balanced and 
     affordable space and aeronautics program. H.R. 1654 would 
     authorize a total of $13,625.6 million in FY 2000, $13,747.1 
     million in FY 2001 and $13,839.4 million in FY 2002. As 
     ordered reported, total funding for FY 2000 exceeds the 
     President's request by a net of $47.2 million; total funding 
     for FY 2001 is below the President's request by a net of $5.3 
     million and total funding for FY 2002 exceeds the President's 
     request by a net of $82 million. The majority of the 
     additional funding provided is for Life and Microgravity 
     Sciences and Applications, Advanced Space Transportation 
     Technology, and Academic Programs. At the same time, funding 
     authorized in H.R. 1654 reflects significant reductions 
     ($174.4 million in FY 2000, $211.1 million in FY 2001, and 
     $216.6 million in FY 2002) for High Performance Computing and 
     Communications (HPCC) and Information Technology for the 21st 
     century (IT2).
       While the Administration recognizes that the Committee 
     strongly supports NASA program efforts for which they have 
     recommended augmentations, such additional spending must be 
     evaluated against the imperative to maintain an overall 
     balance in NASA's aeronautics and space research program and 
     against the impacts resulting from the resulting reductions 
     in other critical programs. Failure to fund NASA's HPCC and 
     IT2 activities in a timely manner would be unacceptable.
       NASA appreciates the Committee's authorization of funding 
     for the International Space Station (ISS) Program consistent 
     with the President's request. That request reflects an 
     Administration policy decision to reduce the level of risk to 
     the ISS with a net increase of $1.4 billion over the next 
     five years, to enhance Station budget reserves and to make 
     NASA's Contingency Plan against potential Russian shortfalls 
     more robust. The Committee's support for these efforts is 
     appreciated, and I look forward to continuing to work 
     together on this very important program.
       While NASA supports those portions of H.R. 1654 that are 
     consistent with the President's request, we have serious 
     objections to several provisions that are contrary to the 
     President's budget. I request that you and the Committee take 
     NASA's objections, outlined below, into consideration as this 
     bill proceeds through Congress.


                                 TRIANA

       NASA and the Administration are greatly disappointed in the 
     Committee's adoption of an amendment (Section 130) 
     terminating the Triana science mission. Triana is good 
     science, was subject to a rigorous peer review process, and 
     will provide the scientific community with valuable research 
     data. We strongly object to the Committee's arbitrary and 
     partisan recommendation to terminate the Triana science 
     mission.
       In October 1998, after an exacting peer-review evaluation 
     of nine competing proposals, NASA selected the Scripps 
     Institution of Oceanography as the Principle Investigator for 
     the Triana mission. The Conference Report accompanying the FY 
     1999 VA-HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 
     105-276) directed NASA to identify funding for the initiation 
     of Triana as part of NASA's FY 1999 Operating Plan. NASA 
     identified $35 million in the FY 1999 Operating Plan 
     submitted to this and other Committees, and responded to 
     questions thereon. NASA's FY 2000 budget requests $35 million 
     to complete development of Triana, and launch it in December 
     2000 as a secondary payload on the Space Shuttle.
       Triana has sound science objectives and will present 
     valuable practical applications in: solar influences on 
     climate; solar wind and space weather; ultraviolet (UV) 
     radiation effects of clouds, aerosols, and surface radiation; 
     cloud microphysical properties and the effect of solar 
     radiation on climate models; and vegetation canopy 
     measurements, detecting changes in the amount of vegetation-
     leaf structure, or fraction of covered land.
       NASA is also formulating an Earth Science education 
     initiative using Triana imagery, and is planning to issue an 
     open, competitive solicitation for educational tools and 
     applications this fall. NASA has received inquiries from 
     three commercial firms regarding Triana participation. The 
     Scripps Institution of Oceanography is currently working to 
     structure a commercialization approach.


                  international space station research

       Section 101 of H.R. 1654 limits the flexibility of the ISS 
     program to accommodate unforeseen requirements by restricting 
     the use of ISS research funds. Should program difficulties 
     result in further schedule delays, such a restriction could 
     result in research equipment being developed prior to the 
     Station's readiness to accommodate it. This could exacerbate 
     the delay by not allowing the flexibility to shift research 
     funds and address Station contingencies. Such restriction

[[Page 10032]]

     could, therefore, prolong delays in research flight 
     opportunities and further harm the research community 
     intended to be helped.


               earth science commercial data acquisition

       Section 126 of H.R. 1654 would require that NASA spend $50 
     million in FY 2001 and FY 2002 for the purchase of commercial 
     remote sensing data. NASA objects to a mandated minimum level 
     of spending for such acquisitions, at the expense of other 
     research opportunities in the Earth Science enterprise. There 
     is no guarantee that such commercial data will be available 
     for acquisition in such amounts stipulated in the bill. NASA 
     should not be precluded from directing its resources in the 
     most efficient and effective manner.
       As a matter of policy, NASA's Earth Science Enterprise will 
     not build new missions where commercial data is available at 
     market prices, and the Enterprise has instituted a process 
     under which all Announcements of Opportunity include 
     statements of data buy preferences. The Earth Science 
     Enterprise will release, in the near future, two Requests for 
     Information (RFI's), one for determining sources of Landsat-
     class observations, and a second for determining sources of 
     tropospheric wind measurements. The Enterprise is also 
     working toward the objective of having each scientific and 
     application research proposal identify the source of data 
     sets required, and including an estimate of the funding 
     requirement for such data sets. This approach is intended to 
     establish a direct dialog between the providers and users of 
     data, and NASA does not have to second-guess the user 
     requirements and unduly constrain the provider's 
     capabilities.
       Finally, the NASA Inspector General recently released a 
     report on the Commercial Remote Sensing Program, and 
     concluded ``additional congressionally directed data buy 
     programs are not warranted.''


                               trans-hab

       Section 128 of H.R. 1654 would prevent NASA from further 
     research on inflatable technology, such as Trans-Hab, which 
     would accommodate humans in space. Inflatable module 
     technology offers the potential for significant stowage 
     volume, crew habitability and safety advantages over current 
     approaches for building pressurized space structures using 
     reinforced aluminum. The technology holds considerable 
     potential for advancement of space exploration. NASA shares 
     the Committee's concern that added cost and risk to the ISS 
     should be avoided. NASA desires to continue to explore 
     potential commercial partnering for the development, 
     construction, and use for the ISS Trans-Hab module. We will 
     not pursue the development of a Trans-Hab module for the ISS 
     unless it can be done through a partnership with industry 
     that results in a cost-neutral solution to the baseline cost 
     for the aluminum Habitation module. Additional technical 
     definition and design work is necessary before potential 
     commercial interests can be assured of the viability of the 
     concepts. H.R. 1654 would preclude any work on this very 
     promising set of technologies.


                   ultra-efficient engine technology

       I am very concerned that Section 103(4) eliminates the 
     Ultra-Efficient Engine Technology (UEET) program as a Focused 
     Program. We understand that it is the Committee's intent to 
     permit these activities to be conducted within the R&T base. 
     We strongly urge the continuation of this effort as a Focused 
     Program.
       UEET as a Focused Program gives all interested parties--
     other Government agencies (e.g., DoD) and the private 
     sector--assurances that resources have been identified to 
     meet defined goals over a specified period of time. Fully 80% 
     of program funding for UEET will be spent in-house, primarily 
     for the operation of test stands and facilities, in 
     coordination with the ongoing DoD program. The UEET Program 
     is designed to address the most critical propulsion issues: 
     performance and efficiency. The primary benefits to these 
     technologies will be to improve efficiency and reduce 
     emissions for a wide range of civil and military 
     applications.
       Loss of the UEET effort could have major consequences for 
     the future competitiveness of the U.S. aircraft engine 
     industry and the U.S. balance of trade. Research associated 
     with understanding the technical issues of engine emissions 
     supports a major portion of U.S. scientific analysis that 
     provides a basis for informed policy making and U.S. 
     influence on international civil aviation policies. Finally, 
     it should be noted that significant interaction and 
     dependencies have been formed over the years in engine 
     technology efforts between NASA's Space Programs, DoD's 
     Acquisition Programs and DOE's Energy Programs; while the 
     impact of the restriction in H.R. 1654 upon these 
     interdependencies has not yet been completely assessed, there 
     will be implications to U.S. strategic interests in these 
     critical areas.


                        administration proposals

       H.R. 1654 does not include ten important legislative 
     proposals proposed by the Administration in the draft FY 2000 
     NASA authorization bill, submitted to the Congress on April 
     28, 1999. Many of these proposed provisions are legislative 
     ``gap fillers''--providing NASA the same authority already 
     provided to the Department of Defense in title 10 of the U.S. 
     Code and to other civilian agencies in title 41 of the U.S. 
     Code.
       NASA is covered by the acquisition provisions of title 10, 
     but is frequently overlooked when amendments to that title 
     are enacted. Section 203 of the Administration's bill would 
     provide NASA the same authority as that available to DoD and 
     other civilian agencies to withhold contract payments based 
     on substantial evidence of fraud. Section 209 would make 
     NASA's claim payment process consistent with procedures 
     already required by other law and with those used by other 
     agencies. Section 210 would provide NASA the same authority 
     as that available to DoD and other civilian agencies to 
     exempt contractor proposals from release under the Freedom of 
     Information Act.
       The remaining provisions contained in the Administration's 
     bill address the need to adapt NASA's legal authorities to 
     the world in which we now operate. The role of the commercial 
     sector has been ever increasing. With the support of this 
     Committee, NASA has been changing the way it does business, 
     looking for opportunities to engage in joint endeavors with 
     industry, and attempting to leverage the private sector 
     investment in space and aeronautics research and development. 
     These activities present new and different working 
     relationships and legal hurdles. We are asking the private 
     sector to invest not only money, but also ideas. We must be 
     able to protect these ideas from disclosure to competitors--
     foreign as well as domestic--which have not invested their 
     time or capital. In order to attract industry partners and 
     their investments, we must be able to grant them some form of 
     exclusive right to use the software or other inventions 
     arising from their joint endeavor with us before it is 
     released to the general public. Our space program should 
     benefit not only from the increased investment of private 
     capital, but also from the royalties derived from such 
     licensing authority. We must be able to attract more private 
     investment--and thus reduce the cost to the Government--but 
     being able to transfer title to personal property used in our 
     joint endeavors to the partner whom we are asking to invest 
     the capital. I urge the Committee to incorporate these 
     provisions as the bill progresses through Congress.


                              hpcc and it2

       As reported, H.R. 1654 deletes all funding for NASA's High 
     Performance Computing and Communication program (HPCC) and 
     Information Technology for the 21st century (IT2) initiative, 
     including the very important Intelligent Synthesis 
     Environment (ISE) program. Although the Committee has 
     indicated its intent to hold hearings and mark up a separate, 
     multi-agency, ``computer research'' bill later this year, in 
     the absence of the introduction of a companion measure that 
     fully funds those activities, NASA's support for H.R. 1654 
     will continue to be qualified.
       Not authorizing funding requested for NASA's HPCC and IT2 
     would essentially remove all of the Agency's research in 
     information technology, and severely impact NASA's remaining 
     programs and missions. Both programs are structured to 
     contribute to broad Federal efforts, but also to address 
     NASA-specific computational, engineering, and science 
     requirements spanning many programs. Not authorizing HPCC and 
     IT2 would severely limit NASA's ability to deliver key 
     capabilities needed to support Earth, space, and aeronautical 
     programs, with impacts such as the following:
       Cut Earth and Space Sciences and directly impact NASA's 
     ability to use advanced computing technology to further our 
     ability to predict the dynamic interaction of physical, 
     chemical and biological processes affecting the Earth, the 
     solar-terrestrial environment, and the universe;
       Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's capability to 
     develop low-power, fault-tolerant, high-performance, 
     scaleable computing technology for a new generation of micro-
     spacecraft;
       Cut Aero-Space Technology and eliminate critical advances 
     in aeronautics algorithms and applications, software, and 
     computing machinery needed to enable more than 1000 fold 
     increases in systems performance in the 21st century;
       Cut Aero-Space Technology and limit implementation of the 
     tools and processes for a revolution in engineering practice 
     and science integration in modeling, design, development and 
     execution of all NASA's missions; and,
       Cut Space Science and eliminate NASA's Self-Sustaining 
     Robotic Networks program to develop the critical set of 
     technologies necessary to support potential future decisions 
     on establishing outposts of self-tasking, self-repairing, 
     evolvable rover networks at key sites of scientific interest 
     throughout the solar system.
       We are preparing a more detailed analysis of additional 
     concerns regarding H.R. 1654, which we believe will hamper 
     our ability to manage our space and aeronautics research 
     programs most efficiently. I urge the Committee to consider 
     these concerns as the bill proceeds through the legislative 
     process.
       The Office of Management and Budget advises that there is 
     no objection from the standpoint of the Administration's 
     program to submission of this report for the Committee's 
     consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Daniel S. Goldin,
                                                    Administrator.


[[Page 10033]]

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about H.R. 
1654, the NASA Authorization Act. First, I wish to commend Chairman 
Rohrabacher for his efforts in developing H.R. 1654. I believe that he 
made a serious effort to include a number of positive provisions in the 
bill and to work with the minority.
  Thus, while it was by no means a perfect bill, I thought that H.R. 
1654 was a reasonably constructive piece of legislation as introduced. 
In fact, I was a cosponsor of the bill as introduced, with the 
understanding that we would continue to work to improve its provisions.
  At this point I have to say that I do not think that H.R. 1654 is 
ready for floor consideration. I have not reached this position easily. 
As a supporter of NASA, I want to provide a solid, fiscally responsible 
foundation for the space agency's activities. I also want to make sure 
that we do not micromanage NASA in ways that will hurt its ability to 
carry out its programs effectively and efficiently. Unfortunately, I 
think that H.R. 1654 falls short of the mark in meeting these two 
goals.
  The NASA Administrator has sent over a letter outlining a number of 
serious concerns with the NASA bill. Let me discuss just a few of them. 
First, there is the absence of any funding for NASA's information 
technology programs. While we have received some assurance from the 
chairman of the Committee on Science that authorization of these 
programs will be done at a later date, I remain concerned. NASA needs 
to be on the cutting edge of information technology R&D if it is to 
deliver missions that are both cost-effective and innovative.
  Second, H.R. 1654 would prohibit the Ultra Efficient Energy 
Technology focused program. That program is a new program that is 
critical to maintaining NASA's capabilities for long-term aircraft 
engine R&D. It also is critical to maintaining the competitiveness of 
the U.S. aeronautics industry.
  Moreover, the UEET program will offer important benefits to military 
aviation by conducting important R&D into improved engine performance. 
I am afraid that H.R. 1654 attempts to micromanage NASA's aeronautics 
R&D efforts in ways that can do real damage over the long term.
  Third, the bill as amended at full committee would cancel the Triana 
scientific mission. Triana is an Earth observing spacecraft that would 
deliver both scientific and educational benefits. This mission was 
selected out of nine competing proposals, and it has undergone 
scientific peer review. It already was funded in last year's VA-HUD 
appropriations conference report. If we cancel it now, we would waste 
$40 million, which is more than it would cost to save it.
  Fourth, H.R. 1654 has a provision that would have the effect of 
holding NASA's Earth science research program hostage to a ``data buy'' 
earmark. While I support a healthy commercial remote sensing industry, 
the bill's provisions will do real harm to NASA's programs while doing 
little to help grow industry. It is a misguided and ultimately 
unworkable position.
  Fifth, the bill would prohibit NASA from spending any money on the 
Trans-Hab or other innovative inflatable structure technologies. While 
I am as careful with taxpayers' dollars as anyone, I do not believe 
that we should prohibit NASA from doing research to improve our space 
program.
  H.R. 1654's Trans-Hab prohibition would keep NASA from getting the 
data Congress will need if we are to make informed decisions on these 
innovative technologies.
  Mr. Chairman, I raise these issues not to diminish the efforts of 
Chairman Rohrabacher in drafting this bill. I simply believe the bill 
we have before us today is not ready for prime time. I think that the 
bill needs more work.
  I intend to vote ``no'' on H.R. 1654 on final passage, and I would 
urge my colleagues to also oppose the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics that handled this bill.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin 
for allotting me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, today the House is considering H.R. 1654, the NASA 
Authorization Act of 1999, which I am pleased to sponsor. I want to 
publicly thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), the ranking 
member, for his spirit of cooperation during the process. I am 
saddened, however, that he is unable to cosponsor the bill and vote for 
it at this time, but I do understand that there are some areas of 
disagreement and perhaps some areas that he feels that was not dealt 
with in the way that he would prefer for it to be dealt with, and I am 
sorry for that.
  But I do think that we do have a spirit of cooperation among the 
members of the subcommittee, and I am trying my best to maintain that 
spirit as well as the spirit of cooperation among the staffs on both 
sides of the aisle. I appreciate the work that they put in to trying to 
put this bill together, although the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. 
Gordon) cannot support it at this time.
  It contains one or two controversial provisions, surely. This bill, 
however, is overwhelmingly bipartisan. At least it was my intent to 
make it bipartisan. It includes several provisions and modifications 
that actually came from the Democratic side.
  Furthermore, I plan to offer a manager's amendment which will make a 
few additional refinements, including one that specifically addresses 
the concerns of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) who has put 
a tremendous amount of effort into a project that is very meaningful to 
his district.
  This is not a perfect bill, and I admit that. We have asked for an 
open rule because we want the House to work its will on this 
legislation. To the degree that we have an open rule and to the degree 
there are disagreements, I would hope that the open rule would provide 
us a way of coming to grips with some of the disagreements that are 
still in place.
  If any government agency belongs to the American people, surely it is 
NASA. I am committed to NASA's programs and policies, to make sure that 
they are reflecting the priorities of the people in the United States 
as reflected here in the House of Representatives, the people's House.
  Even so, I believe this piece of legislation is a solid piece of 
legislation because it sends three messages which are supported by the 
overwhelming majority of the Committee on Science and I believe the 
House itself.
  First, we tell the President and the appropriators that America's 
civil space agency should be rewarded for the sacrifices and reforms 
that it has made over the past several years by providing it a steady 
increase of 1 percent a year, if you take into account the information 
technology program that we are authorizing separately.
  Secondly, H.R. 1654 sets realistic overall funding levels and real 
priorities to guide appropriators. We focus additional resources on 
areas that our hearing record shows are underfunded and which have 
bipartisan support, including life and microgravity research, advanced 
space transportation technology, space science, and education.
  Third, H.R. 1654 pushes NASA to stay on the road to reform, 
especially on space privatization and commercialization. We do not want 
to destabilize the International Space Station or set up programs just 
to keep people busy. This bill does not micromanage NASA, but it does 
set clear goals and guides NASA towards them.
  Mr. Chairman, in closing let me just say that the other body has 
already marked up a NASA authorization bill and it should be reported 
to the floor for consideration soon. So after we complete our business 
today, I hope we can aggressively move forward to negotiate compromises 
with the Senate and, for the first time since 1992, enact a NASA 
authorization into law this year.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), a leader in education in this body.

[[Page 10034]]



                              {time}  1100

  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
the time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today to discuss an exciting opportunity I think 
that this NASA authorization bill provides our Nation's schools to 
promote math and science education.
  However, first I would like to say how disappointed I am that this 
bill has fallen victim I think to some partisan wrangling because it 
really did start out as a bipartisan bill. It is my hope that, as we go 
forward to an eventual conference that will take place with the other 
body, which will pass a bipartisan bill out of their committee, 
hopefully, very soon, that we can once again act in a bipartisan way 
and send a bill to the President that he will sign.
  With the exception of the conflict over Triana and some other issues, 
the committee I think has put together a pretty decent bill. I 
appreciate the majority's willingness to work with me on my concerns in 
the area of education and to accept the amendments in those areas that 
I offered in committee, and I want to thank the chairman and the 
ranking member for their help.
  I will vote for H.R. 1654, with the hope and faith that a bipartisan 
conference report can be brought back before this body before this year 
is out.
  I am proud to discuss an important education initiative contained in 
this legislation. This bill directs NASA to develop an educational 
initiative for our Nation's schools in recognition of the 100th 
anniversary of the first powered flight, which will take place on 
December 17, 2003.
  On that date in 1903, Orville and Wilbur Wright took their dream of 
powered flight from the drawing board of their Ohio bicycle shop to the 
Crystal Coast of North Carolina. It was there at a place called Kitty 
Hawk that the Wright brothers' dream took flight. On that day, our 
world was changed forever.
  The anniversary of this historic accomplishment provides an excellent 
opportunity for our Nation's schools to promote the importance of math 
and science education. And as a North Carolinian and a former educator, 
I am proud to bring recognition to the Wright brothers and their 
fantastic accomplishment.
  As a former North Carolina superintendent of schools, I worked for 
many years to help improve math and science education in our State. 
America's future will be determined by the ability of our citizens to 
adapt to the changes in technology that would dominate life in the 21st 
century.
  Recent studies show, unfortunately, that America's students are 
falling behind their counterparts around the world in the areas of math 
and science. As we watch the sun rise on the dawn of a new millennium, 
it has never been more important to encourage our children to excel in 
these important areas. It is no longer good enough for our children to 
simply be able to read, write, add, and subtract. If today's students 
are going to succeed in tomorrow's jobs, a firm foundation in math and 
science is required and it is an imperative.
  The Committee on Science has taken a leading role in starting a 
national dialogue on math and science education. One of the most 
difficult challenges we face has been to interest students in 
participating in the most challenging math and science courses. That is 
not unique. It happens in every State. Such a lack of interest could 
spell doom down the road as fewer students enter the teaching 
profession in these important areas. And even fewer are prepared for 
the jobs of the 21st century.
  The 100th anniversary of Flight Educational Initiative is intended to 
use the history of flight, the benefit of flight on society, and the 
math and science principles used in flight to generate interest among 
students in math and science education.
  As a young boy, like most Americans, the space program captured my 
imagination. Unfortunately, today video games and other distractions 
are more likely to occupy the time of our young people than the space 
program. However, the 100th anniversary of flight and NASA's plans to 
send a plane to Mars to coincide with that date provides an excellent 
springboard to recapture our young people's interest in the space 
program and in math and science education.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend the chairman for bringing this bill, 
authorizing our Nation's space program, to the floor on the same day 
that the new Star Wars trilogy has opened in our Nation's theaters. 
Just as the Star Wars movie has captured the imagination of a 
generation of Americans, NASA and the 100th anniversary of Flight 
Educational Initiative will help our students sore in math and science 
education.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers), the vice chairman of the committee.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  I am very pleased to rise to speak in favor of the bill as presented 
to the House. The Committee on Science has done a very careful job of 
analyzing the needs of the NASA program and has come up with a workable 
allocation of funds.
  There are two areas in particular I want to mention. One relates to 
the work that I put into the science policy study (Unlocking Our 
Future: Toward a New Science Policy; published by GPO) last year under 
the auspices of the Science Committee and which has been adopted by the 
committee and by the House of Representatives. In that study, we 
emphasized the importance of basic research to the future of this 
Nation. And I am pleased to say that NASA continues, under this bill, 
to maintain a strong basic research program.
  There has been some criticism that the Space Station has decimated 
the basic research program at NASA. That is not true. They are 
continuing with their basic research efforts and they continue to make 
important discoveries both in space and on this planet.
  One of the important parts of this issue, of course, is to make sure 
that the results of basic research are available to the public, to 
companies who may make use of it and, that this may benefit the general 
public in many ways.
  The second point I want to make is that I believe NASA has done an 
excellent job of adding to the education of our students in this Nation 
regarding math and science. That is an area of great need. We must 
improve our math and science programs in elementary and secondary 
schools. It has to be done in a coordinated, thoughtful, careful way as 
we work toward that goal.
  But in the meantime NASA, through its supplementary programs, has 
aided greatly in the education of students of this Nation. In 
particular, they have developed experiments that students can do at 
home or in their schoolroom by accessing NASA data on the Internet and 
using the results of NASA's satellite research, or data from their Mars 
Rover, to use in their experiments. This has provided a meaningful, 
lifetime experience for kids in the elementary and secondary schools. 
They learn from the Internet what has happened, and they can then use 
this directly to come to the same scientific conclusion that the NASA 
scientists operating the experiment have reached.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 1654, the NASA Authorization Act. I 
believe it is a good bill that will continue to support NASA in its 
science and exploration endeavors while maintaining balance and cost-
effectiveness within its priorities. This morning, I would specifically 
like to address the opportunity provided through this bill to continue 
NASA's strong and vital emphasis on education initiatives.
  As we have discussed earlier this year, our Nation is at a critical 
juncture in its efforts to provide our children with the quality 
education that they will require to succeed in the technology-driven 
economy and culture of tomorrow. To do this, we must find innovative 
ways to excite and encourage young students about the possibilities 
open to them through an understanding of mathematics and the sciences. 
I am not talking strictly about career opportunities, but as consumers, 
parents and citizens.

[[Page 10035]]

  NASA has clearly demonstrated their dedication to this responsibility 
through the multitude of individual programs which they offer to 
students from grade school to grad school and, importantly, to their 
teachers. In FY 1998 alone, NASA reached over two million students and 
over a hundred thousand teachers. Of those, all but a fraction of these 
students and teachers were at the K-12 level. It is at this level that 
it is so critical to engage our young people, and it is also at this 
point that our education system is in need of the most assistance. NASA 
is offering their help, and they are doing so through the use of 
inquiry-based methods and real-life applications.
  I would also like to highlight that, in developing their educational 
programs, NASA has shown insight into the complexity of their subject 
material and the need to balance it with state and regional agendas. To 
best serve its ``customers'', NASA collaborators with external 
organizations such as the National Science Foundation and the 
Department of Education, discipline-specific professional associations, 
and State education coalitions to develop materials for local use 
``when and where appropriate''. As another indication of their 
commitment to providing relevant and useful information, NASA solicits 
evaluations of their programs from its users, the teachers in the 
classroom.
  In closing, it is my hope that other Federal agencies would follow 
the example set by NASA in its education goals. As Dan Goldin, the NASA 
administrator, testified at a recent Science Committee hearing on this 
issue, ``It is our education system that will prepare our future 
workforce to design and use [the tools for our future]''. By supporting 
this bill, you will enable the continued development and support of 
these crucial programs.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my good 
friend from Tennessee for yielding me time to speak this morning.
  NASA's mission is one of exploration, discovery, and innovation. The 
innovation of new technology and the continued understanding of our 
planet and solar system has led to many advances in science that have 
benefitted our country and our economy.
  When we fund NASA activities, we fund our future. We fund the 
development of new technologies, and we push our educational limits. 
Because of this, NASA and their continued innovation has made us the 
world leader in space exploration.
  I stand today, though, reluctantly in support of H.R. 1654 because I 
do have some serious concerns with some of the provisions and possible 
amendments to the bill.
  First, I applaud the Committee on Science for crafting a bill that 
does look to increase funding for NASA. However, I am very disappointed 
that they removed any funding for the continued development study of 
the Trans-Hab program from the Johnson Space Center.
  The Trans-Hab is a proposed replacement for the International Space 
Station habitation module and uses new inflatable structural technology 
to house a larger living and work space in the limited payload of the 
Space Shuttle. As drafted, this bill would hinder the development and 
eliminate the option of this new technology which would give our 
astronauts more space to work and to live.
  One of NASA's greatest assets is their commitment to providing the 
private sector with technological assistance through the Technology 
Outreach Program. The program applies scientific and engineering 
innovations originally developed for space applications to technical 
problems experienced by other companies that are in all of our 
districts.
  Through the support of its own research laboratories, NASA has solved 
technical problems of businesses of all sizes and varieties, from 
making ink dry faster in the manufacture of American flags to improving 
the fit of a prosthetic foot.
  I also know that NASA provides educational assistance and leadership 
in math and science education and particularly at the Johnson Space 
Center in Houston. My district is not in that area but it is close, and 
over the last 2 years I have had two astronauts, Dr. Ellen Ochoa and 
Dr. Franklin Chang-Diaz, astronauts who took time to spend the day with 
me in middle schools in my district in Houston, and they motivate 
students to take math and science.
  The schools that participated include Grantham Middle School, 
Woodland Acres Middle School, Edison Middle School in Houston 
Independent School District, Burbank in HISD, Galena Park Middle School 
in Galena Park School District, and Hambrick Middle School.
  Watching these 7th and 8th graders, Mr. Chairman, with the astronauts 
is very rewarding and educational. It is my hope that when these middle 
school students go to high school they will then be energized to take 
math and science.
  Again, I reluctantly support H.R. 1654. I hope we will continue to 
work on this legislation and make it better by providing funding for 
the Trans-Hab project and for the Triana satellite.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Weldon) the vice chair of the subcommittee.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in support of this bill.
  I commend the chairman and the ranking member for crafting a bill 
that I think all Members should be able to support. In particular, I 
want to commend them for the funding that they have provided for 
authorized in this bill for ongoing improvements in the Shuttle and 
Shuttle upgrades. By enhancing the performance of the Shuttle, we can 
ultimately in the end have a manned space flight system that will 
perform more safely and more efficiently, clearly something that is in 
the interest of the American taxpayers.
  I am, additionally, pleased for the additional funding for the Space 
Station program. We now have a large amount of Space Station hardware 
in the Space Station Processing Facility at Kennedy Space Center that 
is being tested and that is ready for launch.
  I would like to clarify my position on the issue regarding the 
satellite Triana and why I chose to introduce the amendment in 
committee calling for the elimination of this program.
  I certainly do not enjoy introducing partisanship into a bill that is 
normally considered to be a nonpartisan issue. But I want Members on 
both sides of the aisle to know that, in the fall of 1997, it was 
announced by NASA that they were going to have to lay off 600 people at 
Kennedy Space Center because of a $100 million funding shortfall.
  These layoffs did proceed to go ahead in the winter of 1998. And it 
was approximately around that time I believe that the President had his 
dream, the vision for Triana, and NASA was very quickly able to fund 
tens of millions of dollars to go towards this program and is now 
looking for the additional funds authorized to complete it.
  I personally felt to do nothing and say nothing about this, in light 
of what happened to the men and women who got laid off in my district, 
would be an insult.
  Now, some people may say, ``Well, congressman, if the Shuttle can 
continue to fly safely and efficiently with 600 fewer people, then we 
ought to go ahead and let that happen.'' But I want Members on both 
sides of the aisle to be aware that the Shuttle managers tell me the 
principal reason that they are able to continue to fly safely with that 
many fewer people is because the launch rates are way, way down to only 
maybe four flights a year because of the delays. And the Shuttle 
managers tell me that, as we go back up to eight and nine flights a 
year, as is hoped as the Space Station program gets back on track, that 
they may need to actually go out and hire additional people to keep the 
program flying safely.
  So I believe that, to me, it was really an insult to the working men 
and women out at Kennedy Space Center for the agency to be laying off 
hundreds of people on one day and then finding tens of millions of 
dollars to fulfill a vision for the vice president.
  I have a chart over there that I would like to show later that 
clearly spells out that we can right now, using current technology, 
produce an image of the Earth using existing satellite images. And this 
program was just not

[[Page 10036]]

necessary and, therefore, I would encourage all my colleagues to 
support not funding it.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Although I appreciate the comments of my friend from Florida, I think 
it is ironic that he is concerned about laid off NASA employees yet he 
is not concerned about the fact that, by his amendment, we are going to 
waste more money canceling the program than has already been spent and 
he does not seem to be concerned about those employees and those 
scientific projects that are going to be laid off and missing because 
of his amendment. It is really, I think, a disingenuous argument, 
totally parochial, totally partisan; and this bill and this committee 
deserves better.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Costello).

                              {time}  1115

  Mr. COSTELLO. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for yielding me 
this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the NASA 
authorization bill before us today. This bill before us today cancels 
the Triana spacecraft mission. Last year, this Congress approved $35 
million for Triana. The Triana project was competitively awarded and 
its scientific content has been peer reviewed. It offers important 
scientific and educational benefits.
  Next, the bill prohibits funding for the high performance computing 
and other information technology initiatives contained in the 
President's request. Although the gentleman from Wisconsin has agreed 
to provide for those activities in a forthcoming bill, I want to make 
it clear that I believe that NASA needs these funds. I support their 
inclusion within the NASA budget.
  Another area of concern in this bill is the prohibition against any 
funding for the ultraefficient engine technology focus program. Long-
term R&D efforts in engine technology, including the construction of 
engineering models when appropriate, are vitally important to both our 
national security and to continued competitiveness in worldwide 
aerospace markets. We should not abandon those efforts.
  In addition, I support NASA's aviation safety and system capacity 
research as well as research directed toward aircraft noise and 
emission reduction. For these reasons, Mr. Chairman, I will vote 
against this legislation and ask that it be sent back to the committee 
to address these important issues.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Gary Miller).
  Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong 
support of H.R. 1654, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
Authorization Act of 1999. I would like to thank the sponsors of this 
bill, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Brown), the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), 
the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon), the gentleman from Utah (Mr. 
Cook), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Nethercutt) and the gentleman 
from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge) for their leadership on this issue.
  As a member of the Committee on Science, I am especially pleased with 
H.R. 1654 because it will be the first reauthorization legislation for 
NASA spending since 1992. The administration has cut NASA's budget 6 
years in a row, leaving the agency to do much more with much less. I 
commend NASA for rising to the occasion by streamlining and reforming 
its projects. However, this history of chipping away at NASA's budget 
is proving to be detrimental to our Nation's technological research and 
development. To reverse this trend, H.R. 1654 provides increased 
funding for NASA's programs critical to maintaining and advancing our 
leadership in space, science and technology through fiscal year 2002, 
for investing in science and technology today serves to create a better 
tomorrow for everyone.
  At the same time, H.R. 1654 continues to promote the fiscal 
discipline in our space programs. For example, this legislation fully 
funds NASA's request for the International Space Station and Space 
Shuttle operations but it prohibits funding for Trans-Hab as a 
replacement for the station's habitation module because of its higher 
cost. H.R. 1654 also redirects funding for the controversial, untested 
Triana satellite program, which would transmit new pictures of the 
Earth to the Internet, toward cutting-edge microgravity research that 
will be used to support human exploration and development of space 
enterprise. This is a far more useful investment than the $75 million 
plus Triana screen saver.
  A final attribute of this legislation is its commitment of NASA 
resources to science education. H.R. 1654 allots $20 million for the 
continuation of the highly successful National Space Grant College and 
Fellowship Program. This program uses the assets of NASA for education 
and public service purposes. It has been a highly innovative leader in 
California, bringing together community-based alliances composed of 
educational institutions, industry and government to work together on 
projects which are both related to space and are of community 
importance. The student-mentor process involved in this program has 
shown significant results in workforce preparation and science 
literacy. Once again I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this 
bill.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to my classmate, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I have never failed to vote for a bill 
from this committee of significance. I have eaten some tough votes by 
some neighboring politicians who have come back and talked about the 
pork in space, in the Space Station. I have been beat up pretty good on 
the votes. I am going to vote ``no'' on this bill today. It takes a new 
and efficient engine technology that is at the John Glenn Center in 
Cleveland, formerly Lewis, and takes it out of this bill, and I will 
oppose it.
  My purpose standing here today is I am offering a couple of 
amendments. They are basically sense of the Congress, because, you know 
what? Congress does not do a whole hell of a lot here. So we are going 
to encourage them. The encouragement is basically this. If NASA is 
going to develop any new programs or facilities, do not do them at the 
existing bases. Take NASA to the people. When you have a supplemental 
like we had last night, everybody has some of the military and they 
feel an alignment and a personal relationship with our Pentagon and 
military structure. That does not exist here at NASA. NASA is a program 
for America, but it is located in very few facilities, and I think it 
is good political wisdom and common sense to open this program up to 
the people.
  The Traficant amendment says, whenever possible, on these new 
facilities, look at other sites other than existing sites and look at 
those depressed communities that could become a part of this great 
national program. Look, this ivory tower business is over. These 
accidents have brought NASA down to earth. Now we are looking at a 
tough budget climate trying to carve out money.
  I will say this to the gentleman from Wisconsin. He has done a 
remarkable job. This vote is no reflection on his efforts. I think he 
has done a great job and he is a great chairman of this committee. But 
I want this committee to look back at that engine technology at the 
John Glenn Center. I think it is good for the future, and I think it is 
something in conference you should look at very seriously.
  Finally, the second amendment says, buy American wherever you can. I 
know the committee is working with this, but I do not know how many of 
my colleagues saw and heard the news from last night. A classified 
report says Russia is spying on America in the Balkans and sharing the 
fruits of their gain with Milosevic. How much more money are we going 
to give to the Russians? How much more technology transfers are there 
going to be through open, goodhearted, good-faith, spirited work with 
Russia? I think if these participating countries do not pay, they 
should be thrown out of the program. If

[[Page 10037]]

American taxpayers are going to finance these projects, then dammit, 
save that technology and keep it here.
  So the two amendments are straightforward. I would appreciate 
Members' support on them. But I would appreciate looking at that engine 
technology that will be taken from the John Glenn Center. Just remember 
that. The John Glenn Space Center in Cleveland, Ohio, that is a 
tremendous program up there and that is a tremendous project. I would 
appreciate it if you would look at that.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, when I read the Washington Post this morning, I learned 
that the Vice President's spokesman had called the majority a party of 
troglodytes because we think it is more important to spend $32 million 
on medical research than on funding the Vice President's late night 
inspiration for a multimillion-dollar screen saver called Triana. 
Personally, I do not think that making medical research a higher 
priority is a reason to descend into name calling.
  I am disappointed, however, that the minority in this Chamber has 
decided to transform a matter of priority-setting into a partisan 
political dispute. I thought better of them. That is why I have worked 
for the last 2\1/2\ years to mend fences and to build a sense of 
bipartisanship on the Committee on Science. For the majority members of 
the Committee on Science, that meant compromising with the minority and 
trying to bridge the differences between us. I thought we had made a 
good-faith effort to do that.
  In developing the NASA authorization bill in committee, we made 13 
separate changes to accommodate the minority even before the bill was 
introduced. We rewrote findings on international cooperation that the 
committee endorsed for 4 years. But when the minority changed its mind, 
we changed the language at their request.
  We added findings on the importance of the Deep Space Network at the 
request of the minority. We added findings on the Hubble space 
telescope at the request of the minority. We changed language 
authorizing upgrades to the Space Shuttle and prohibited obligation of 
those Shuttle funds pending a report, at the request of the minority. 
We added funding for space science to offset the added costs associated 
with an emergency repair mission for the Hubble space telescope, at the 
request of the minority.
  We delayed implementation of the small demonstration program of space 
science data purchases until fiscal year 2002, at the request of the 
minority. We reduced the level and details of increased funding for 
advanced space transportation, at the request of the minority. We 
changed the language requiring NASA to conduct earth science data 
purchases, at the request of the minority.
  That did not satisfy them. But they made no effort to meet us 
halfway. We changed the requirement that NASA consider the impact of 
its international missions on the competitiveness of the U.S. space 
industry, at the request of the minority. We removed two positions 
related to the consolidated space operations contract, at the request 
of the minority.
  We rewrote a section directing NASA to begin prioritizing Shuttle 
upgrades, at the request of the minority. We added a new section 
establishing in law a White House technology program for human space 
flight, at the request of the minority. By the way, if we were 
interested in making this a partisan bill at the Vice President's 
expense, we never would have done any of that.
  In the committee markup, we accepted an amendment increasing funding 
for space grant universities, by the minority. We accepted an amendment 
increasing funding for historically black colleges and universities, at 
the request of the minority. We accepted an amendment changing NASA's 
educational responsibilities, at the request of the minority. We 
accepted an amendment on report language, at the request of the 
minority. And for the last week, the subcommittee chairman and I have 
been working with other minority members to add or change report 
language and develop colloquies to support their goals.
  How does the minority respond to all of these efforts? Its 
presidential candidate calls us troglodytes. Democrats withdrew their 
names as cosponsors of the bill and withdrew their support increasing 
NASA's budget over the President's request, and the minority mobilizes 
to defeat the bill along partisan lines, at the same time complaining 
that we should add more money, add more money, to some of these other 
programs.
  Now, I would hope that we can rise above such tactics and agree to 
disagree on the one issue that still divides us. This bill increases 
NASA's funding over the level of the President's request and contains 
many changes requested by the minority. It should be passed on a 
bipartisan basis.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, let me first concur with the fact that the 
gentleman has brought a much better atmosphere to our committee. I 
think that we are working in a much better way. We need to since, when 
we think, there has not been a bill passed since 1992. Certainly there 
needs to be some improvements.
  Let me also point out that the gentleman said, and he went through a 
litany, a variety of acceptances of the majority to minority position. 
Let us put this in perspective. There was never a subcommittee markup. 
The minority was given a bill 10 days in advance and said, ``Here it 
is.'' So I hardly think that it is a mammoth undertaking that the 
majority would accept some positive, I think constructive ways to make 
this bill better so we can get it passed in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Reclaiming my time, I think the gentleman from 
Tennessee is rewriting history a bit. We gave them a draft of the bill. 
Before it was introduced there were 13 separate changes made to the 
text of the bill at the request of the minority, as has been the policy 
of this chairman of the Committee on Science, to try and narrow some 
issues and to be as bipartisan as possible and where there is a 
disagreement, to be able to fight those out and to debate the issue on 
the merits.

                              {time}  1130

  Now we did not call anybody any names during the committee markup or 
afterwards, and it wrecks the bipartisan nature of dealing with NASA 
and supporting NASA when I pick up the Washington Post this morning and 
see the Vice President's spokesman calling the majority party a bunch 
of dinosaurs because we have a disagreement over the Triana program. 
Our priority is to put money that my colleagues want to go into Triana 
into medical research, and that was the amendment that was adopted when 
the Committee on Science marked this bill up. This may be a legitimate 
disagreement where we think we should put more money into medical 
research and less into Triana.
  But dealing with the budget, and that is what an authorization bill 
is, is dealing with priorities. I will lay my priorities against my 
colleague's priorities, the gentleman from Tennessee, but he ought to 
tell his former senator and his spokesman that when we have got a 
disagreement in priorities let us not devolve into name calling.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, let me again concur that this should be 
about issues, not name calling, and I completely agree with the 
gentleman. I suspect part of this probably resulted from the fact that 
the chairman of the Republican National Committee had earlier released 
news releases condemning it and calling the Vice President names. That 
was wrong, and it was wrong on each side.
  As my colleagues know, this is about issues. As my colleague pointed 
out, this is about a variety of disagreements, this is about trying to 
get the

[[Page 10038]]

best bill possible, and we should rise above name calling, and I had no 
part in that, but I would offer my apologies for anything that goes 
beyond the real merits of this bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I would hope the 
gentleman from Tennessee would tap his predecessor on the shoulder and 
tell him to discipline his staff a little bit more, not calling people 
who are on the Committee on Science and dealing with the issues of 
setting priorities in good faith the names that appeared in the paper 
this morning.
  Mr. GORDON. If I can just finally thank the gentleman for explaining 
what that term meant? I read it, but I did not know what it meant, so I 
thank him for that definition.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, the last time the Congress sent a NASA 
Authorization Bill to the President was in 1992. Since then the 
appropriators have worked, year after year, to analyze the needs of 
NASA and allocate those funds necessary to maintain our nation's 
aeronautics and space priorities. 1999 looked like the year that the 
authorizers in the House Science Committee would step up to the plate. 
In this regard I would like to commend Chairman James Sensenbrenner and 
Subcommittee Chairman Dana Rohrabacher for putting together H.R. 1654 
and presenting it to this body.
  This original bill eliminated funding for the Ultra-Efficient Engine 
Technology Program, a focused program by NASA that will set the stage 
for the development of revolutionary new aircraft engines. The UEET 
continues the aeronautics research that NASA has pursued for many 
years, and it deserves widespread support.
  First, the UEET is important to the environment. The advanced engines 
being developed will produce less emissions that are harmful to the 
environment, and this goal is essential to allow US aircraft to compete 
with those manufactured in Europe. The next generation of engines will 
also be quieter, a big step forward for neighborhoods located around 
airports.
  The UEET is also important to consumers and the flying public. 
Advanced engines will use fuel more efficiently, helping to keep down 
ticket prices.
  The UEET is also important to the competitive position of major 
American firms. The aerospace and aeronautics industry is one of the 
few American industries still dominated by US firms in the global 
marketplace. But that leadership is threatened by foreign 
manufacturers, working hand-in-glove with foreign governments that 
provide huge subsidies. We must compete and survive on the basis of 
high technology and the most sophisticated research available. We must 
develop the aircraft engines that will allow US airplanes to fly into 
European airports. This is a major sector of our economy, and hundreds 
of thousands of high skill jobs hang in the balance.
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the UEET is closely related to our national 
security and the future of military aircraft. Since its development 
several years ago, the UEET has been coordinated with the Department of 
Defense and its High Performance Turbine Engine Program. By supporting 
the UEET, this Congress is supporting the sort of advanced aircraft 
that foster our national defense. I join with Representative James 
Traficant and Representative Steven C. LaTourette in supporting an 
amendment to remove the language from the bill that cut funding for 
this program.
  Originally, the bill also cut funding for NASA's Aircraft Noise 
Research Program. The results of this research are essential to 
protecting people who live near airports nationwide. Continued funding 
of the UEET and the Aircraft Noise Reduction programs will ensure that 
new aircraft will be quieter and less disruptive for people who live 
near airports.
  Air travel is increasing at a dramatic rate across the country. The 
economy is good; airline ticket prices are affordable; airlines are 
serving more and more airports. Cleveland Hopkins International 
Airport, which is in my congressional district, is expected to 
experience an increase of 200 daily flights this summer. 200 more 
flights means that the residents and schools surrounding the airport 
will experience 200 times the aircraft noise. The current level of 
aircraft noise is already very disruptive to these people's lives, and 
an increase will cause them even more suffering.
  I joined with Representative Anthony Weiner in supporting an 
amendment to restore NASA's Aircraft Noise Research program to last 
year's funding level by adding $11 million in FY 2000, $10 million in 
2001 and $8.5 million in 2002. NASA has set a goal of reducing aircraft 
noise by one-half over the next ten years. Without full funding, this 
goal will not be attained. Great strides have already been made in 
making aircraft engines quieter and more efficient. By maintaining 
funding for the Noise Research program, we can ensure that the next 
phase of engines, State IV, will soon be able to provide relief to 
neighborhoods and schools surrounding airports.
  Mr. NETHERCUTT. Mr. Chairman, I submit the following letters for the 
Record:

       Dear Congressman Nethercutt: Without support for life 
     science research, the investment in the Space Station won't 
     pay off. Just as the National Institutes of Health long-term 
     commitment to basic research has revolutionized medicine, 
     NASA can do the same for maintaining people in space. As 
     president-elect of the American Society for Gravitational and 
     Space Biology, I encourage you to support the $32 million 
     increase in the life science research budget (HR 1654). We 
     strongly oppose any amendment to strike those funds.
       Life science research at NASA benefits more than our space 
     program. The problems seen during and after spaceflight--
     trouble with balance, muscle loss, bone loss, low blood 
     pressure and radiation damage to cells--affect millions on 
     the ground too. The basic research on how the body senses and 
     adapts to gravity will pay off in the long run against 
     problems like osteoporosis and balance disorders.
       Recently, I flew in space on the Neurolab Space Shuttle 
     mission (STS-90). This dedicated life sciences mission 
     demonstrated the quality and importance of the science that 
     NASA can do in space. The results from this mission's 
     experiments on balance, sleep, blood pressure and nervous 
     system development are changing how we understand the brain 
     and nervous system.
       NASA's and the United States' goal is to keep people in 
     space for longer periods of time and we need to learn how to 
     do it effectively. The key to this is a strong research 
     program that (1) maintains an active ground-based research 
     program with a 9-10/1 ground to flight experiment ratio, (2) 
     supports new students and fellows (I personally started my 
     career with a NASA-supported fellowship program), (3) 
     increases the percentage of high-scoring scientific proposals 
     that can be funded (the current level is quite low).
       We appreciate the support life science research has 
     received in the past and encourage you to vote to increase 
     funding for research that will be the foundation for success 
     on the International Space Station.
           Sincerely,

                                     Jay C. Buckey, Jr., M.D.,

                             President-Elect, American Society for
                                  Gravitational and Space Biology.
                                  ____
                                  
         Juvenile Diabetes Foundation International, The Diabetes 
           Research Foundation,
                                                     May 19, 1999.
     Hon. George R. Nethercutt, Jr.,
     House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Nethercutt: On behalf of the Juvenile 
     Diabetes Foundation International (JDF), I wish to express 
     our support for increased funding for NASA's Office of Life 
     and Microgravity Science.
       As you know, JDF enjoys a mutually beneficial relationship 
     with NASA to conduct diabetes research. The JDF-NASA 
     partnership has successfully led to research projects 
     exploring diabetes-related eye disease, noninvasive blood 
     glucose sensors, islet cell transplantation and other areas 
     of research that may benefit people with diabetes. Your role 
     as Co-Chairman of the Congressional Diabetes Caucus has 
     continued to reinforce this essential partnership,
       I applaud your championing of sound and scientific medical 
     research policies. I hope that your work to increase funding 
     for Life and Microgravity science research will speed the 
     path to a cure for diabetes and its complications. I realize 
     that funding decisions are difficult because many of the 
     programs are meritorious and promising. However, the JDF and 
     I are thankful that you have made finding cures for disease 
     and saving lives your priority in Congress.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Leah Mullin,
                            Chair, Government Relations Committee.

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1654, the 
NASA Authorization Bill. Although the bill authorizes funding for 
NASA's priorities including the International Space Station, the Space 
Shuttle Program and the Hubble Space Telescope, I am concerned with the 
bill's provision barring funding for the Triana Satellite, a project 
directed by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, 
California in conjunction with the Goddard Space Flight Center in 
Greenbelt, Maryland.
  The Triana Mission, named for the sailor on Columbus' voyage who 
first spotted the New World, will provide not only a real-time view of 
the Earth for distribution on the internet, but will also include 
instruments to study solar influences on climate, ultraviolet 
radiation, space weather, the microphysical properties of clouds, and 
the measurement of vegetation canopies. $35 million is already being 
spent on this project in FY'99 and researchers and scientists at 
Goddard Space Flight Center are working hard on the design of the 
spacecraft

[[Page 10039]]

and the ground system for the satellite as well as providing program 
integration and support.
  I am disappointed that this important project has become mired in a 
partisan debate over the Vice President's involvement.
  Despite the absence of the Triana program, the bill does support many 
worthwhile programs important to NASA and to the Goddard Space Flight 
Center. With continued funding of projects in the fields of earth and 
space science like funding for the Earth Orbiting System (EOS) and an 
additional $30 million in FY'00 for the Hubble Space Telescope 
servicing mission, the bill authorizes funding crucial to these 
programs' continued success.
  The bill also authorizes funding to repair an aging infrastructure at 
Goddard. The $2.9 million for repair of the steam distribution network 
and $3.9 million for chilled water distribution are key construction 
projects for maintaining the Space Flight Center's status as one of 
NASA's premier facilities.
  Despite the many beneficial projects in this authorization bill, I 
cannot support a bill that puts politics before programs intended to 
provide a better understanding of our last true frontier.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Chairman, in 1803, President Thomas Jefferson 
successfully gained approval from Congress for a truly visionary 
project. This project was to become one of America's greatest 
explorations. Congress appropriated funds for the small U.S. Army unit, 
led by Lewis and Clark, to explore the Missouri and Columbia rivers. 
From this exploration, we gained invaluable information for future 
settlement.
  Exploration is as engrained into American heritage as freedom is. 
America is a nation that has been supportive of exploration from our 
earliest years. Congress is again challenged to appropriate funding for 
America's continued exploration. The return we receive from every 
dollar we invest in space exploration is an average of 9 dollars. Space 
exploration is an extraordinary investment.
  For the last ten years, I have had the privilege of aiding in the 
continuation of American exploration. The Space Program is one of the 
most important areas of exploration that we can support. The benefits 
of the space program to improving human life are innumerable.
  Two of the more important results to me personally are in the health 
field--pacemakers and laser eye surgery. Pacemakers have saved 
thousands of lives, including the life of one of my staff's father. The 
technology gained by electronics testing during space flights is 
priceless. The innovations implemented after space testing has 
revolutionized life for thousands with pacemakers.
  Another life improving benefit is laser eye surgery. Lasers being 
developed by NASA would aid in the early detection of eye disease and 
spot cataracts before they are severe enough to require surgery. 
Cataracts in Florida, especially among the elderly are a constant 
threat, but thanks to a NASA-developed laser light, opthamologists are 
beginning clinical trials on investigating the early formation, 
detection and treatment of cataracts.
  These examples barely scratch the surface. I could continue listing 
benefits, but time will simply not allow it. The technology created 
from the space program will improve the lives of all Americans--in many 
ways--and will be the basis for profound technological advances for 
generations to come.
  The space program deserves our continued support.
  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Chairman, I rise to address provisions added to 
H.R. 1654, which are in the jurisdiction of the Committee on Education 
and the Workforce, specifically Section 219, the ``100th Anniversary of 
Flight Educational Initiative.''
  I wish to thank the Chairman of the Science Committee and the 
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics, Mr. Rohrabacher, 
for working with me to modify this section. The provision, as 
originally adopted by the Committee on Science, would have called for 
federal curriculum development regarding a specific subject matter. As 
I have been an opponent of federal involvement in curriculum 
development and as Section 438 of the General Education Provisions Act 
currently prohibits such federal activity, I am pleased that these 
provisions have been modified to recognize the importance of educating 
our nation's children regarding the 100th Anniversary of Powered 
Flight, without the intrusion of oppressive federal authority. Again, I 
wish to thank the gentleman for working with me and the Committee on 
Education and the Workforce and I look forward to working with you in 
conference negotiations with the other body.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
  Pursuant to the rule, the committee amendment in the nature of a 
substitute printed in the bill is considered as an original bill for 
the purpose of amendment and is considered read.
  The text of the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute is 
as follows:

                               H.R. 1654

       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 ``National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 
     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. International Space Station.
Sec. 102. Launch Vehicle and Payload Operations.
Sec. 103. Science, Aeronautics, and Technology.
Sec. 104. Mission Support.
Sec. 105. Inspector General.
Sec. 106. Total authorization.
Sec. 107. Aviation systems capacity.

             Subtitle B--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. Limitation on obligation of unauthorized appropriations.
Sec. 125. Use of funds for scientific consultations or extraordinary 
              expenses.
Sec. 126. Earth science limitation.
Sec. 127. Competitiveness and international cooperation.
Sec. 128. Trans-hab.
Sec. 129. Consolidated Space Operations Contract.
Sec. 130. Triana funding prohibition.

                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

Sec. 201. Requirement for independent cost analysis.
Sec. 202. National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958 amendments.
Sec. 203. Commercial space goods and services.
Sec. 204. Cost effectiveness calculations.
Sec. 205. Foreign contract limitation.
Sec. 206. Authority to reduce or suspend contract payments based on 
              substantial evidence of fraud.
Sec. 207. Space Shuttle upgrade study.
Sec. 208. Aero-space transportation technology integration.
Sec. 209. Definitions of commercial space policy terms.
Sec. 210. External tank opportunities study.
Sec. 211. Eligibility for awards.
Sec. 212. Notice.
Sec. 213. Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 amendments.
Sec. 214. Innovative technologies for human space flight.
Sec. 215. Life in the universe.
Sec. 216. Research on International Space Station.
Sec. 217. Remote sensing for agricultural and resource management.
Sec. 218. Integrated safety research plan.
Sec. 219. 100th anniversary of flight educational initiative.
Sec. 220. Internet availability of information.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     should continue to pursue actions and reforms directed at 
     reducing institutional costs, including management 
     restructuring, facility consolidation, procurement reform, 
     and convergence with defense and commercial sector systems.
       (2) The National Aeronautics and Space Administration must 
     continue on its current course of returning to its proud 
     history as the Nation's leader in basic scientific, air, and 
     space research.
       (3) The overwhelming preponderance of the Federal 
     Government's requirements for routine, 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.
       (4) 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, and human 
     space systems.
       (5) 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.
       (6) 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--
       (i) is undertaken in a manner that is sensitive to the 
     desire of United States commercial providers to develop or 
     explore space commercially;

[[Page 10040]]

       (ii) is consistent with the need for Federal agencies to 
     use space to complete their missions; and
       (iii) is carried out in a manner consistent with United 
     States export control laws.
       (7) 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.
       (8) The Deep Space Network will continue to be a critically 
     important part of the Nation's scientific and exploration 
     infrastructure in the coming decades, and the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration should ensure that the 
     Network is adequately maintained and that upgrades required 
     to support future missions are undertaken in a timely manner.
       (9) The Hubble Space Telescope has proven to be an 
     important national astronomical research facility that is 
     revolutionizing our understanding of the universe and should 
     be kept productive, and its capabilities should be maintained 
     and enhanced as appropriate to serve as a scientific bridge 
     to the next generation of space-based observatories.

     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
       (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 
     Commerce 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. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for International Space 
     Station--
       (1) for fiscal year 2000, $2,482,700,000, of which 
     $394,400,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)--
       (A) shall only be for Space Station research or for the 
     purposes described in section 103(2); and
       (B) shall be administered by the Office of Life and 
     Microgravity Sciences and Applications;
       (2) for fiscal year 2001, $2,328,000,000, of which 
     $465,400,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)--
       (A) shall only be for Space Station research or for the 
     purposes described in section 103(2); and
       (B) shall be administered by the Office of Life and 
     Microgravity Sciences and Applications; and
       (3) for fiscal year 2002, $2,091,000,000, of which 
     $469,200,000, notwithstanding section 121(a)--
       (A) shall only be for Space Station research or for the 
     purposes described in section 103(2); and
       (B) shall be administered by the Office of Life and 
     Microgravity Sciences and Applications.

     SEC. 102. LAUNCH VEHICLE AND PAYLOAD OPERATIONS.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for Launch Vehicle and 
     Payload Operations the following amounts:
       (1) For Space Shuttle Operations--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $2,547,400,000;
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $2,649,900,000; and
       (C) for fiscal year 2002, $2,629,000,000.
       (2) For Space Shuttle Safety and Performance Upgrades--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $456,800,000, of which 
     $18,000,000 shall not be obligated until 45 days after the 
     report required by section 207 has been submitted to the 
     Congress;
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $407,200,000; and
       (C) for fiscal year 2002, $414,000,000.
       (3) For Payload and Utilization Operations--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $169,100,000;
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $182,900,000; and
       (C) for fiscal year 2002, $184,500,000.

     SEC. 103. 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 2000, $2,202,400,000, of which--
       (i) $10,500,000 shall be for the Near Earth Object Survey;
       (ii) $472,000,000 shall be for the Research Program;
       (iii) $12,000,000 shall be for Space Solar Power 
     technology; and
       (iv) $170,400,000 shall be for Hubble Space Telescope 
     (Development);
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $2,315,200,000, of which--
       (i) $10,500,000 shall be for the Near Earth Object Survey;
       (ii) $475,800,000 shall be for the Research Program; and
       (iii) $12,000,000 shall be for Space Solar Power 
     technology; and
       (C) for fiscal year 2002, $2,411,800,000, of which--
       (i) $10,500,000 shall be for the Near Earth Object Survey;
       (ii) $511,100,000 shall be for the Research Program;
       (iii) $12,000,000 shall be for Space Solar Power 
     technology; and
       (iv) $5,000,000 shall be for space science data buy.
       (2) For Life and Microgravity Sciences and Applications--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $333,600,000, of which $2,000,000 
     shall be for research and early detection systems for breast 
     and ovarian cancer and other women's health issues, and 
     $5,000,000 shall be for sounding rocket vouchers;
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $335,200,000, of which $2,000,000 
     shall be for research and early detection systems for breast 
     and ovarian cancer and other women's health issues; and
       (C) for fiscal year 2002, $344,000,000, 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 Earth Science, subject to the limitations set forth 
     in sections 126 and 130--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $1,382,500,000;
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $1,413,300,000; and
       (C) for fiscal year 2002, $1,365,300,000.
       (4) For Aero-Space Technology--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $999,300,000, of which--
       (i) $532,800,000 shall be for Aeronautical Research and 
     Technology, with no funds to be used for the Ultra-Efficient 
     Engine, and with $412,800,000 to be for the Research and 
     Technology Base;
       (ii) $334,000,000 shall be for Advanced Space 
     Transportation Technology, including--

       (I) $61,300,000 for the Future-X Demonstration Program; and
       (II) $105,600,000 for Advanced Space Transportation 
     Program; and

       (iii) $132,500,000 shall be for Commercial Technology;
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $908,400,000, of which--
       (i) $524,000,000 shall be for Aeronautical Research and 
     Technology, with no funds to be used for the Ultra-Efficient 
     Engine, and with $399,800,000 to be for the Research and 
     Technology Base, and with $54,200,000 to be for Aviation 
     System Capacity;
       (ii) $249,400,000 shall be for Advanced Space 
     Transportation Technology, including--

       (I) $109,000,000 for the Future-X Demonstration Program; 
     and
       (II) $134,400,000 for Advanced Space Transportation 
     Program; and

       (iii) $135,000,000 shall be for Commercial Technology; and
       (C) for fiscal year 2002, $994,800,000, of which--
       (i) $519,200,000 shall be for Aeronautical Research and 
     Technology, with no funds to be used for the Ultra-Efficient 
     Engine, and with $381,600,000 to be for the Research and 
     Technology Base, and with $67,600,000 to be for Aviation 
     System Capacity;
       (ii) $340,000,000 shall be for Advanced Space 
     Transportation Technology; and
       (iii) $135,600,000 shall be for Commercial Technology.
       (5) For Mission Communication Services--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $406,300,000;
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $382,100,000; and
       (C) for fiscal year 2002, $296,600,000.
       (6) For Academic Programs--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $128,600,000, of which 
     $11,600,000 shall be for Higher Education within the Teacher/
     Faculty Preparation and Enhancement Programs, of which 
     $20,000,000 shall be for the National Space Grant College and 
     Fellowship Program, and of which $62,100,000 shall be for 
     minority university research and education, including 
     $33,600,000 for Historically Black Colleges and Universities;
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $128,600,000, of which 
     $62,100,000 shall be for minority university research and 
     education, including $33,600,000 for Historically Black 
     Colleges and Universities; and

[[Page 10041]]

       (C) for fiscal year 2002, $130,600,000, of which 
     $62,800,000 shall be for minority university research and 
     education, including $34,000,000 for Historically Black 
     Colleges and Universities.
       (7) For Future Planning (Space Launch)--
       (A) for fiscal year 2001, $144,000,000; and
       (B) for fiscal year 2002, $280,000,000.

     SEC. 104. 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 2000, $43,000,000;
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $45,000,000; and
       (C) for fiscal year 2002, $49,000,000.
       (2) For Space Communication Services--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $89,700,000;
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $109,300,000; and
       (C) for fiscal year 2002, $174,200,000.
       (3) For Construction of Facilities, including land 
     acquisition--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $181,000,000, including--
       (i) Restore Electrical Distribution System (ARC), 
     $2,700,000;
       (ii) Rehabilitate Main Hangar Building 4802 (Dryden Flight 
     Research Center (DFRC)), $2,900,000;
       (iii) Rehabilitate High Voltage System (Glenn Research 
     Center), $7,600,000;
       (iv) Repair Site Steam Distribution System (GSFC), 
     $2,900,000;
       (v) Restore Chilled Water Distribution System (GSFC), 
     $3,900,000;
       (vi) Rehabilitate Hydrostatic Bearing Runner, 70 meter 
     Antenna, Goldstone (JPL), $1,700,000;
       (vii) Upgrade 70 meter Antenna Servo Drive, 70 meter 
     Antenna Subnet (JPL), $3,400,000;
       (viii) Rehabilitate Utility Tunnel Structure and Systems 
     (Johnson Space Center (JSC)), $5,600,000;
       (ix) Connect KSC to CCAS Wastewater Treatment Plant (KSC), 
     $2,500,000;
       (x) Repair and Modernize HVAC System, Central Instrument 
     Facility (KSC), $3,000,000;
       (xi) Replace High Voltage Load Break Switches (KSC), 
     $2,700,000;
       (xii) Repair and Modernize HVAC and Electrical systems, 
     Building 4201 (Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC)), 
     $2,300,000;
       (xiii) Repair Roofs, Vehicle Component Supply buildings 
     (MAF), $2,000,000;
       (xiv) Minor Revitalization of Facilities at Various 
     Locations, not in excess of $1,500,000 per project, 
     $65,500,000;
       (xv) Minor Construction of New Facilities and Additions to 
     Existing Facilities at Various Locations, not in excess of 
     $1,500,000 per project, $5,000,000;
       (xvi) Facility Planning and Design, $19,200,000;
       (xvii) Deferred Major Maintenance, $8,000,000;
       (xviii) Environmental Compliance and Restoration, 
     $40,100,000;
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $181,000,000; and
       (C) for fiscal year 2002, $191,000,000.
       (4) For Research and Program Management, including 
     personnel and related costs, travel, and research operations 
     support--
       (A) for fiscal year 2000, $2,181,200,000;
       (B) for fiscal year 2001, $2,195,000,000; and
       (C) for fiscal year 2002, $2,261,600,000.

     SEC. 105. INSPECTOR GENERAL.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for Inspector General--
       (1) for fiscal year 2000, $22,000,000;
       (2) for fiscal year 2001, $22,000,000; and
       (3) for fiscal year 2002, $22,000,000.

     SEC. 106. 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 2000, $13,625,600,000;
       (2) for fiscal year 2001, $13,747,100,000; and
       (3) for fiscal year 2002, $13,839,400,000.

     SEC. 107. AVIATION SYSTEMS CAPACITY.

       In addition to amounts otherwise authorized, there are 
     authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the 
     Federal Aviation Administration $5,000,000 for fiscal year 
     2001 for aviation systems capacity.
             Subtitle B--Limitations and Special Authority

     SEC. 121. USE OF FUNDS FOR CONSTRUCTION.

       (a) Authorized Uses.--Funds appropriated under sections 
     101, 102, 103, and 104(1) and (2), and funds appropriated for 
     research operations support under section 104(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 $1,000,000, 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 104(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 section 104(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 section 104(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. 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 2000 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 2001 or 2002,

     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.
       (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 2000, 2001, or 2002 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. 125. USE OF FUNDS FOR SCIENTIFIC CONSULTATIONS OR 
                   EXTRAORDINARY EXPENSES.

       Not more than $30,000 of the funds appropriated under 
     section 103 may be used for scientific consultations or 
     extraordinary expenses, upon the authority of the 
     Administrator.

     SEC. 126. EARTH SCIENCE LIMITATION.

       Of the funds authorized to be appropriated for Earth 
     Science under section 103(3) for each of fiscal years 2001 
     and 2002, $50,000,000 shall be for the Commercial Remote 
     Sensing Program at Stennis Space Center for commercial data 
     purchases, unless the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration has integrated data purchases into the 
     procurement process for Earth science research by obligating 
     at least 5 percent of the aggregate amount appropriated for 
     that fiscal year for Earth Observing System and Earth Probes 
     for the purchase of Earth science data from the private 
     sector.

     SEC. 127. COMPETITIVENESS AND INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

       (a) Limitation.--As part of the evaluation of the costs and 
     benefits of entering into an obligation to conduct a space 
     mission in which a foreign entity will participate as a 
     supplier of the

[[Page 10042]]

     spacecraft, spacecraft system, or launch system, the 
     Administrator shall solicit comment on the potential impact 
     of such participation through notice published in Commerce 
     Business Daily at least 45 days before entering into such an 
     obligation.
       (b) National Interests.--Before entering into an obligation 
     described in subsection (a), the Administrator shall consider 
     the national interests of the United States described in 
     section 2(6).

     SEC. 128. TRANS-HAB.

       (a) Replacement Structure.--No funds authorized by this Act 
     shall be obligated for the definition, design, or development 
     of an inflatable space structure to replace any International 
     Space Station components scheduled for launch in the Assembly 
     Sequence released by the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration on February 22, 1999.
       (b) General Limitation.--No funds authorized by this Act 
     for fiscal year 2000 shall be obligated for the definition, 
     design, or development of an inflatable space structure 
     capable of accommodating humans in space.

     SEC. 129. CONSOLIDATED SPACE OPERATIONS CONTRACT.

       No funds authorized by this Act shall be used to create a 
     Government-owned corporation to perform the functions that 
     are the subject of the Consolidated Space Operations 
     Contract.

     SEC. 130. TRIANA FUNDING PROHIBITION.

       None of the funds authorized by this Act may be used for 
     the Triana program, except that $2,500,000 of the amount 
     authorized under section 103(3)(A) for fiscal year 2000 shall 
     be available for termination costs.
                   TITLE II--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 201. REQUIREMENT FOR INDEPENDENT COST ANALYSIS.

       Before any funds may be obligated for Phase B of a project 
     that is projected to cost more than $100,000,000 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. 202. 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''.

     SEC. 203. 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. 204. 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. 205. 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. 206. AUTHORITY TO REDUCE OR SUSPEND CONTRACT PAYMENTS 
                   BASED ON SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.

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

     SEC. 207. SPACE SHUTTLE UPGRADE STUDY.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator shall enter into appropriate 
     arrangements for the conduct of an independent study to 
     reassess the priority of all Phase III and Phase IV Space 
     Shuttle upgrades.
       (b) Priorities.--The study described in subsection (a) 
     shall establish relative priorities of the upgrades within 
     each of the following categories:
       (1) Upgrades that are safety related.
       (2) Upgrades that may have functional or technological 
     applicability to reusable launch vehicles.
       (3) Upgrades that have a payback period within the next 12 
     years.
       (c) Completion Date.--The results of the study described in 
     subsection (a) shall be transmitted to the Congress not later 
     than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 208. AERO-SPACE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY INTEGRATION.

       (a) Integration Plan.--The Administrator shall develop a 
     plan for the integration of research, development, and 
     experimental demonstration activities in the aeronautics 
     transportation technology and space transportation technology 
     areas. The plan shall ensure that integration is accomplished 
     without losing unique capabilities which support the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration's defined missions. The 
     plan shall also include appropriate strategies for using 
     aeronautics centers in integration efforts.
       (b) Reports to Congress.--Not later than 90 days after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
     transmit to the Congress a report containing the plan 
     developed under subsection (a). The Administrator shall 
     transmit to the Congress annually thereafter for 5 years a 
     report on progress in achieving such plan, to be transmitted 
     with the annual budget request.

     SEC. 209. DEFINITIONS OF COMMERCIAL SPACE POLICY TERMS.

       The Administrator shall ensure that the usage of 
     terminology in National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     policies and programs is consistent with the following 
     definitions:
       (1) The term ``commercialization'' means the process of 
     private entities conducting privatized space activities to 
     expand their customer base beyond the Federal Government to 
     address existing or potential commercial markets, investing 
     private resources to meet those commercial market 
     requirements.
       (2) The term ``commercial purchase'' means a purchase by 
     the Federal Government of space goods and services at a 
     market price from a private entity which has invested private 
     resources to meet commercial requirements.
       (3) The term ``commercial use of Federal assets'' means the 
     use by a service contractor or other private entity of the 
     capability of Federal assets to deliver services to 
     commercial customers, with or without putting private capital 
     at risk.
       (4) The term ``contract consolidation'' means the combining 
     of two or more Government service contracts for related space 
     activities into one larger Government service contract.
       (5) The term ``privatization'' means the process of 
     transferring--
       (A) control and ownership of Federal space-related assets, 
     along with the responsibility for operating, maintaining, and 
     upgrading those assets; or
       (B) control and responsibility for space-related functions,

     from the Federal Government to the private sector.

     SEC. 210. EXTERNAL TANK OPPORTUNITIES STUDY.

       (a) Applications.--the Administrator shall enter into 
     appropriate arrangements for an independent study to 
     identify, and evaluate the potential benefits and costs of, 
     the broadest possible range of commercial and scientific 
     applications which are enabled by the launch of Space Shuttle 
     external tanks into Earth orbit and retention in space, 
     including--
       (1) the use of privately owned external tanks as a venue 
     for commercial advertising on the ground, during ascent, and 
     in Earth orbit, except that such study shall not consider 
     advertising that while in orbit is observable from the ground 
     with the unaided human eye;
       (2) the use of external tanks to achieve scientific or 
     technology demonstration missions in Earth orbit, on the 
     Moon, or elsewhere in space; and
       (3) the use of external tanks as low-cost infrastructure in 
     Earth orbit or on the Moon, including as an augmentation to 
     the International Space Station.

     A final report on the results of such study shall be 
     delivered to the Congress not later than 90 days after the 
     date of enactment of this Act. Such report shall include 
     recommendations as to Government and industry-funded 
     improvements to the external tank which would maximize its 
     cost-effectiveness for the scientific and commercial 
     applications identified.
       (b) Required Improvements.--The Administrator shall conduct 
     an internal agency study, based on the conclusions of the 
     study required by subsection (a), of what--
       (1) improvements to the current Space Shuttle external 
     tank; and
       (2) other in-space transportation or infrastructure 
     capability developments,

     would be required for the safe and economical use of the 
     Space Shuttle external tank for any or all of the 
     applications identified by the study required by subsection 
     (a), a report on which shall be delivered to Congress not 
     later than 45 days after receipt of the final report required 
     by subsection (a).
       (c) Changes in Law or Policy.--Upon receipt of the final 
     report required by subsection (a), the Administrator shall 
     solicit comment from industry on what, if any, changes in law 
     or policy would be required to achieve the applications 
     identified in that final report. Not later than 90 days after 
     receipt of such final report, the Administrator shall 
     transmit to the Congress the comments received along with the 
     recommendations of the Administrator as to changes in law or 
     policy that may be required for those purposes.

[[Page 10043]]



     SEC. 211. ELIGIBILITY FOR AWARDS.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator shall exclude from 
     consideration for grant agreements made by the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration after fiscal year 1999 
     any person who received funds, other than those described in 
     subsection (b), appropriated for a fiscal year after fiscal 
     year 1999, under a grant agreement from any Federal funding 
     source for a project that was not subjected to a competitive, 
     merit-based award process, except as specifically authorized 
     by this Act. Any exclusion from consideration pursuant to 
     this section shall be effective for a period of 5 years after 
     the person receives such Federal funds.
       (b) Exception.--Subsection (a) 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.
       (c) Definition.--For purposes of this section, 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. 212. NOTICE.

       (a) Notice of Reprogramming.--If any funds authorized 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. 213. UNITARY WIND TUNNEL PLAN ACT OF 1949 AMENDMENTS.

       The Unitary Wind Tunnel Plan Act of 1949 is amended--
       (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''.

     SEC. 214. INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES FOR HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT.

       (a) Establishment of Program.--In order to promote a 
     ``faster, cheaper, better'' approach to the human exploration 
     and development of space, the Administrator shall establish a 
     Human Space Flight Commercialization/Technology program of 
     ground-based and space-based research and development in 
     innovative technologies.
       (b) Awards.--At least 75 percent of the amount appropriated 
     for the program established under subsection (a) for any 
     fiscal year shall be awarded through broadly distributed 
     announcements of opportunity that solicit proposals from 
     educational institutions, industry, nonprofit institutions, 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration Centers, the 
     Jet Propulsion Laboratory, other Federal agencies, and other 
     interested organizations, and that allow partnerships among 
     any combination of those entities, with evaluation, 
     prioritization, and recommendations made by external peer 
     review panels.
       (c) Plan.--The Administrator shall include as part of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration's budget 
     request to the Congress for fiscal year 2001 a plan for the 
     implementation of the program established under subsection 
     (a).

     SEC. 215. LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE.

       (a) Review.--The Administrator shall enter into appropriate 
     arrangements with the National Academy of Sciences for the 
     conduct of a review of--
       (1) international efforts to determine the extent of life 
     in the universe; and
       (2) enhancements that can be made to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration's efforts to determine 
     the extent of life in the universe.
       (b) Elements.--The review required by subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) an assessment of the direction of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration's astrobiology 
     initiatives within the Origins program;
       (2) an assessment of the direction of other initiatives 
     carried out by entities other than the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration to determine the extent of life in 
     the universe, including other Federal agencies, foreign space 
     agencies, and private groups such as the Search for 
     Extraterrestrial Intelligence Institute;
       (3) recommendations about scientific and technological 
     enhancements that could be made to the National Aeronautics 
     and Space Administration's astrobiology initiatives to 
     effectively utilize the initiatives of the scientific and 
     technical communities; and
       (4) recommendations for possible coordination or 
     integration of National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
     initiatives with initiatives of other entities described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 18 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall 
     transmit to the Congress a report on the results of the 
     review carried out under this section.

     SEC. 216. RESEARCH ON INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator shall enter into a contract 
     with the National Research Council and the National Academy 
     of Public Administration to jointly conduct a study of the 
     status of life and microgravity research as it relates to the 
     International Space Station. The study shall include--
       (1) an assessment of the United States scientific 
     community's readiness to use the International Space Station 
     for life and microgravity research;
       (2) an assessment of the current and projected factors 
     limiting the United States scientific community's ability to 
     maximize the research potential of the International Space 
     Station, including, but not limited to, the past and present 
     availability of resources in the life and microgravity 
     research accounts within the Office of Human Spaceflight and 
     the Office of Life and Microgravity Sciences and 
     Applications, and the past, present, and projected access to 
     space of the scientific community; and
       (3) recommendations for improving the United States 
     scientific community's ability to maximize the research 
     potential of the International Space Station, including an 
     assessment of the relative costs and benefits of--
       (A) dedicating an annual mission of the Space Shuttle to 
     life and microgravity research during assembly of the 
     International Space Station; and
       (B) maintaining the schedule for assembly in place at the 
     time of enactment.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 1 year 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 the results of the study conducted under 
     this section.

     SEC. 217. REMOTE SENSING FOR AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE 
                   MANAGEMENT.

       The Administrator shall--
       (1) consult with the Secretary of Agriculture to determine 
     data product types that are of use to farmers which can be 
     remotely sensed from air or space;
       (2) consider useful commercial data products related to 
     agriculture as identified by the focused research program 
     between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's 
     Stennis Space Center and the Department of Agriculture; and
       (3) examine other data sources, including commercial 
     sources, LightSAR, RADARSAT I, and RADARSAT II, which can 
     provide domestic and international agricultural information 
     relating to crop conditions, fertilization and irrigation 
     needs, pest infiltration, soil conditions, projected food, 
     feed, and fiber production, and other related subjects.

     SEC. 218. INTEGRATED SAFETY RESEARCH PLAN.

       (a) Requirement.--Not later than March 1, 2000, the 
     Administrator and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation 
     Administration shall jointly prepare and transmit to the 
     Congress an integrated civil aviation safety research and 
     development plan.
       (b) Contents.--The plan required by subsection (a) shall 
     include--
       (1) an identification of the respective research and 
     development requirements, roles, and responsibilities of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration and the Federal 
     Aviation Administration;
       (2) formal mechanisms for the timely sharing of information 
     between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and 
     the Federal Aviation Administration, including a requirement 
     that the FAA-NASA Coordinating Committee established in 1980 
     meet at least twice a year; and
       (3) procedures for increased communication and coordination 
     between the Federal Aviation Administration research advisory 
     committee established under section 44508 of title 49, United 
     States Code, and the NASA Aeronautics and Space 
     Transportation Technology Advisory Committee, including a 
     proposal for greater cross-membership between those 2 
     advisory committees.

     SEC. 219. 100TH ANNIVERSARY OF FLIGHT EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVE.

       (a) Education Curriculum.--In recognition of the 100th 
     anniversary of the first powered flight, the Administrator, 
     in coordination with the Secretary of Education, shall 
     develop and provide for the distribution, for use in the 
     2000-2001 academic year and thereafter, of an age-appropriate 
     educational curriculum, for use at the kindergarten, 
     elementary, and secondary levels, on the history of flight, 
     the contribution of flight to global development in the 20th 
     century, the practical benefits of aeronautics and space 
     flight to society, the scientific and mathematical principles 
     used in flight, and any other topics the Administrator 
     considers appropriate.

[[Page 10044]]

     The Administrator shall integrate into the educational 
     curriculum plans for the development and flight of the Mars 
     plane.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than May 1, 2000, the 
     Administrator shall transmit a report to the Committee on 
     Science of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 
     Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate on 
     activities undertaken pursuant to this section.

     SEC. 220. INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION.

       The Administrator shall make available through the Internet 
     home page of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration the abstracts relating to all research grants 
     and awards made with funds authorized by this Act. Nothing in 
     this section shall be construed to require or permit the 
     release of any information prohibited by law or regulation 
     from being released to the public.

  The CHAIRMAN. 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 Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for 
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately 
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first 
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
  Are there any amendments to the bill?


               Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Rohrabacher

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

       Amendment No. 6 offered by Mr. Rohrabacher:
       In section 103(2)--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), insert ``, and of which 
     $77,400,000 may be used for activities associated with 
     International Space Station research'' after ``rocket 
     vouchers'';
       (2) in subparagraph (B), insert ``, and of which 
     $70,000,000 may be used for activities associated with 
     International Space Station research'' after ``health 
     issues''; and
       (3) in subparagraph (C), insert ``, and of which 
     $80,800,000 may be used for activities associated with 
     International Space Station research'' after ``health 
     issues''.
       In section 103(4)(A)(i), insert ``focused program'' after 
     ``Ultra-Efficient Engine''.
       In section 103(4)(A)(ii)(I), insert ``, including 
     $30,000,000 for Pathfinder Operability Demonstrations'' after 
     ``Demonstration Program''.
       In section 103(4)(B)(i), insert ``focused program'' after 
     ``Ultra-Efficient Engine.''
       In section 103(4)(C)(i), insert ``focused program'' after 
     ``Ultra-Efficient Engine.''
       In section 209(1), insert ``encouraging'' after ``process 
     of''.
       In section 219--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) strike ``Education Curriculum.--'' and insert 
     ``Educational Initiative.--'';
       (B) strike ``an age-appropriate educational curriculum'' 
     and insert ``age-appropriate educational materials'';
       (C) insert ``related'' after ``and any other''; and
       (D) strike ``the educational curriculum plans'' and insert 
     ``the educational materials plans''; and
       (2) in subsection (b), strike ``Committee on Science of the 
     House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, 
     Science, and Transportation of the Senate'' and insert 
     ``Congress''.

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, my amendment makes five minor changes 
to the language of H.R. 1654, most of which are clarifications rather 
than substantive changes.
  One substantive change is that I specify that the bill's increase of 
$30 million for Future-X in Fiscal Year 2000 should go toward fast 
Pathfinder class operability demonstrations. My purpose here is to tell 
NASA that they should not only fund Future-X concepts which demonstrate 
advanced component technology but which are innovative in using 
existing technology to prove out the all important issue of 
flexibility, reliability and low cost operations. So we are talking 
about money that would go for full-scale prototypes and operational 
systems and an overall system rather than just on a small segment of 
that development.
  My amendment then makes four different clarifying changes to H.R. 
1654, the first three of which I will briefly summarize.
  It makes clear that the additional funding the bill provides for life 
and microgravity research would be available to fund research 
experiments to go on to the International Space Station.
  It adds the word ``encourage'' to the definition of space 
commercialization to make it clear that we expect government to take 
affirmative steps to encourage the private sector to commercially 
develop space.
  Third, we clarify the language describing an educational initiative 
on the centennial flight that is 1903, which we have heard about 
already this morning, so that the provisions address concerns raised by 
another committee of the House.
  Finally, my amendment clarifies H.R. 1645's limitation on the Ultra 
Efficient Engine Technology program, and I would like to spend the 
remainder of this statement on that item, which I included in this 
address specifically to deal with the concerns of the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Larson), who has put out a tremendous effort dealing 
with this specific issue.
  First and foremost, let me say there is no prohibition, and I heard 
earlier a statement on the floor suggesting that there is a prohibition 
in this bill on the use of funds for the ultra efficient technology 
engine. That analysis does Mr. Larson a great disservice, and I would 
hope that the Members on the other side of the aisle realize that when 
they are making that argument, it is going into the Record, that is not 
an accurate portrayal of what we are doing at all.
  In Fiscal Year 2000 NASA proposed the creation of a new 5-year 
focused program out of the remnants of two other focused astronautic 
programs in which NASA had abruptly canceled. The committee is 
concerned that frequently NASA will defend focused aeronautics program 
to the death even as they grow in cost and scope and then suddenly 
cancel them when the priorities of the agency changes.
  My goal with this amendment is to make it clear that NASA has the 
discretion whether or not to spend these resources and these funds on 
this project and that it is encouraged to pursue this engine in 
question and that the requested funding of $50 million per year will be 
spent within the aeronautics research and technology base.
  What we are then doing is providing NASA with the discretion, but in 
no way are we prohibiting NASA from moving forward with this engine 
project. The resulting language only prohibits a focused program. The 
bill and report language are not prejudicial in any way regarding using 
these funds to build or demonstrate this model engine.
  In short, we have not eliminated, as my colleagues know, we have not 
eliminated this program. What we have eliminated is the mandate that 
NASA spend its funds on this project, but in no way do we prohibit 
these funds from being spent in developing this engine or showing or 
building a prototype of this ultra efficient jet engine.
  I would hope that the NASA Administrator uses this discretion, which 
is the purpose of why we put this change in, and uses fully the funds 
requested for these next 3 years to obtain industry cost sharing. We 
are trying to encourage industry to get in by giving NASA some 
discretion here, because this will make this whole project a much 
better deal for the taxpayers, and in the end it will be better for the 
engine project to make sure the private sector is putting some money 
in.
  So finally I would like to thank the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Larson) because had he not put so much time and energy in, we would not 
be just making sure that we have clarified this position, and it would 
not be as good as it is today. But please do not, and there should be 
no interpretation of this, that this is some type of eliminating these 
funds. We are actually giving more discretion to NASA, trying to 
attract public sector investment.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe that none of the changes are controversial, 
and I believe that all of them improve the base of the bill, and I 
respectfully request the adoption of this manager's amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am not opposed to this amendment, but I will take 
time

[[Page 10045]]

since the chairman discussed the ultra efficient engine technology so 
belaboredly to see if I am right in my assessment of this bill, and if 
there is some staff that might give me that information, I would 
appreciate it because around here what they say is, as my colleagues 
know, red is white or white is blue.
  The information I have says H.R. 1654, the NASA authorization bill 
reported out of the Committee on Science, specifically eliminates 
funding. I want to use the terms again: specifically eliminates funding 
for the ultra efficient engine technology as a focused NASA program.
  Now I want someone to, if they could answer that question, am I right 
or am I wrong?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, that is correct.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I reclaim my 
time.
  We give these administrators all kinds of discretion, and we get 
screwed too. We are the policymakers. We have foreign manufacturers 
subsidizing their aviation industries, their space industries 
completely, their aircraft engine technology, putting strict 
environmental restrictions and regulations in their country on American 
craft, knocking out our business and economic infrastructure, and we 
are going to let someone have discretion.
  Where is the analytical data to support that this program deserves to 
be taken off the focus program list? What data, what studies, what 
conclusions, what empirical evidence has been brought forward, what 
oversight body has made the decision to throw out this ultra efficient 
technology engine and let some bureaucrat at NASA make the decision?
  I do not think that is the way to govern here, Mr. Chairman. That 
happens to be in northeast Ohio. That is not my district. But that is a 
great space center up there, and that is a great program, and it speaks 
to the core, the economic core, of some of the beating up we are 
getting overseas.
  So I am not going to oppose the gentleman's amendment, but I will say 
this to him:
  We are going to start having some rough and tumble times here with 
this space program if we do not come to some oversight agreements, and 
I have never taken exception.
  Finally, in closing my little comments, just very briefly here:
  The luster and the glory of space has all Americans cheering, but 
they are now starting to come down to earth, and they are starting to 
look at the budget and line items, and they better not just do that. 
Congress better start providing very, very stringent oversight.
  I think the joy ride at NASA is over, and I think the time for some 
monitoring and oversight is at hand.
  I will again leave by making this statement:
  I am going to ask the chairman to change that language in conference, 
but that language cannot be changed today, and I will look and see if 
that language can be inserted in the form of amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Does the gentleman realize that this is being done 
in an effort to save the taxpayers money, to put more so that we can 
attract more money into the project by an investment from the private 
sector rather than having the focus program?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if it is the intent 
to save taxpayer money and to leverage participation with the private 
sector, maybe that should have been listed in the bill as a priority in 
this regard, but not take it out as a focus program.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. It is in the report language.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of confusion relative to what the 
bill does in this area, and I would like to dwell on two points.
  First of all, the manager's amendment that the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has introduced makes it clear that NASA 
will be able to continue research in the ultra efficient engine.

                              {time}  1145

  There is $50 million a year that is authorized for that. I think that 
that is a very wise move, because I do not think we should back away 
from this program altogether.
  The second misconception that I am afraid is floating around here is 
that if NASA designates a program as a focus program, then that program 
is protected against raids by NASA or OMB or the Congress or anybody 
else to take the money away from a focus program and put it into 
something else. That is not the case.
  OMB in the past has canceled focus programs and stuck the money into 
other NASA programs, and there have been reprogramming requests that 
have come up from the administrator and which have been approved either 
by the Congress by not acting or have been in transfer authority in 
appropriation bills.
  The one that immediately comes to mind is the high speed research and 
advanced subsonic focus program which was in the aeronautics budget 
that NASA canceled and put the money in the International Space Station 
when the International Space Station ran short.
  So I think that what is being done here is to continue the research 
but not to make it a focus program, and thus not to have what 
effectively is an earmark but an earmark without teeth.
  Now having said all of that, one of the things that the science 
policy study attempts to do, which received overwhelming support on 
both sides of the aisle when it was approved last year, is to leverage 
government dollars with private sector dollars and dollars from other 
sources so that we have a bigger research pot, and that is what the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) is trying to do in this 
program.
  We do not have enough government money to do everything that we want 
to do, and the NASA administrator has criticized this bill for being 
above the President's request. What we would like to do is we would 
like to bring the private sector in, and it is the private sector that 
is going to be able to reap the financial rewards of a successful 
development of an ultra-efficient engine. To have the taxpayers pay for 
the entire cost of developing the ultra-efficient engine is going to 
give the private sector a free ride, let us face it.
  So this is a way to bring about cost sharing, to bring about the fact 
that the private sector has to put their money where their benefits 
will flow, and I think is a very, very constructive step in the right 
direction to start this program out.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to oppose the amendment of the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), and I want to compliment 
him for trying to provide some wiggle room for the ultra-efficient 
energy technology program. However, I think it simply falls short, in 
that NASA has pointed out that anything less than a focused effort on 
the ultra-efficient energy technology would not be as efficient or 
effective a program.
  So although the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has good 
intentions, I am afraid his intention falls short; yet it certainly 
does no harm and, if anything, can be more good than bad. So I would 
support his amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GORDON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I think we can both compliment the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) on the hard work that he has 
put into this. We would not be having

[[Page 10046]]

this discussion right now if it was not for the diligence on the part 
of the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) to oversee this project. 
We want to make sure that we are on the record knowing that although 
the designation has changed, the Congress certainly wants this project 
to move forward.
  Mr. GORDON. I agree, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) has 
done yeoman's work in trying to educate us to really the benefits of 
this program. Hopefully that education will continue as we go through 
conference and as we try to bring a final bill to this floor.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                   Amendment Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Traficant: 
       In Sec. 103(4)(A)(i) strike out ``, with no funds to be 
     used for the Ultra-Efficient Engine''.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the amendment strictly strikes and 
simply strikes the sentence from the bill that takes out the ultra-
efficient technology engine and it would, in fact, put it back in to 
focus and leave the project as it was last year. The amendment strictly 
says that the project would continue; it would be and continue to be a 
focus project. It would not be at the discretion of the administrator. 
Copies of the amendment can be delivered from the desk.
  The language in the bill says, starting on line 4, section (i), it 
says $532 million shall be for Aeronautical Research and Technology, 
with no funds to be used for the Ultra-Efficient Engine, comma.
  The Traficant amendment says $532-plus million shall be for 
Aeronautical Research and Technology, and with $412 million to be for 
the Research and Technology Base. It simply removes the sentence that 
says, and I quote, ``with no funds to be used for the Ultra-Efficient 
Engine.'' It would strictly take the sentence from the bill. It would 
leave it as a focus program, and the gentleman should support it.
  Lastly, I would like to say for the Members, because we may have a 
vote on this but I would hope not, and I would hope that the wisdom of 
the Chair would very carefully review it, I want to read a quote from 
the aviation industry.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, let me ask a couple of questions, if 
I could, and I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The amendment that the gentleman has offered, if it is adopted, would 
not increase the total amount of money that was authorized for NASA; am 
I correct in that?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. That is correct. That is correct.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. It would give the NASA administrator the authority 
to use some of the aerospace technology funds, which is almost a 
billion dollars, for the ultra-efficient engine at the discretion of 
the NASA administrator?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. What the amendment specifically states is this: That 
the language, ``with no funds to be used for the Ultra-Efficient 
Engine,'' would be stricken from the bill and the engine would thus be 
a part of the focus program of the administrator.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California, the 
subcommittee Chair.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, is that last part in the amendment of 
the gentleman or is that what the gentleman is explaining to us?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. The amendment is very simple.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, we need to see a copy of the 
amendment.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. A removal of this sentence, and I want the gentleman 
to listen, there is a sentence in here that says, quote, and this is 
the language verbatim to be stricken, ``with no funds to be used for 
the Ultra-Efficient Engine.'' The Traficant language removes that 
sentence.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Okay. That is it.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. The intent of the Traficant language would thus be to 
place the discretion with the administrator as it was focused under 
last year, and to remain with the same priority that it was in the past 
year's bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, with that understanding, I am 
prepared to accept the amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  MR. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that the report 
language already, we tried to discuss earlier and put this on the 
record.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, there is report 
language and there is bill language. If the intention of the gentleman 
is to do it in the report, then certainly this language that is so 
specific, there should be no problem about it being removed.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) has 
expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Traficant was allowed to proceed for 2 
additional minutes.)
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, finally, let me say this: There would 
have to be a reduction for the R&T base, and I believe that reduction 
would have to be in the amount of $362,800,000 from $412 million. As 
the chairman had asked, those would be the figures.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, we need to see the language of this 
amendment. The gentleman just stated a couple of things that we did not 
know were in his amendment. Could we have a copy of this amendment, 
please?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Absolutely. It is at the desk.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Could the Clerk reread the amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would announce that the Clerk is preparing 
copies for the majority and for distribution.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, while the gentleman is looking at the 
amendment, the gentleman had stricken the language for the ultra-
efficient engine and put in $50 million for these new participatory 
private sector types of agreements. What the Traficant language says is 
we do not need to spend the additional $50 million, but if it be the 
decision of the committee that they want to retain the money in there 
and just strike the language for the engine, this Member will accept 
that.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Could the gentleman please repeat that?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. There was an increase and $50 million was put into the 
Research and Technology Base fund in this bill.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. What I am doing is just simply wanting to strike that 
sentence that says ``with no funds to be used for the Ultra-Efficient 
Engine.'' My amendment would take that out.
  Actually, the additional $50 million that was put in should be either 
taken out or the legislative history should show that my colleagues 
want to leave it in for their purposes. That is fine with me.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is acceptable.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. That is acceptable to the gentleman?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is acceptable.
  Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I will be very 
happy to yield to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) after I make 
a point.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I just 
wanted to say that is acceptable.
  So the amendment would strictly be with no funds to be used for 
ultra-efficient engine. That would be removed; nothing to deal with the 
funds.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a very acceptable

[[Page 10047]]

amendment because it actually goes to the purpose of the bill 
originally.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Ohio.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. It is understood that that would be for all 3 years of 
the bill as well? It would be for all 3 years, a 3-year bill?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, it eliminates that language for the bill for 
all 3 years, sure, it does.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Fine.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, the purpose of this segment of 
the bill and the purpose of the changes that we have made was aimed not 
at prohibiting funds from being used for this ultra-efficient jet 
engine. That, in fact, is not the purpose at all and that is why the 
gentleman's suggestion is accepted.
  However, with the gentleman's amendment being accepted, this in no 
way suggests this program is becoming a focus program or that we are 
mandating that the money be spent.

                              {time}  1200

  What the purpose of this whole enterprise was all about was to try to 
give discretion to the people over at NASA to attract not just 
government money, but to attract private sector money into this 
project.
  This is not the first time that this method has been used. Let me 
mention that we had a project, the EELV project, and, I might add, a 
lot of it would be built in my district, and I opposed it for the very 
reason that there was not any incentive to get the private sector 
involved and to get some extra money from the private companies 
involved in the development of this new rocket system. That project was 
changed and we managed to save the taxpayers $500 million and to get a 
better rocket as a result, because we brought the private sector in.
  The purpose of our changes here were to try to save the taxpayers 
some money by getting the private sector to invest into a project from 
which those companies would benefit. To the point that the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) eliminates some language that might suggest 
that there is some sort of prohibition on spending funds for this 
engine, we accept that language, but it in no way suggests that this 
will be a focus program and that NASA must spend the money on the 
program.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  The amendment was agreed to.


            Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan

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

       Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. Smith of Michigan:
       In section 217--
       (1) insert ``(a) Information Development.--'' before ``The 
     Administrator shall''; and
       (2) add at the end the following new subsections:
       (b) Plan.--After performing the activities described in 
     subsection (a) the Administrator and the Secretary of 
     Agriculture shall develop a plan to inform farmers and other 
     prospective users about the use of availability of remote 
     sensing products that may assist with agricultural and 
     forestry applications identified in subsection (a). The 
     Administrator shall transmit such plan to the Congress not 
     later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this 
     Act.
       (c) Implementation.--Not later than 90 days after the plan 
     has been transmitted under subsection (b), the Administrator 
     and the Secretary of Agriculture shall implement the plan.

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, my amendment to help farmer and 
ranchers is in the bill before us. It provides that the Administrator 
of NASA shall discover and catalog the kind of remote sensing 
information, commercial and otherwise, that might be usable to help 
farmers and others determine potential crop shortages and surpluses and 
ultimately how much of what crop to plant in this country.
  We have advanced tremendously over the last 30 years in our ability 
to discover what yields to expect from crop production around the world 
by means of satellite and other remote sensing monitoring. We are now 
able to estimate yields of some of the major crops within a plus or 
minus 10 percent deviation, up to sixty days before harvest. This 
information could be of great use to farmers.
  The amendment now before us simply provides a way to disseminate this 
information to farmers.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, part of this amendment is in the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Agriculture.
  Has the gentleman from Michigan obtained the consent of the chairman 
of that committee to offer this amendment today?
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, we have obtained the consent of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Combest), the chairman of the Committee 
on Agriculture, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm), the 
ranking member, who support this amendment, as well as the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a member of the subcommittee.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, 
with that understanding, I am prepared to accept the amendment as well. 
It is a constructive addition.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the 
gentleman.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  The amendment was agreed to.


     Amendment No. 10 and Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Traficant

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer two amendments, and I ask 
unanimous consent that both amendments be taken together.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Ohio?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendments.
  The text of the amendments is as follows:

       Amendment No. 10 and amendment No. 11 offered by Mr. 
     Traficant:
       Amendment No. 10: At the end of the bill, insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 221. SENSE OF CONGRESS; REQUIREMENT REGARDING NOTICE.

       (a) Purchase of American-Made Equipment and Products.--In 
     the case of any equipment or products that may be authorized 
     to be purchased with financial assistance provided under this 
     Act, it is the sense of the Congress that entities receiving 
     such assistance should, in expending the assistance, purchase 
     only American-made equipment and products.
       (b) Notice to Recipients of Assistance.--In providing 
     financial assistance under this Act, the Administrator shall 
     provide to each recipient of the assistance a notice 
     describing the statement made in subsection (a) by the 
     Congress.
       In the table of contents, after the item relating to 
     section 220, insert the following new item:

Sec. 221. Sense of Congress; requirement regarding notice.

       Amendment No. 11: At the end of the bill, insert the 
     following new section:

     SEC. 221. 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 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 per capita income, extent of 
     unemployment, job lag, or surplus labor.
       In the table of contents, after the item relating to 
     section 220, insert the following new item:

Sec. 221. Use of abandoned and underutilized buildings, grounds, and 
              facilities.

  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) working with me on the language of the 
previous amendment. I appreciate that very much. The gentleman has been

[[Page 10048]]

very fair and thankful, and I will vote for final passage of the bill.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Ohio for 
yielding.
  This is kind of a tough act to follow, but this is going to be an 
easier sell than the last amendment that the gentleman from Ohio sold 
to us. It is my understanding that these amendments relate to a buy-
American provision and a utilization of abandoned buildings provision 
in the bill. Am I correct in that assumption?
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, that is correct.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, 
these are also two very constructive additions and we are prepared to 
accept them as well.
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  In meeting the needs of NASA, the Administrator shall, whenever 
feasible, select abandoned and under-utilized buildings, grounds and 
facilities for projects not at existing facilities. In other words, he 
does not have to, but wherever possible. We do not want some existing 
base to come in and say we are in a depressed community, which is the 
legislative history here, and say, therefore, send the business here. 
So wherever feasible and possible, select sites outside of the existing 
structure where there are economic hardships and give them an 
opportunity and a shot.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the support of the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner).
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendments offered by the 
gentleman from Ohio.
  The amendments were agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Cook

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Cook:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 221. SPACE STATION COMMERCIALIZATION.

       In order to promote commercialization of the International 
     Space Station, the Administrator shall--
       (1) allocate sufficient resources as appropriate to 
     accelerate the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration's initiatives promoting commercial 
     participation in the International Space Station;
       (2) instruct all National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration staff that they should consider the potential 
     impact on commercial participation in the International Space 
     Station in developing policies or program priorities not 
     directly related to crew safety; and
       (3) publish a list, not later than 90 days after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter with 
     the annual budget request of the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration, of the opportunities for commercial 
     participation in the International Space Station consistent 
     with safety and mission assurance.
       In the table of contents, after the item relating to 
     section 220, insert the following new item:

Sec. 221. Space Station commercialization.

  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, the space program has brought enormous growth 
to our economy and has created many high-wage, high-tech jobs for 
American workers. Throughout the world, commercial spending on space 
activity is booming. NASA and the taxpayers can both benefit from this 
trend through increased commercialization of the new International 
Space Station.
  My amendment directs the NASA Administrator to commit appropriate 
resources to accelerate its International Space Station 
commercialization activities. It directs NASA staff to consider the 
commercial impact of their management decisions unrelated to safety. 
Finally, it requires NASA to publish within 90 days of enactment of 
this act a list of commercial opportunities to participate in the space 
station during 2000 and every year afterwards.
  Primarily, the space program has brought high-tech jobs to the 
American aerospace and communications industry. To keep our American 
economy healthy and strong, we need to expand these benefits of space 
exploration to other areas of the private sector. NASA has made a good 
start in determining how to commercialize the ISS with the release of 
its draft plan last fall, but we need to push NASA to follow through on 
its successful planning efforts so that we do not lose the momentum on 
station commercialization.
  By requiring NASA to publish its list of commercial opportunities to 
use the International Space Station consistent with safety and mission 
assurance, this amendment will reduce the cost of the space program to 
the American people by making the private sector a much larger partner.
  Adam Smith taught us that we need competition to keep costs down and 
quality up. This amendment will help ensure that competition keeps our 
space program the best and the most competitive in the world. Dan 
Goldin has done an excellent job managing NASA, but we need to get the 
private sector more involved. By doing this, we can use the benefits of 
competition to make our space program even better.
  This amendment will ensure that our economic boom will continue into 
the next century by bringing home the benefits of space research to the 
American people. My amendment is supported by NASA.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) for 
allowing me to offer this amendment and commend him for his hard work 
in bringing this bill to the floor today.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. COOK. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman's amendment is a very 
good one. Again, it is supported by NASA. I would hope that the 
committee would approve it.
  Mr. COOK. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
from Wisconsin, and I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to support the amendment of the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Cook), with some qualifications.
  First, I want the legislative record to be clear that I do not regard 
this language as a blank check for NASA to spend as much as it wants on 
open-ended initiatives to promote commercial participation in the space 
station. We have a duty to protect the taxpayers' pocketbook and vague 
language can be dangerous in that regard.
  Second, I read paragraph two to simply mean that NASA will also 
consider impacts on commercial participation in the space station when 
it makes policies, along with all other impacts it may consider. These 
other impacts include the impact of the station's research capabilities 
on the utilization of the station, on international agreements and so 
forth. It is my understanding that this amendment makes commercial 
participation neither the only consideration when making station 
policies, nor the highest priority consideration.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this amendment and 
congratulate the gentleman from Utah for putting it forward and also 
for laying down a marker. I think that what we are talking about here 
is a fundamental consciousness that we are trying to instill, not only 
in America's space program, but in most government activities.
  Mr. Chairman, the time has passed when we could look at projects just 
as a bureaucratic endeavor or just something that would be taxpayer-
funded totally. If there is any challenge that we have in maintaining a 
balanced budget and making sure that we put taxpayer dollars to the 
best use, it is that we have to attract dollars from the private sector 
into these endeavors to make sure that they are done efficiently, so 
that they are done in a way that will be beneficial not only to the 
people who work in the government, but the people who work in the 
private sector, so that there can be a multiplier effect in terms of 
the jobs that are created.
  So for making an investment on the one hand into things such as the 
space

[[Page 10049]]

station, we must always be conscious that that space station did not 
just mean the jobs that were created in building the space station, but 
it also means the jobs that will be created by economic activity in the 
private sector that will result from the space station's existence. The 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook) is making sure that we put these dollars 
to maximum use, so I applaud him for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I will be, in the near future, proposing a 
revolutionary new tax concept called Zero Gravity, Zero Tax. It has not 
been actually introduced as yet, but it is along this same principle, 
and that is what we would like to do, is to make sure that there is the 
maximum incentive for private investment in America's space program. As 
I say, it creates jobs not only in the projects, but it serves as a 
multiplier effect to create even more jobs once the project is in 
operation.
  So again, I commend the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cook).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Weiner:
       In section 103(4)(A), strike ``$999,300,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,010,300,000''.
       In section 103(4)(A)(i), strike ``$532,800,000'' and insert 
     ``$543,800,000''.
       In section 103(4)(A)(i), strike ``$412,800,000 to be for 
     the Research and Technology Base'' and insert ``$423,800,000 
     to be for the Research and Technology Base, including 
     $36,000,000 for aircraft noise reduction technology''.
       In section 103(4)(B), strike ``$908,400,000'' and insert 
     ``$918,400,000''.
       In section 103(4)(B)(i), strike ``$524,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$534,000,000''.
       In section 103(4)(B)(i), strike ``$399,800,000 to be for 
     the Research and Technology Base'' and insert ``$409,800,000 
     to be for the Research and Technology Base, including 
     $36,000,000 for aircraft noise reduction technology''.
       In section 103(4)(C), strike ``$994,800,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,003,300,000''.
       In section 103(4)(C)(i), strike ``$519,200,000'' and insert 
     ``$527,700,000''.
       In section 103(4)(C)(i), strike ``$381,600,000 to be for 
     the Research and Technology Base'' and insert ``$390,100,000 
     to be for the Research and Technology Base, including 
     $27,500,000 for aircraft noise reduction technology''.
       In section 106(1), strike ``$13,625,600,000'' and insert 
     ``$13,636,600,000''.
       In section 106(2), strike ``$13,747,100,000'' and insert 
     ``$13,757,100,000''.
       In section 106(3), strike ``$13,839,400,000'' and insert 
     ``$13,847,900,000''.
  Mr. WEINER (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 
New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the chairman of the 
full committee and the chairman of the subcommittee for their great 
help and efforts that they have committed themselves to to try to make 
this bill as good as it can be, and while there are some areas of 
contention, they have at all times, in consideration of this bill, been 
cordial and decent about trying to deal with these concerns.
  At this time I am going to be offering an amendment with some of my 
colleagues, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich); the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Udall); the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers); the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley); the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Pallone) and others, to try to deal in a timely fashion with the 
very important and pressing matter that has emerged in recent years and 
shows no signs of abating, and that is the problem of noise emanating 
from our airports.
  As we have increased almost exponentially the amount of air traffic 
that there has been, we have also similarly increased the burden that 
is created to those of us who represent areas around airports, large 
and small.
  What my amendment would do, it would take the very valuable research 
that is done by NASA on noise research and bring it back up to last 
year's level and ensure that it stays there for at least the duration 
of this authorization.
  There was some concern raised in the full committee about whether we 
were taking from one program to add to another, and what we would do 
here is in fiscal year 2000 simply add $11 million for these programs 
that wind up being funded in this way.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not in any level bust the budget. 
In fact, it restores last year's level for noise reduction. The overall 
aggregate number of the NASA authorization would again be the same as 
it was last year, but what this will do is allow us at this important 
time to continue research on the next generation of the most quiet 
aircraft that we can have.
  We are now, by the end of this year, going to be phasing in the Phase 
III aircraft, which are the most modern, the most quiet aircraft, but 
still are akin to having a thunderclap over one's head whenever they 
take off. This will allow us to do the research for Stage IV. This will 
allow us to have even more quiet aircraft in the years to come.
  The research that is being done by NASA may some day help us strike 
the delicate balance that we have been trying to reach in this House 
between the rights of air travelers, the rights of those who depend on 
air traffic for commerce, and those of us, and there are dozens of us 
in this House, who have areas that are nearby airports.
  We are in negotiations now with the European community, we are in 
negotiations now with the private sector to encourage the development 
of this quieter aircraft. Now is not the time for us to weaken that 
research by reducing the funding that this authorization does.
  This is an opportunity for us to send a message also to the private 
sector that we seek to have their participation as well. We send 
entirely the wrong message if we in our budget say, we are going to 
ratchet back our research into these important matters when we are 
trying to bring the private sector along.
  The chairman of the subcommittee has done great work in trying to 
encourage the private sector to do their research. I consider these 
funds to be leveraging those, and I think it would be helpful for us to 
do that now.
  This is an opportunity, and perhaps our last opportunity this year. 
We are going to be passing an FAA reauthorization bill that I believe 
is going to, regardless of how it emerges, increase air traffic. There 
are proposals to almost entirely deregulate all of our airports.
  That is going to mean another increase in air noise. This is, I would 
remind my colleagues, perhaps the last opportunity for us to go on 
record as being in support of whatever technological advantages we can 
support to bring about the quietest aircraft possible.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the heart of gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) is in 
the right place on this amendment, but this is not a fiscally 
responsible way of going about addressing this problem, since the 
amendment is an add-on of approximately $10 million additional 
authorization for each of the next 3 years.
  NASA is committed to spending $25 million for aircraft noise 
reduction in fiscal year 2000. So it is not a question of whether we 
spend nothing on aircraft noise reduction research or some money, 
because NASA has got that money allocated within one of their accounts.
  The bulk of NASA's aeronautic research into aircraft noise reduction 
technology was conducted within the research and technology base of the 
advanced subsonic technology program. The administration, and I 
emphasize the administration, decided to terminate the advanced 
subsonic technology program when a determination was made that NASA 
needed additional funding for the International Space Station.
  That was budget discipline. That was setting priorities. That was 
something that the administration decided that it had to do in terms of 
meeting its obligations.

[[Page 10050]]

  For us to turn and go around and say we should forget about budget 
priorities, we should simply add to the authorization, I think 
diminishes the credibility of the efforts of the Committee on Science 
to figure out how we will be able to give NASA the money that is 
available for this year to the highest and best effect.
  NASA has already testified before Congress that they are meeting 
their goals on aircraft noise reduction technology research within the 
money that is available. Because of this, we should accept the fact 
that they know how much they can spend on it. We should not be dealing 
with this problem simply by throwing more money at it.
  I would love to be able to meet everyone's desires, but that is not 
the way life is in the real world and in the budget climate we are 
facing. We have to be responsible. This amendment is not fiscally 
responsible. It runs counter to NASA's expert opinion on their 
requirements. It breaks our obligations to the taxpayers, and I would 
ask the committee to reject it.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Weiner-Udall-Crowley, et 
al., amendment to increase funding for airport noise reduction research 
and technology in the research and technology base of the NASA 
authorization bill.
  Mr. Chairman, airport noise is perhaps the single most important 
local quality of life issue to my constituents. Every day my district 
office receives calls from people living near LaGuardia Airport who 
complain about the noise from planes landing and taking off. In fact, 
along with my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), I 
have worked hard to preserve the high-density rule and mitigate airport 
noise in Queens County.
  Mr. Chairman, NASA has listed airport noise reduction as one of its 
top 10 goals. They want to reduce perceived aircraft noise by 50 
percent over a 10-year period, beginning in 1997. Under current funding 
this goal will not be realized.
  The Weiner amendment would restore funding for aircraft noise 
reduction research to roughly fiscal year 1999 levels. It would bring 
NASA's overall budget to a 13.655 billion, which is exactly the same 
dollar amount that it was appropriated at in fiscal year 1999.
  I applaud my colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) for 
bringing this important issue to the floor of the House. The people who 
invented the rocket engine are the best people to study aircraft noise 
and ways to reduce it.
  I urge my fellow Members of Congress to support this increase in 
funding for airport noise reduction, research, and technology. Their 
constituents who live near airports will appreciate their vote to make 
their homes, schools, parks, and neighborhoods quieter. The Weiner 
amendment would do just that.
  I would just like to add, taking away the high-density ruling will 
increase air traffic in high-density airports like LaGuardia, Kennedy 
Airport, O'Hare Airport in Chicago. Unless we are moving realistically 
towards a Stage IV engine and unless there is real effort on the part 
of NASA to develop new technologies to reduce aircraft engines' jet 
noise, what we are doing to inner cities like New York City is 
unconscionable. It really, truly is unconscionable, to be increasing 
air traffic.
  Putting aside for the moment the air traffic safety issues and 
focusing simply on the level of noise that is created by these engines 
taking off and landing at airports like LaGuardia Airport in my 
district, it is unconscionable to be standing here at the same time and 
supporting a bill that will reduce the effort to bring about technology 
to reduce the level of noise emitting from those jet airplanes.
  I cannot support a bill that will gut and take away monies from that 
very needed project, and leaving it in the hands of NASA to develop 
that needed technology.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  When we are looking at the arguments on this amendment, Mr. Chairman, 
let us take a look. We are not talking about gutting money for research 
into jet engine noise.
  Again, this has often been the case in the past where people on the 
other side of the aisle have taken a look at money that was projected 
to be spent, increases that were projected, and then when the increase 
is reduced, that is portrayed as some kind of gutting of a program. 
That is just not the case.
  In fact, NASA documents provided to Congress suggest that there would 
be a $46 million figure spent for this type of research from fiscal 
year 2000 to 2002. However, updated documents from that agency suggest 
that NASA will now be spending $71.3 million for noise reduction, which 
means even without the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Weiner), NASA is planning to spend $25 million more than what it 
was on this particular issue.
  So while I believe that the amendment is well-intended, I do believe 
that, number one, it is an inaccurate portrayal to suggest that we are 
reducing the spending; but number two, it is irresponsible in an 
overall budgetary sense.
  What we have here is an attempt by the administration to set 
priorities. The money is necessary for the International Space Station, 
so it decided to reduce the increase in spending, so the administration 
was trying to act responsibly. Now we have an amendment here to 
undercut the administration when they have tried to set priorities with 
a limited budget.
  I have one more point to make in regard to that. The administration 
has had to set priorities because it is trying not to bust the budget, 
not to put us back on this road to irresponsibility that led to such 
massive deficits in the past.
  Instead, what is happening here, and again, we have amendments 
similar to this in the full committee, we find that we cannot just 
spend money. It just does not come out of nowhere. In this particular 
case, the gentleman now has decided to try to add on money, rather than 
take it out of other research areas in the science budget.
  But then, where does that extra $11 million come from? It comes from 
what we have designated, we have tried to hold off and protect, not as 
the social security trust fund, but social security surplus money. We 
have said we are going to try to keep all the money we do not spend and 
put it back into social security as a protection of that system.
  This $11 million is just one example of, yes, it is just a little bit 
of money, but everybody here has a little bit of money here, a little 
bit of money there, and eventually we have that surplus that we hope to 
spend on social security and to solidify social security just being 
whittled away to nothing again. I do not think that would be 
responsible.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. 
Just so we do not lose perspective here, I agree, we should keep things 
in mind. We should keep in mind that the bill the gentleman is bringing 
forward is above the President's request, so the outrage that I hear 
about we are changing the President's priorities, I think perhaps the 
chairman doth protest too much.
  I also want to point out exactly the parameters we are talking about. 
I am talking about restoring to last year's level, not above, to last 
year's level of roughly $10 million in the context of a bill in the 
aggregate that is $42 billion. It is $14 billion this year.
  What we are saying is, look, at the same time that we are taking this 
technology and devoting a significant portion of it to thinking about 
the problems we are going to be encountering in the future, ought we 
not to be thinking of the problems we are going to be encountering in a 
couple of months when we pass the FAA reauthorization, which is 
something NASA admits they did not take into their calculation when 
they estimated whether or not the funds provided for noise reduction 
were sufficient? This is a relatively small amount of money.

[[Page 10051]]

  I would just respond to one other point that the gentleman made. In 
this research and technology base, which, just to keep perspective, is 
about $362 million, there was criticism, and legitimate criticism, 
raised in the committee consideration of this bill about whether we 
were taking from one pocket to fund this program.
  I accepted that criticism as valid, so now I am saying, in the 
aggregate, let us do this one-one thousandth increase for this purpose.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman was 
responsive to the debates that we had, and I applaud him for this. This 
is a learning process around here. But then again, the money, by 
plussing it up in the way the gentleman now is suggesting, it does 
again come from another source. That source is money that we had 
hopefully to protect social security.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher) has expired.
  (By unanimous consent, Mr. Rohrabacher was allowed to proceed for 1 
additional minute.)
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. One last point, Mr. Chairman. NASA has listened to 
the gentleman, and people have been listening to the gentleman's 
arguments, because NASA has already agreed to a plus-up or an increase 
in their spending, in their prioritized spending, of $25 million in 
this area. I would believe it probably is in reaction to the arguments 
that the gentleman has been presenting. So in a way the gentleman has 
won this fight. Adding another $11 million I think is not necessarily 
the right way to go. I appreciate very much the gentleman's sincerity, 
but I would have to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. 
Udall), and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Crowley), and do so 
because their amendment is about quality of life, quality of life not 
just in space but here on Earth, not just for six astronauts housed in 
an International Space Station but for people in inner city conditions, 
in poor areas.
  This amendment is about balance and perspective and fairness. It is 
also fiscally responsible. It merely takes us back up to last year's 
level. It is a concern about noise reduction for aircraft, especially 
in big airports, that fly over inner city areas.
  Mr. Chairman, if we are not careful and if we do not come back and 
abide by the concerns expressed by the gentleman from New York in the 
aeronautics area of this bill, this bill is soon going to be called not 
the NASA bill, ``aeronautics'' is going to be dropped out, it is just 
going to be the National Space Administration. We are not going to be 
able to help our aeronautics industries in this country, where they are 
competing more and more every day with Airbus and the fledgling 
industries in Japan and Korea and the southeast countries of Asia.
  It used to be, when I got on the Committee on Science 8 years ago, 
that we provided a $30 million or a $40 million or a $50 million plus-
up for the aeronautics. Now we cannot seem to find any money to help.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) is simply saying let us take 
us back to last year's level. Let us increase this slowly, $10 million 
a year. Let us make sure that money in the NASA budget goes in a fair 
and qualified and quality of life manner.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) said that the 
administration made the decision to take the money away from 
aeronautics because of the Space Station. That is one of my concerns, 
that the Space Station continues to eat up more and more and more of 
the available funds to do wonderfully enriching scientific and space-
oriented and aeronautics programs.
  So we are going to have the opportunity later today to cap funding on 
the Space Station, that is one option; to get the Russians out of the 
critical path, that is a second option; or to kill the Space Station, 
the third option. We will see if this body wants to go along with any 
of those options.
  Finally, I say, Mr. Chairman, that the administration has issued a 
statement of administration policy. In that the President has said the 
authorization levels in the bill do not conform to the President's 
request, which is based on a balanced and affordable space and 
aeronautics program.
  That is exactly the point of the amendment of the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner). We are losing that balance for aeronautics. We are 
losing that support for our aircraft industry in this country. Boeing 
competes more and more on the cutting edge every day with Airbus.
  We have people living in inner city conditions with loud aircraft 
flying over their homes every single day, hour upon hour upon hour. We 
want to provide some more research monies to help alleviate the noise 
of those engines. I think that is a fair request. I think that we 
should be able to find $10 million this year. The gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Weiner) did not propose it, but I would propose take that $10 
million away from the International Space Station that has gone from $8 
billion in costs to $98 billion in life cycle costs.
  So with that, Mr. Chairman, I encourage my colleagues to support the 
responsible, balanced quality of life amendment of the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Weiner), and let us keep the aeronautics portion of this 
bill in the bill.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) is very articulate, and he is a very responsible Member of this 
House and has kept our feet to the fire on the Space Station program 
for many years. I might add that his focus on the Space Station has, I 
think, improved the Space Station in the end, because people have known 
that he has been there and watching very closely.
  However, this money does not come from Space Station. As designed, it 
is coming out of money that, again, would come right off the top of the 
bat, which we were hoping to secure for Social Security. So the points 
the gentleman from Indiana made are very valid, but that is not why the 
money is coming.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona for 
yielding to me. I just want to respond to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher).
  First of all, I appreciate his comments about our efforts to control 
the costs on the Space Station, try to make sure that it can do what it 
was supposed to do scientifically.
  But, secondly, Mr. Chairman, I think that the NASA budget, which has 
gone between about $13.4 billion and slightly over $14 billion, has had 
more and more erosion in that budget from now the Space Station growing 
from in previous years $2.1 billion being allocated, to $2.4 billion 
being allocated this year for it.
  So that is where I am saying the growth is coming in the Space 
Station, and good programs like what the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Weiner) is trying to accomplish with noise reduction are falling by the 
wayside.
  Shuttle safety we are concerned about. Education grants we are 
concerned about. Science programs and space science we are concerned 
about. So those are some of the things we are talking about.
  I share the gentleman's concern for Social Security and the trust 
fund, and I hope he will work with us to put as much of the budget 
surplus as possible back in that surplus.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I think that the arguments that the

[[Page 10052]]

gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) are making are certainly valid 
arguments. When we decided to move forward, and this body has decided 
on many occasions to move forward with the International Space Station, 
all of us who were voting on that should very well have remembered that 
we were prioritizing our spending and that it was going to have an 
impact in other areas just like the areas the gentleman is suggesting 
and I might add just like the areas that the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Weiner) is bringing up today.
  We are foregoing spending in certain areas in order to be responsible 
and not suck up money that should be going into bolstering Social 
Security. The gentleman is absolutely right. This is part of the cost 
of the Space Station. The amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Weiner) does not, however, take this out of Space Station.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SALMON. I am happy to yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond to the chairman of 
the subcommittee, my good friend, would he then not object to an 
amendment which took the money out of the research and technology base?
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I do not support taking it out of 
Space Station. But we have to realize what the gentleman's amendment is 
actually doing. It is not taking it out of Space Station. It is adding 
to that. The money does not come from anywhere. The gentleman from New 
York is doing a diligent job in trying to meet those objections.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) 
would further yield, I will gladly change my amendment and take it from 
that huge pot of money that is Research and Technology Base. If he will 
support that, I will be glad to do it. But it seems like I have a 
moving target here. We cannot take money from a $400 million Research 
and Technology Base because then any numbers of projects could fall 
from the sky. But, on the other hand, if I say let us plus it up just 
to last year's level and no higher, then that, too, raises an 
objection.
  It seems to me that what we are trying to say here, and I will try to 
do anything that I can to meet the objections of the subcommittee 
Chair, is to try to say, look, all we want to do is take the level that 
we had last year in this important program and meet it this year. I 
will do it the gentleman's way, and I stand ready here to amend my 
amendment in any way necessary.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, again I compliment the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Weiner) for showing due diligence to the arguments that 
were offered in committee and trying to find another funding level.
  I would just suggest that he come forward with a specific suggestion. 
It is not, as has been implied by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) that this is not being funded out of Space Station. His 
arguments about Space Station are valid, in that it is eating money up 
from programs like the one the gentleman were offering.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) has 
expired.
  (On request of Mr. Weiner, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Salmon was 
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I am willing and able, and I think my 
colleagues who are cosponsoring this amendment would be more than 
willing. The gentleman said where shall it come from. The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) said I have not proposed it comes 
from the Space Station, although I will be glad to accept that proposal 
as well. I understand from the gentleman's concerns that he would 
accept it if I took that $10 million from the existing Research and 
Technology Base.
  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, let me put it this way: I will 
seriously consider any proposal that the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Weiner) has that takes money specifically from something that I believe 
has lower priority than what he is suggesting, but it is up to the 
gentleman to come up with a specific.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) 
would further yield, I just did.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. 
Salmon) would further yield, let me put it this way: Taking from the 
overall research and develop budget is not acceptable because it is not 
specific. It would not be specific, for example, that money would have 
to come from another research project. Maybe the project of the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Larson) then would be defunded by what 
the gentleman from New York is proposing, if we went the route that he 
is suggesting. Unless the gentleman from New York can be more specific 
than that, I could not.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Weiner-Udall-Crowley-
Kucinich-Rivers amendment. I would like to talk on two points of the 
amendment. One is just the fiscal issues that we have been discussing 
here. I would also like to speak to the point of the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer) about the discussion about the quality of life 
issues that are at stake.
  Let us again remind ourselves that the Weiner amendment would restore 
funding for aircraft noise reduction research to fiscal 1999 levels in 
the NASA budget. If we look out a little further, it would increase in 
fiscal year 2000 by $11 million; fiscal 2001, $10 million; and fiscal 
2002, $8.5 million for aircraft noise reduction research and 
technology.
  Now, in 1999, this noise reduction technology was funded at a level 
of $36 million. In fiscal year 2000, it is scheduled only for $25 
million; in fiscal year 2001 for $26 million; and fiscal year 2002, $19 
million.
  The amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) would 
restore the funding for aircraft noise reduction to levels that are 
commensurate with 1999. The Weiner amendment would bring us back up to 
NASA's overall budget levels of $13.655 billion, which is exactly the 
same amount of money that was appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
  So with all due respect, this is not a budget buster. This is in fact 
being fiscally responsible. In the long run, we are going to save money 
by making sure that we put these monies into investing in reducing 
noise at our airports.
  The Department of Transportation estimates that over 3 million 
Americans are affected by airport noise every day. This FAA 
authorization bill that we are facing later on in our session is likely 
to increase traffic at our Nation's busiest airports. By supporting 
this amendment, we are going to provide some relief for the people that 
live around those airports.
  I want to talk briefly about my State. We have Denver International 
Airport, known as DIA. It is the jewel of our Nation's airport system 
at this point. But we want to build a sixth runway. We cannot do that 
right now because increased noise has become an issue, not only for 
urban residents but for farmers, for business people, and for all the 
people that live in the mountains of Colorado.
  We ought to be doing all we can to solve that problem now so that 
people all over the country who use Denver International Airport know 
that that airport is going to be open in all kinds of weather 
conditions.
  Historically, the FAA has been great at running the trains, if you 
will, running the airports in our country, but NASA has done the 
important research and development. We ought to be encouraging that 
combination, and this amendment will do that.

[[Page 10053]]

  If we want to reduce opposition to airport operations and expansion, 
we ought to pass this amendment now. This is going to be our only 
chance this session to reduce the din around our cities and airports. 
Rather than create more delay and litigation over our airports, let us 
encourage the development of quieter engines so our air transportation 
system can help us meet the challenges and the opportunities facing us 
in this next century.

                              {time}  1245

  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Weiner), the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Crowley), and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) in 
sponsoring this amendment, and I rise in support of its passage here 
today.
  I think anyone who is interested in economic development in this 
country should give very close consideration to this particular 
proposal. I am convinced that progress in noise reduction is imperative 
to continued economic growth in this country.
  The tension exists today between growth in traffic in the air and 
concerns about quality of life on the ground, and this tension 
represents a formidable barrier to economic expansion all across the 
country.
  We all know that increased air traffic is inevitable, whether it is 
through legislation of this body or through simple population increase 
over the next several years. We know that we have a problem and it is 
going to get bigger.
  The FAA currently puts monies towards abatement and remediation 
efforts but, in fact, they have not been adequate, and those efforts 
may end up being negated to some extent as the FAA moves to change 
traffic patterns and navigation methodology into the future. And we may 
see traffic movement from the existing contours and this problem spread 
to more and more families.
  The NASA bill that we are talking about is about researching new 
technologies, not about abating problems that currently exist but 
dealing with the future. And, of course, we need both. We need 
remediation of existing problems, and we must eliminate any future 
problems before they start.
  What we are hoping to see developed here is next-stage aircrafts, 
necessary, absolutely necessary, if we hope to support both quality of 
life for the families who are affected by this problem, as we just 
heard 3 million and growing, as well as the economic needs of 
communities, regions of the country, and indeed the country as a whole.
  If my colleagues are interested in economic development, if they are 
interested in protecting both the growth of air travel and the economic 
growth that is incumbent with that, as well as the quality of life for 
people on the ground, this is a very good place to spend a vote today.
  I urge that my colleagues support it.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I just want to summarize here what we have 
had a chance to learn. We have learned that there is virtual consensus 
in this body, even on those that are opposed to my amendment, that 
aircraft noise has reached almost chronic proportions. We have agreed 
that we need to do more about it. We have agreed in the years to come 
there will be even more aircraft taking off, more people living in 
those paths, and more people being harmed every day several times an 
hour by that air traffic.
  But what we have heard is that my amendment to add $10 million this 
year to a package that includes $42 billion of spending, including $14 
billion just this year alone, is somehow too rich. And we found out 
that instead of offering this amendment in the way that I have to bring 
it up to last year's level, no higher, that instead I should identify 
places in the budget and seek to have this funded from those areas.
  Well, perhaps I can have it funded from the Advanced Space 
Transportation Technology section of this bill. $80 million plus-up, an 
$80 million additional allocation is in this bill, above and beyond 
what the President proposed. Perhaps it can come from that research and 
technology base that I had a brief colloquy with my chairman about, 
which is a $362 million pot of money that is essentially fungible that 
we are saying, as this Congress, we want to give the authority to NASA 
to decide how that should be spent.
  But if we agree on the fundamental premise that we need to do more 
research, that we need to ensure that when the stage-four aircraft are 
ready that we in the United States are able to put them on our aircraft 
as quickly as possible, then perhaps this is the place to start.
  There is concern, and it is legitimate concern, that we not bust the 
budget. Well, we are not busting the budget by restoring this to last 
year's level. We are not busting the budget if we are going to be 
approving a bill with this amendment, which is exactly at the same 
level as it was this year. And all of the protest about us not paying 
enough diligence, not paying enough respect to the request that the 
President submitted I believe is a false concern.
  I believe that there are many areas in this budget where we exceed 
the President's request. This is an opportunity for us to touch 
people's lives all over this country. It might be our last chance this 
year to say, in addition to trying to foster greater air commerce, in 
addition to trying to foster growth at airports, in addition to trying 
to track new jobs, we should do a little bit, a very little bit, to add 
to the amount of research that we do that, perhaps with the great 
assets that we have in this country, intellectual and otherwise, in 
years to come we might be able to look back at this bill and say give 
us the extra push to get even quieter aircraft flying over our country.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Weiner) now amending his amendment or proposing a new amendment that 
suggests that the $11 million come from the Advanced Space 
Transportation Technology section?
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman, would he support that 
amendment if I did?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would yield, is that 
the proposal of the gentleman?
  Mr. WEINER. Well, I am always guided by the wisdom of my subcommittee 
chair. Would the chairman support that amendment if I crafted it in 
that manner?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Well, let me suggest this, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield:
  I had extensive meetings on this budget with Mr. Goldin, who, of 
course, is the head of NASA. And I know that we have a big budget and I 
know $10 million or $11 million seems like it is a small portion, but 
believe it or not, the people in government who have to deal with this 
budget actually have ideas of how this money should be spent and have 
ideas and know that if it is not spent in another way it will come out 
of these other priorities.
  Mr. Goldin has emphasized to me, as the chairman of the subcommittee, 
that the Advanced Space Technology portion is third highest priority. 
And frankly, this is something that we should have been discussing and 
going through for the last two or three weeks rather than here on the 
floor of trying to find an area.
  So I would imagine Dan Goldin and the administration would oppose it 
coming out of that themselves. It is something that, and I agree with 
the gentleman, I mean, I think that he has hit an area that needs 
research. In fact, as I mentioned earlier, NASA has already decided to 
increase, due to probably some of the arguments he has provided, by $25 
million.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from New York.

[[Page 10054]]


  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, as the chairman is aware, we 
did not mark this up in the subcommittee so we did not have an 
opportunity to fully vet it. And when we did offer a similar amendment, 
the type that my colleague seems to be supporting, I won on a tie vote, 
a moral victory perhaps; and that is why I chose to draft it this way 
using the guidance of the gentleman.
  And I am comfortable with the idea of a $14 billion NASA budget this 
year, having an additional $10 million that does not exceed last year's 
level. I am comfortable with that amendment and I would urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Weiner/
Kucinich/Udall/Rivers amendment. I have been actively working to 
ameliorate aircraft noise and pollution problems affecting my district 
and the New Jersey/New York Region for many years.
  Recently, I helped secure language in the FAA reauthorization act to 
urge the FAA to complete its redesign of the New York/New Jersey 
airspace as expeditiously as possible. I also joined other Members in 
signing a letter to the Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee 
urging full funding for the airport improvement program.
  Recently, too, I have met with NASA representatives to better 
understand their ongoing research efforts that would help reduce 
aircraft noise. These efforts are leading to the next phase of quieter 
aircraft, often referred to as ``state IV''. However, NASA is many 
years away from deploying this technology. To increase their ability to 
develop this technology more rapidly, I urge my colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle to support the Weiner amendment. The amendment would 
restore funding for NASA's aircraft noise research program to last 
year's appropriated level, and would only do so over the next three 
years. This funding is critical to providing noise relief to our 
citizens, improving air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, 
and increasing safety of residents and flight passengers nationwide.
  This amendment is important not only for residents in the New Jersey/
New York region, but for our entire nation. And I commend my freshman 
colleague from New York for initiating this important amendment that 
will improve the quality of life for people across the U.S. Help begin 
the new millennium with greater noise and pollution relief for our 
constituents by voting ``Yes'' today on the Weiner/Kucinich/Udall/
Rivers amendment.
  Mr. ACKERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment offered by Mr. Weiner to the FY 2000 NASA Authorization bill. 
This measure would restore funding for NASA's Aircraft Noise Research 
Program to last year's level. The research conducted by this program 
would be of great benefit for all those who live, work, or travel near 
airports throughout the country.
  The New York metropolitan area air space is the busiest in the 
nation. While many people enjoy the benefits of frequent flights into 
and out of New York, my constituents are forced to endure the noise of 
a plane landing or taking off every 30 seconds at LaGuardia Airport. 
Moreover, the FY 2000 FAA Re-Authorization bill which the House will be 
considering in the next few weeks, may well increase this flight 
activity. The issue of airplane noise is a quality of life issue for 
the people who live, work, and go to school in the areas surrounding 
our nation's airports. The least we can do is work to make these planes 
quieter, and lessen the burden on those who reside near airports in my 
district, as well as throughout the country.
  I want to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner, for his 
initiative and leadership on this critical issue for so many New 
Yorkers and others throughout the country. I urge my colleagues to 
support this critical issue and vote ``yes'' on the Weiner amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. WEINER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 174, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) 
will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Salmon

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

       Amendment No. 7 offered by Mr. Salmon:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 221. ANTI-DRUG MESSAGE ON INTERNET SITES.

       Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act, the Administrator, in consultation with the 
     Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, shall 
     place anti-drug messages on Internet sites controlled by the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
       In the table of contents, after the item relating to 
     section 220, insert the following new item:

Sec. 221.  Anti-drug message on Internet sites.

  Mr. SALMON. Mr. Chairman, my amendment is very straightforward. It 
requires the NASA Administrator to consult with the Director of the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy to place antidrug messages on 
NASA Internet sites.
  The NASA Internet site is the most popular Government Web site, 
receiving hundreds of millions of hits. For example, the Mars 
Pathfinder Web site logged roughly 750 million hits during its mission 
to Mars. John Glenn's return to space generated 732,000 Web pages being 
downloaded from NASA's server, and each week about 250,000 Web pages 
are downloaded from NASA's server.
  Many of these hits on the NASA site are from children, our young 
people. Thousands of schools around the country have incorporated the 
NASA Web site into their science curriculum. Furthermore, NASA has 
targeted students with interactive Web sites designed to engage young 
minds.
  In an era where our children are constantly bombarded and surrounded 
by the influence of drugs and where more than half of all high school 
students are found to have dabbled with illicit drugs by the time they 
have graduated, now is the time to step up our prevention efforts to 
protect our children from the scourge of drugs. The NASA Web site is an 
excellent and cost-free way to send these antidrug messages to our 
young children.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from 
Arizona is a very constructive one and I am happy to accept it.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SALMON. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I also recommend accepting the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon).
  The amendment was agreed to.


                 Amendment No. 4 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 No. 4 offered by Mr. Roemer:
       After section 130, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 131. COST LIMITATION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE 
                   STATION.

       (a) Limitation of Costs.--Except as provided in subsection 
     (c), the total amount appropriated for--
       (1) costs of the International Space Station through 
     completion of assembly may not exceed $21,900,000,000; and
       (2) space shuttle launch costs in connection with the 
     assembly of the International Space Station through 
     completion of assembly may not exceed $17,700,000,000 
     (determined at the rate of $380,000,000 per space shuttle 
     flight).
       (b) Costs to Which Limitation Applies.--
       (1) Development costs.--The limitation imposed by 
     subsection (a)(1) does not apply to funding for operations, 
     research, and crew return activities subsequent to 
     substantial completion of the International Space Station.
       (2) Launch costs.--The limitation imposed by subsection 
     (a)(2) does not apply to space shuttle launch costs in 
     connection with operations, research, and crew return 
     activities subsequent to substantial completion of the 
     International Space Station.
       (3) Substantial completion.--For purposes of this 
     subsection, the International Space Station is considered to 
     be substantially completed when the development costs

[[Page 10055]]

     comprise 5 percent or less of the total International Space 
     Station costs for the fiscal year.
       (c) Automatic Increase of Limitation Amount.--The amounts 
     set forth in subsection (a) shall each be increased to 
     reflect any increase in costs attributable to--
       (1) economic inflation;
       (2) compliance with changes in Federal, State, or local 
     laws enacted after the date of enactment of this Act;
       (3) the lack of performance or the termination of 
     participation of any of the International countries 
     participating in the International Space Station; and
       (4) new technologies to improve safety, reliability, 
     maintainability, availability, or utilization of the 
     International Space Station, or to reduce costs after 
     completion of assembly, including increases in costs for on-
     orbit assembly sequence problems, increased ground testing, 
     verification and integration activities, contingency 
     responses to on-orbit failures, and design improvements to 
     reduce the risk of on-orbit failures.
       (d) Notice of Changes.--The Administrator shall provide 
     with each annual budget request a written notice and analysis 
     of any changes under subsection (c) to the amounts set forth 
     in subsection (a) to the Senate Committees on Appropriations 
     and on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and to the House 
     of Representatives Committees on Appropriations and on 
     Science. The written notice shall include--
       (1) an explanation of the basis for the change, including 
     the costs associated with the change and the expected benefit 
     to the program to be derived from the change; and
       (2) an analysis of the impact on the assembly schedule and 
     annual funding estimates of not receiving the requested 
     increases.
       (e) Reporting and Review.--
       (1) Identification of costs.--
       (A) Space shuttle.--As part of the overall space shuttle 
     program budget request for each fiscal year, the 
     Administrator shall identify separately the amounts of the 
     requested funding that are to be used for completion of the 
     assembly of the International Space Station.
       (B) International space station.--As part of the overall 
     International Space Station budget request for each fiscal 
     year, the Administrator shall identify the amount to be used 
     for development of the International Space Station.
       (2) Accounting for cost limitations.--As part of the annual 
     budget request to the Congress, the Administrator shall 
     account for the cost limitations imposed by subsection (a).
       (3) Verification of accounting.--The Administrator shall 
     arrange for a verification, by the General Accounting Office, 
     of the accounting submitted to the Congress within 60 days 
     after the date on which the budget request is transmitted to 
     the Congress.
       (4) Inspector general.--Within 60 days after the 
     Administrator provides a notice and analysis to the Congress 
     under subsection (d), the Inspector General of the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration shall review the notice 
     and analysis and report the results of the review to the 
     committees to which the notice and analysis was provided.
       In the table of contents, after the item relating to 
     section 130, insert the following new item:
Sec. 131. Cost limitation for the International Space Station.

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, there is a quote from Justice Louis 
Brandeis and it goes like this: ``Publicity is justly commended as a 
remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the 
best of disinfectants, electric light the most efficient policeman.''
  Sunlight, policing, publicity, how can we be against that? This 
amendment is about all three of those things. This is not my annual 
amendment to kill the Space Station. This is an amendment to 
responsibly cap the costs of the Space Station.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to do something about the Space Station; and 
this body, in its eminent wisdom and sense of fair play, has a number 
of options today. We can cap the costs of the Space Station for the 
assembly at $21.9 billion. We can cap the Shuttle costs in connection 
with the assembly at $17.7 billion and follow the lead of the other 
body.
  The other body put these caps into their bill. Senator McCain, a 
Republican, who I believe supports the Space Station, put this language 
into the Senate bill. I do not think that it was even contested. I 
think it was voice voted. And probably people that support the Space 
Station, although I do not, I admit it, I do not support the Space 
Station, this simply tries to get a fencing and a cap and some 
accountability and some sunshine on the rising and escalating 
inefficiencies and cost overruns in the Space Station.
  Now, we just had a debate on a reasonable amendment offered by the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner) to try to plus up to last year's 
level an aeronautic account to try to do more research on noise and its 
impact from engines, commercial engines, on inner city people.
  Both the respected chairman, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the respected subcommittee chairman, the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) have, in effect, said that we must 
prioritize the Space Station. And it has gone from $2.1 billion in this 
bill to $2.4 billion in this bill. So, naturally, when the bill is only 
$13.4 billion, lots of other things are going to fall by the wayside.
  So this amendment that I respectfully offer simply says let us fence 
this money, let us cap this money, let us make NASA accountable for 
this money.

                              {time}  1300

  I remind my colleagues, I gently remind my colleagues that this is 
the same Space Station that was supposed to cost $8 billion when it was 
first designed in 1984. Now the General Accounting Office says the 
total cost for launching and construction assembly are going to be $98 
billion. Mr. Chairman, we have had cost overruns in the last couple of 
years equal to the entire cost that the Space Station was originally 
designed to cost the American taxpayer.
  This amendment simply says, if you are going to build it, be 
accountable to the taxpayer. Do not continue to have a program replete 
with inefficiencies and infected with cost overruns. Let us make sure 
that NASA does it the way they have done so many other things so 
efficiently, with the hope and the glory and the promise of the 
Pathfinder that went to Mars recently for $263 million on the dot.
  Are we going to be able to do those anymore if the Space Station 
continues to escalate in cost and eats up the rest of the $13.4 billion 
that we have for NASA? I ask my colleagues, will we even have a NASA 
that has an aeronautics component? Maybe we should just rename the bill 
the National Space Administration and not help out our aeronautics 
companies anymore. That is where we are moving. That is what happened 
to the gentleman from New York's amendment. Let us make sure we 
prioritize accountability and disinfectant and fairness in this budget.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is one of the rites of spring that occurs in our 
Nation's capital city every year. The cherry blossoms come up, there 
are a lot of tourists, particularly schoolchildren, that come to see 
our Nation's capital, and the gentleman from Indiana starts to kill the 
Space Station again.
  First, there is a cap for the next 3 years contained in the bill that 
is before us. That cap is contained in the authorization amounts of 
$2,482,700,000 for fiscal year 2000, $2.328 billion for fiscal year 
2001 and $2.91 billion for fiscal year 2002. That cap is there. That 
fully funds the administration's request on this subject. We are being 
very bipartisan on that.
  Secondly, the amendment that the gentleman is proposing now will be 
directly in conflict with the next amendment that the gentleman intends 
to propose which gets the Russian government out of the critical path, 
because the budgets that NASA has put together assume that the Russians 
will be able to fulfill their obligations under the Space Station 
agreement. The gentleman from Indiana and I happen to agree that the 
Russians have not done that. But if he removes the Russians from the 
program, it is going to cost more money.
  So the cap that he puts on will prevent NASA from spending more money 
which will be caused by the next amendment that the gentleman from 
Indiana intends to propose. Really, I think the gentleman ought to go 
to his third amendment which kills the Space Station altogether, 
because that implements what he wants to do. What he wants to do there 
is wrong and has

[[Page 10056]]

been rejected overwhelmingly by the House of Representatives in the 
past, and I would hope would be rejected again in the future.
  The conflicting messages that are being sent by the different caps 
that are being discussed here is not going to do NASA any good, is not 
going to do the program any good, and it is just going to confuse 
everyone in terms of responsible budgeting. I hope that that is not 
what the gentleman from Indiana has in mind.
  Because in determining how much the Space Station costs, an essential 
element is going to be the economic and political direction that Russia 
takes and how the United States of America, which includes the 
President, the Congress and the American people, respond to it. I just 
would hope that NASA's hands would not be tied through the adoption of 
the amendment that the gentleman from Indiana is proposing at the 
present time, that NASA be able to have the flexibility in dealing with 
Russian contingencies head-on.
  For that reason, I would urge the committee to reject the amendment 
that he has proposed.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last 
word.
  Let me thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) as well 
as the chairman and ranking member of our Subcommittee on Space and 
Aeronautics. Let me also acknowledge the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Brown) and wish him a speedy recovery and thank him for his leadership.
  I enjoy the friendship of the gentleman from Indiana, and of course I 
enjoy his constant reminder that we must be vigilant and diligent in 
the use of the people's money. I vigorously rise, Mr. Chairman, to 
oppose his amendment on the capping of development funds and launching 
funds for the Space Station, and prospectively rise to oppose what 
might be an amendment to eliminate the Space Station, and ask my 
colleagues to consider where we are.
  In committee, someone made a very important note that the gentleman 
from Indiana's eloquence was missed in the Committee on Science, and 
they thought because of his leadership of past years he had gotten 
promoted to another committee. Maybe we should not say it on the floor, 
but I know he misses us and he knows the good work that this committee 
does, and that is why he is back with us again.
  But I would share with my colleagues that we went through this even 
before I came to Congress, when we in essence did not support the 
continuation of the super collider, of course, costing a lot of 
dollars. But yet there is much evidence that suggests superconductivity 
research, which is now international, would have generated into many, 
many jobs and as well would have brought us a large amount of research 
and input.
  I say that this is the same thing that we have with the Space 
Station. I support the NASA reauthorization, with certainly a number of 
concerns. But I would think at this point in the furtherance of what we 
have done, where we have gotten the Space Station, the efficiency, the 
effectiveness, the tight budget.
  I just happened to visit one of our contractors a couple of weeks or 
so ago. I walked through their plant, I watched their employees, saw 
the fine line of the budgeting process that they watch, the around-the-
clock workers that they have there at USA, United Space Alliance, and 
saw that they had an attention to detail with respect to doing this job 
right.
  The research that we are getting out of the Space Station on 
diabetes, HIV, heart disease, the fact that the NASA Johnson Space 
Center, in fact, using International Space Station as an umbrella, is 
able to solve some of the problems that impact individuals. For 
example, there is sort of a connection between the small business 
community where there are outreach members who go to the small business 
community and say, ``Do you have a problem? If you have a problem, 
let's see if we can solve it through the umbrella of the Johnson Space 
Center and the umbrella of the International Space Station.''
  One of those had to do with a gentleman that had a surgery on his arm 
and had to have various tubes. He could not take a clean bath. This is 
one of our hospitals. He could not take a shower because infections 
would start up. We have been able to, under the umbrella of all the 
research that is done under the Space Station, to be able to solve that 
individual problem. And so I think it is important. I think, however, 
that to gut the Space Station, we would be in trouble.
  The bill fully funds the Space Shuttle at $2.5 billion. Included in 
the package is an additional $456 million for the Shuttle. Furthermore, 
this bill contains a substantial increase from the administration's 
request for NASA's academic program. I was able to secure further 
participation for our minority universities, minority-serving 
universities, Hispanic and African American. The overall bill responds 
to our concerns about fiscal responsibility.
  Yet let me comment, Mr. Chairman, that this bill is not altogether 
perfect. It steals from Administrator Dan Goldin by prohibiting him 
from pursuing programs that have the potential to bring great rewards 
to the United States. The Triana program, Mr. Chairman, I hope, which 
is a 2-year program which was funded last year in the amount of $40 
million, snatched out of the jaws of success, I hope that when we get 
into conference we can realize the importance of this. Taking away 
NASA's authority to follow through on this program merely because it 
was an initiative of the Vice President is certainly irresponsible and 
a waste of taxpayer dollars. It reminds me of the big hole in north 
Texas because of opposition to the super collider. Section 126 of the 
bill also contains a limitation on NASA's earth science program.
  So we have many problems, Mr. Chairman, but I would say to you, we do 
not have a problem with the International Space Station. I would ask my 
colleagues to defeat this amendment, prospectively to defeat the 
amendment to eliminate the Space Station, and pass the bill, and work 
on supporting the Triana project.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill, which authorizes the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for the next three 
years.
  This bill authorizes one of our proudest institutions, NASA. It is an 
agency that spearheads our search for an understanding about our 
universe, an agency dedicated to quench our insatiable thirst for 
knowledge. It is an agency that has done more with less over the past 
decade, and done so convincingly well. I wish that Congress could 
perform for them as they have for us, and pass a bill that does not 
micro-manage, and that does not place new obstacles in the path to 
achievement.
  Thankfully, however, this bill maintains or increases funding for 
several projects that have consistently been performing well despite 
yearly budget cutbacks, namely the International Space Station and the 
Space Shuttle. Up until now, it has been fairly easy to criticize our 
progress on the station because NASA remained in stages of planning and 
preparation--but all of that has changed in the past few months we 
finally have two pieces of the ISS in orbit--Zariya and Unity. Under 
this bill, the funding for the Space Station is set at $1.4 billion for 
FY2000, of which $394 million is specifically earmarked for 
microgravity research--which is at the core of station research that 
will benefit the health of humankind.
  This bill also fully funds the Space Shuttle program at $2.5 billion 
in FY2000, with a slight increase in FY2001. Included in this package 
is an additional $456 million for shuttle upgrades, which seek to 
improve the safety of the shuttle, and which can increase efficiency. 
These upgrades will guarantee that the space shuttle will be more-than-
capable in its duties for the next 10 years, while at the same time 
reduce operating costs and decrease flight turnaround time. These are 
important in an era where we want to increase access to space while at 
the same time lowering cost, so that we can better complete worldwide 
for launch dollars. We should be promoting the use of U.S. launch 
facilities whenever possible, so as to further develop our launch 
industry and make our economy more robust than ever.
  Furthermore, this bill contains a substantial increase from the 
Administration's request in the funding for NASA's Academic programs. 
Although the $128 million is slightly below the appropriated amount 
last year, it still represents an overall increase in those academic

[[Page 10057]]

programs when looking at our overall spending pattern over the past 
five years.
  I was also thankful to pass an amendment during Full Committee markup 
that set aside a proportional amount of funding for minority academic 
programs. These programs are extremely important, especially when you 
look at the numbers. African-Americans only represent 6% of the 
students enrolled in graduate-level science and engineering programs, 
and Hispanics only 4%. In the workforce, both of those groups together 
represent less than 6% of those working in the science and engineering 
fields even though they represent more than 20% of all our workers 
combined.
  My amendment ensured that NASA would spend at least $62 million on 
minority education efforts, of which $33.6 million would go to 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities. This is especially 
important in my district, which lies just outside of the Johnson Space 
Center and which contains Texas Southern University and the University 
of Houston, both of which serve minority youth from all over the 
country. NASA can have a significant impact on these children's lives--
most of you have seen the reaction of the children who were lucky 
enough to attend the preview of the new ``Star Wars'' movie last 
night--now imagine NASA being able to dazzle them with real-life 
possibilities and technology.
  This bill is far from perfect, however. NASA has always been an 
agency about research, setting goals, and solving problems. This bill, 
however, steals authority from Administrator Dan Goldin by prohibiting 
him from pursuing programs that have the potential to bring great 
rewards to the United States.
  The first program that is cut by this program is the Triana program, 
which is a two-year program which was funded last year in the amount of 
$40 million. By taking away NASA's authority to follow through on this 
program, merely because it was in some way an initiative of the Vice 
President is more than irresponsible, it is a waste of taxpayer 
dollars.
  Section 126 of this bill also contains a limitation on NASA's Earth 
Science program, who is in charge of leveraging our space technology to 
give us a better understanding of the Earth. The limitation places hard 
requirements on NASA to commercialize portions of its remote sensing 
data, but the reality is that the market has not developed to the point 
where data buys are commonplace. As a result, the entire Earth Science 
program's future will be in serious jeopardy in Section 126 is not 
stricken from the bill.
  The bill as currently written also contains prohibitions on the 
development of TransHab, a new technology that has direct application 
to the Space Station and future space technologies. TransHab is 
essentially an expandable construct that can be used in outer space to 
house astronauts or other equipment. Because it is expandable, its 
capacity for use is greater than conventionally built modules, and at 
the same time it saves us precious payload space when put into orbit. 
TransHab technology opens many options for NASA, and makes the lives of 
astronauts far more bearable. While we should make sure that this 
technology does not jeopardize our current space station construction 
timeline or cause cost overruns, this House should not preempt the 
sound reasoning of our best-trained scientists by prohibiting the 
development of TransHab.
  NASA is an important tile on the American quilt. It permeates the 
consciousness of a whole generation that watched Neil Armstrong walk on 
the moon and dreamed they were there with him. NASA continues in the 
American traditions of exploration and ingenuity--and we should not 
abandon those traditions by placing limits on our best and our 
brightest. I urge my colleagues to support NASA, but to do so 
responsibly and without undue interference.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of all three Roemer 
amendments. Every year, as the gentleman from Wisconsin has pointed 
out, we come to the floor and debate this issue.
  I urge my colleagues to vote down additional funds for the 
International Space Station. I realize we are going to be facing three 
amendments today. One is to cap funding, one is to end our partnership 
with Russia in this program, and the third is to end funding for the 
Space Station altogether.
  But we continue to shovel money into this growing black hole of 
taxpayer dollars. Two modules have already been launched, but where is 
the next module? The launch of the third segment, Russia's service 
module, has been delayed again and again because of Russia's funding 
problems.
  Should we throw more U.S. taxpayer dollars to the Russians to finish 
their work? I fear that such assistance may become lost, like the $4.8 
billion in IMF funds which were squandered by Russian officials. The 
Clinton administration's ill-fated decision to bring Russia aboard, a 
decision which they claimed would result in accelerating the Space 
Station completion by 2 years and reducing costs by $4 billion, has 
backfired badly. Instead, costs have accelerated and delays have 
increased.
  In the fiscal year 1994 VA-HUD bill which passed the House 
overwhelmingly, there was report language which said, and I stress this 
point, Congress stated that Russian participation, and this is where I 
am quoting, ``should enhance, not enable, the Space Station.'' Despite 
our best intentions, Russian participation has caused huge U.S. cost 
overruns and has in effect disabled the program, which is now dependent 
on Russia.
  Will the American taxpayer get their money's worth out of this 
project? I doubt it. The original scientific justifications for 
building the station have eroded. The presidents of 10 different 
scientific societies have called the Space Station a project of little 
scientific or technical merit that threatens valuable space-related 
projects and drains the scientific vitality of nations.
  I believe the $75 billion not yet spent on the Space Station could 
provide an enormous benefit to other programs within NASA and other 
earth-based scientific research. How many more delays, cost overrun and 
unfulfilled promises must we endure? I continue to support NASA and 
space exploration, but we must recognize the cost of this particular 
project far exceeds the potential benefits. I urge my colleagues to 
support the Roemer amendments and restore common sense to our space 
program.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Indiana's 
scrutiny of the Space Station over the past few years. I think because 
of that that we have a better Space Station program, that NASA is more 
accountable.
  But I do have concerns with this amendment, in that, as has been 
pointed out, two segments of the Space Station have already been 
launched and placed in orbit. This particular cap would result in a 12 
percent approximate reduction in the budget for the projected 
completion of the Space Station. I think to take 12 percent out really 
raises questions of safety and efficiency. For those reasons, I think 
this is just too big a cut and would oppose the amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, as we all know, the gentleman from Indiana has been a 
strong opponent of the Space Station program for years, and for many 
years traditionally introduced the amendment to kill the funding for 
the Space Station. He was consistently defeated by the will of this 
body.
  The people of the United States, through the expressed will of the 
Congress, have chosen to proceed with the construction of the Space 
Station. Now, today, as we speak, we do have two elements on orbit. We 
have much of the construction cost already expended, and most of the 
hardware is at the Space Station processing facility at Kennedy Space 
Center and ready to be launched.

                              {time}  1315

  Now what was correctly pointed out by the gentleman from Michigan is 
that we do have significant delays caused by the Russians, and that has 
been something that I have been very, very concerned about, as have 
been many Members of this body. We are very, very close to obtaining 
the delivery of the service module. NASA has worked out a very, very 
successful program to work around any further Russian delays in the 
outyears of the program and to ultimately get them out of the critical 
pathway.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to oppose this amendment because 
of what it really is, and what it is is an

[[Page 10058]]

attempt on the part of those who have tried to kill the space station 
for years to instead put forward an amendment that does not appear to 
do that but what in reality will do that. By putting this cap in place 
it would require very significant cuts in funding, and I can tell my 
colleagues as a Member who represents an area of the country where a 
lot of this work is done, this program is pretty much cut to the bone. 
They have really done a tremendous job, I believe, in getting it 
completed with the funding that has been available and that this 
particular amendment will essentially kill the space station program.
  I am told that there is nothing that motivates our kids more to study 
math and science in our schools than our manned space flight program, 
and I would encourage our colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I have before me here the official House of 
Representatives dictionary, and I have turned to page 240 and looked up 
the word ``boondoggle.''
  Boondoggle: work of little or no value done merely to keep or look 
busy; a project funded by the Federal Government out of political 
favoritism that is of no real value to the community or the Nation.
  Boondoggle, Mr. Chairman, that is what we are talking about here in 
the three amendments offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) 
to kill, cut or sever the relationship with the Russians in work 
performed by the Russians on the space station.
  Mr. Chairman, I will tell my colleagues I was a member of the 
Committee on Science back in 1994. We began talking about the space 
station. The work was already under way at that time. I was told at 
that time that the work to be done, to be completed, was going to run a 
cost of $20 billion to complete the space station. That was in 1995, 
when I first came to Congress. Today we have just received a study by 
GAO with revised estimates saying that the space station will cost U.S. 
taxpayers $95.6 billion over its lifetime, a fourfold increase in 4 
years, Mr. Chairman.
  This, I believe, should be an added definition for boondoggle in this 
dictionary that I have before me.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LARGENT. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the gentleman is kind of 
confusing apples with oranges because the earlier figure was the 
construction cost. The later figure that the gentleman from Oklahoma is 
using is the construction cost plus the operations cost over the full 
15 to 20-year life cycle of the station.
  I will be the first to concede that as a result of the Russian 
failures to do what they agreed to the construction costs to the U.S. 
taxpayers have gone up, but the 1994 figures that the gentleman from 
Oklahoma gave did not include any operations cost whatsoever.
  So there has not been a fourfold increase.
  Mr. LARGENT. But is it true that the taxpayers will be spending $95.6 
billion over the next 15 years or over the lifetime of the space 
station?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. That is the current estimate, but to say that the 
cost has gone up by four times, as my colleagues know, uses a figure in 
the beginning that did not include any operational cost and the figure 
in the end that does. So it is not a comparable comparison between the 
current cost estimate and the cost estimate that was utilized in 1994.
  Mr. LARGENT. Then in 1994 what were the costs plus operational 
expenses projected to be?
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I do not know.
  Mr. LARGENT. I can assure the gentleman it was not $95.6 billion of 
the taxpayers' money.
  I can also tell him that one of the reasons that was given for 
building the space station was that we could do all these elaborate 
experiments on crystal formation in a weightless environment, and so 
the reason for that is that we would be able to develop all these cures 
for cancer and so forth, and so what I did is I just kind of on my own 
began calling a number of the drug manufacturing companies in this 
country and asking them: ``How important is it for you to be able to 
conduct these experiments to develop these chemicals and these 
different crystalline formations that are going to cure cancer?''
  Their response, all of them across the board, was: ``We could care 
less. That is not what we are into. We could care less about space 
station funding.''
  So I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that I am rising in support of all 
the Roemer amendments, and I would ask my colleagues to consider the 
ramifications of continuing to spend nearly $100 billion of taxpayers' 
money on a project that is overdue, overfunded and not needed.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise this afternoon to voice my very strong 
opposition to all of the amendments offered by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer) to H.R. 1654, and I will talk about all of them 
right now in one fell swoop.
  With all due respect to my colleague from Indiana, cancelling or 
capping the International Space Station, whether it is dealing with the 
partnership with Russia, killing funding authorization for the space 
station or setting caps on development of and launch of costs 
associated with the station is wrongheaded. It is wrongheaded domestic 
and foreign policy.
  When we began the International Space Station, we knew it would be a 
challenging project, to say the least. To stop now would be sort of 
like halting the construction of the transcontinental railroad shortly 
after the engineering survey work had begun and the first few miles of 
track had been laid in the 1860s.
  Mr. Chairman, it would be shortsighted and even foolish to terminate 
the program now that we are on the verge of realizing its many rewards. 
We have launched Zarya and Unity, the initial elements of the space 
station, into orbit where they are now operating, and moreover, 
shipment of the service module, the permanent crew quarters, will be 
placed in orbit next year. It is presently under way. NASA experts 
predict that the space station will be completed and can serve as an 
outpost for humans to develop, use and explore the last frontier within 
5 years.
  Mr. Chairman, think about the advances that can positively affect the 
lives of all Americans that would be prematurely halted. For example, 
the new space life sciences doctoral program at the University of Texas 
medical branch in Galveston, my district, could be terminated, and the 
chances of improving telemedicine and even better access for health 
care for all Americans would be slowed down. Cutting space station 
funding would adversely affect Joe Valentine's Alliance for Technology 
access in San Rafael, California, which is in the district of the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey), and she is going to speak in 
a few minutes. The alliance which has 40 resource centers around the 
country provides assistance to the disabled through a variety of high-
tech resources, many of which have been developed through manned space 
exploration and all of which stand to benefit greatly from current 
telemedicine-telemedical research.
  Mr. Chairman, capping or eliminating space station funding also could 
stymie progress at the University of Notre Dame's bioscience core 
facility. At this laboratory in the district of the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer) scientists and researchers are dedicated to 
providing technical and instrumental support for biological and 
biochemical research. I do not believe either of these Congress persons 
wish to do something that would harm the hopes and dreams of what these 
people are trying to accomplish in their districts, and our Nation's 
drive to improve the lives of humans and the health of our planet would 
be waylaid if Congress votes to terminate funding for the International 
Space Station. It would be a shame to throw away one of the best 
financial investments our Nation can make, and I have said it several 
times. For every Federal dollar we

[[Page 10059]]

spend in space we get a $9 return here on Earth. Nine dollars has 
created tens of thousands of good jobs for Americans.
  Well, Mr. Chairman, I urge all of my colleagues to think about their 
children and their grandchildren when casting their vote on any of 
these three dangerous amendments. Do we really want to deprive our 
children and grandchildren the benefits of future improvements and 
discoveries in medicine, meteorology, microbiology by voting against 
continued funding of the International Space Station?
  Well, I do not want the 106th Congress to go down in history as one 
of the most myopic in history by endorsing these amendments. Therefore, 
I urge all of my colleagues to vote no on the amendments to NASA's 
budget authorization bill.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in respectful but still opposition to at least 
two of the amendments offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Roemer). Perhaps we will talk about the third, but let me just say that 
now is not the time for us to undermine the space station program.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has made his position very 
clear. He believes the space station is wasteful, and he believes that 
it takes away from other priorities. He has made his arguments, and 
some of his arguments have certainly a flavor of legitimacy to them, 
not to say that we can agree with him at this time. Perhaps 10 years 
ago when we were facing this same situation, perhaps when I first came 
to Congress, would have been a better idea just to go along with Mr. 
Roemer at that time, but we have gone forward now, and we have reached 
a point that it would be a tremendously destructive factor to America's 
space program to try to end the space station project at this time.
  If we end the space station project, we follow the lead of the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), it will be a death knell to space 
cooperation throughout the world. We have made agreements with our 
allies. We also made an agreement and a covenant with the American 
people. We spent so many billions of their dollars already on this 
project, it is incumbent now upon us here at the last moments, in the 
last 2 years of this project, to get the project done.
  And I agree with Mr. Goldin. Mr. Goldin, I think, has been a breath 
of fresh air to the space program, that his number one priority is to 
get this project done, get on with it, so then we can go on to other 
things. If we instead decide to cancel this project to go on to other 
things, as the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) would like us to do, 
it will lead to just the opposite. We will not be cancelling to go into 
other things, we will be undermining public confidence and any other 
major space programs and commitments in the future.
  So, while I sympathize with his responsible efforts to prioritize and 
to talk about, as my colleagues know, drawbacks in this budget, I 
simply cannot support, and I do not think it is responsible for us now 
to pull back at this last moment.
  Now let me just say a few words about space station and what it will 
be and why it is worth moving forward at this time.
  The space station, once complete, will be one of the great and 
historic engineering feats of all times. We are demonstrating that our 
engineers, and with a combined and cooperative effort with other 
countries of the world, can build a great edifice in space, a structure 
that can be used for, yes, scientific research, but also a structure 
that can be expanded and used for other things in the future that we 
perhaps cannot foresee now. Just the engineering experience that we get 
from building space station and the experience we have working with 
this cooperative relationship with others will educate us and permit us 
to accomplish other great things in space, perhaps a moon base, perhaps 
something that I envisioned, a space grid, an electric grid in space 
that will help us once our oil resources dwindle to provide clean 
electricity from space to be beamed down from solar collectors onto the 
Earth.
  These are great dreams, but these are dreams that have to start with 
engineering capabilities that the space station now will enable us to 
do because it will teach us those techniques and enhance those 
capabilities.
  So, I would respectfully request my colleagues to reject Mr. Roemer's 
amendments, at least two of them dealing with the space station, and to 
support the space station, not to quit and call it off right here at 
the last moment.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not take my full 5 minutes. In fact, I will 
condense it to Mr. Roemer's pending three amendments. I will rise in 
opposition to all three, but I will only speak once.

                              {time}  1330

  I want to speak to the cutting of the funding, to the striking of the 
funding, or even to the reducing of the international effort in the 
International Space Station. The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) is 
a fine Member. I would say to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) 
that I hope I do not give the same speech every year because his 
amendments obviously I oppose.
  The International Space Station represents the future of space 
exploration in our country, and it represents a high tech lab whose 
innovations have countless applications in the daily lives of all 
Americans. It represents an era of international cooperation that 
everyone can benefit from.
  To date, the International Space Station has been a model of 
international cooperation and responsible management. If Congress does 
undermine the funding for the Space Station with an unexpected 
reduction, it would represent a major reversal and a commitment made to 
the program's stability over the past few years and it would be a 
betrayal to our international partners.
  Critics have said that the cost for the life cycle of the Space 
Station has drastically risen. It is just not true, Mr. Chairman. In 
fact, the cost for the life cycle of the station has only gone up 2 
percent in the last 3 years. So that is pretty good compared to even 
our low inflation rate.
  We have also said that funding the Space Station would push out any 
smaller space exploration endeavors like the Mars Pathfinder Mission, 
the Hubble Space Telescope, that have enormous success. Again, this is 
not true. NASA, with the development of the Space Station, will have a 
platform from which future space exploration and research can be 
continued.
  We are standing on the brink of the 21st century and I hope that we 
will not look back to the last century by cutting the funding for the 
Space Station, the NASA scientists, researchers and astronauts. We do 
not want to lose the foothold our country has into the future. So I ask 
a ``no'' vote on all three of the Roemer amendments.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to support the amendment of the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer) to put caps on the Space Station spending, and I 
want to urge my colleagues to support his amendment and my amendment to 
cut our losses on the Space Station and to cancel that project.
  In fact, on this issue, to cut our losses and cancel the Space 
Station, I am very proud to be recognized, since the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer) is no longer in attendance at the Committee on 
Science meetings, I am proud to be recognized as Roemer in a skirt.
  First, though, it is important to point out the valuable work of 
NASA, the work that NASA does to push the envelope of technology in 
reaching out to space. But one project in particular, the Space 
Station, has cost us far too much, casting too large a shadow over our 
budget.
  Speaking of throwing money at a problem, when the Space Station was

[[Page 10060]]

proposed in 1984 the estimated price tag was about $8 billion. That is 
a lot of money. Now that price has risen more than a dozen times to 
almost $100 billion over the life of the project. This is truly 
unacceptable.
  Let us see what we can do with that much money, Mr. Chairman. We 
could provide low income heating assistance for thousands of families. 
We could fund child immunization programs, clean up our Superfund 
sites, fund drug prevention programs, and pay our debt to the United 
Nations.
  To sway some of my colleagues, I would say that for the same amount 
they could buy three nuclear aircraft carriers, five Seawolf submarines 
and 30 B-2 bombers, although I would not recommend it nor would I vote 
for it.
  Mr. Chairman, with the immediate savings from this amendment, $2.4 
billion in the year 2000, we could offer college education, including 
tuition fees and books, to over 500,000 students who could not 
otherwise afford college, right here on Earth.
  With $2.4 billion, we could provide prenatal care to pregnant women 
who do not have access to routine health care, right here on Earth.
  With $2.4 billion, we could expand the WIC program so that all 
eligible pregnant and nursing mothers can get food supplements, and 
still we would have money left over.
  Supporters of the Space Station claim that research in space will 
advance health research. Well, with $2.4 billion, we could fully fund 
the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, right here on Earth. And 
with $2.4 billion, we could make Medicare more affordable to nearly 3 
million elderly women living in poverty.
  I do not question the ability of our outstanding engineers, Mr. 
Chairman, and our scientists who would bring this project to reality. 
However, I believe this is a case of misplaced priorities. With the 
many needs here on Earth, the Space Station is just too expensive.
  With limited funds available for programs right here on Earth, we 
must focus our resources on our Nation's most urgent needs in order to 
ensure a bright future for our children. Let us not send our tax 
dollars out in space when we have unmet needs right here. Let us cancel 
the Space Station program. I urge my colleagues to support the Roemer 
amendments.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) and just add one other 
category of where $100 billion might come in handy for a useful down 
payment, and that is the $5.5 trillion national debt that still hangs 
over this Nation, that affects us and is definitely going to be 
affecting the future of our children.
  I do rise in strong support of the three amendments the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) is offering to kill, cut or control this 
fiscal irresponsibility known as the International Space Station, 
although I do so with a great deal of sadness, Mr. Chairman. I commend 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for the courage that he has 
displayed year in and year out to bring these amendments to the floor 
to highlight this issue, to force the Congress to have to make some 
tough fiscal decisions and just to remind the American people of what 
is going on with this program.
  But I do so sadly, Mr. Chairman. As a representative of western 
Wisconsin, the home of such outstanding astronauts such as one of the 
original Mercury astronauts, Deke Slayton, who hails from a small town 
called Leon in the Sparta area of Wisconsin, and current Shuttle 
astronaut Mark Lee, I have always been and will always remain a strong 
proponent of space exploration and our national space program.
  I, like many Americans, am very supportive of NASA's efforts to 
explore the universe and expand human knowledge, but I am not willing 
to support this cause at the expense of fiscal sanity. The Space 
Station program, initiated back in 1984 at an estimated cost of roughly 
$8 billion, has become a budgetary black hole. The GAO estimates, even 
with its scope and size reduced, it will now cost nearly $100 billion 
over its life span.
  At a time when Congress is trying to abide by the 1997 balanced 
budget agreement and live within the spending caps that exist, how can 
we support a Federal program that now is estimated over 1,000 percent 
over budget?
  With this authorization, the space program will consume one-sixth of 
NASA's entire budget over the next 3 years, a large amount considering 
the agency will essentially be level funded during that. As the 
Station's cost has grown, it has crowded out other scientific 
priorities. Any further slips in construction and schedule will only 
add to the pressure on other space priorities.
  We must know, as an institution, when to say enough. Since its 
inception, our national space program has represented what is best 
about our Nation, Mr. Chairman: our ingenuity, our technological skill, 
our desire for knowledge about our universe and about ourselves. When 
confronted with seemingly insurmountable odds, the fine men and women 
in our space program have risen to the occasion time and time again.
  Who will forget that memorable moment back in 1961 when Yuri Gagarin 
was the first Russian and first person to be launched in space and the 
shock waves that reverberated across our country from that event. And 
then a mere 23 days later Alan Shepard, sitting courageously on top of 
the Mercury Redstone rocket, not knowing whether or not when it ignited 
it was going to blow up from underneath him, was the first American to 
finally reach outer space. And then 20 days after that a young 
President by the name of John F. Kennedy challenged our Nation to send 
a man to the moon and safely return him to Earth by the end of the 
decade.
  For almost 40 years the achievements of our space program have raised 
the hopes and dreams of people of all ages. Alan Shepard and Deke 
Slayton were childhood heroes of mine. I had a model of Freedom 7 on my 
dresser growing up as a child during the 1960s. All who have been 
involved in our Nation's space program are American heroes, no question 
about it.
  I want to do what I can to extend this fine legacy but I will not do 
so at any price. The space program is a wonderful program, Mr. 
Chairman, that there is no question about.
  What has to be questioned is the tremendous cost that the American 
taxpayers are facing today to perpetuate a Space Station that many in 
the scientific community, outside of the NASA community, believe has 
limited or no value.
  I would encourage my colleagues to seriously consider supporting 
these amendments which will hopefully restore some fiscal discipline 
and some fiscal sanity around a program that is sucking up more and 
more tax dollars every year as we continue to slide down this slope. I 
commend my friend from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) for bringing these 
amendments again this year.
  Mr. BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to all three of the Roemer 
amendments dealing with funding for NASA's International Space Station. 
As well intentioned as they might be, I think they are very misguided, 
and I think that is apparent by the actions taken by previous Houses on 
this issue.
  Some of these amendments are the same old items in new packages. All 
of them would be destructive and detrimental to the program.
  Some of our colleagues have argued that it would be fiscally prudent 
to eliminate the Space Station in this year's budget, as the previous 
speaker just mentioned. In my opinion, nothing could be further from 
the truth. In fact, it would be terribly imprudent to kill the program.
  We have already invested more than $20 billion in the Space Station. 
Our 12 international partners have spent more than $5 billion; 250 tons 
of hardware has been built and two elements are currently in orbit. To 
eliminate the program now, after so much has been invested and so much 
work has been

[[Page 10061]]

done, would be the height of irresponsibility by allowing our 
investment to be completely wasted.
  The International Space Station is a worthwhile investment in 
exploration and science, an investment in jobs and economic growth and, 
most of all, an investment in improving life for all of us here on 
Earth. The space program and experiments conducted on the Space Shuttle 
have made remarkable contributions to medical research and the study of 
life on Earth. The Space Station is the next logical step, a permanent 
orbiting laboratory.
  Let me highlight some of the Station's potential for contributing to 
medical advancements. For example, Space Station researchers will use 
the low gravity environment of the Space Station to expand our 
understanding of cell culture, which could revolutionize the treatment 
for joint diseases and injuries. The Space Station will provide a 
unique environment for research on the growth of protein crystal, which 
aids in determining the structure and function of proteins. Crystals 
grown in space are far superior to those grown here on Earth.
  Such information will greatly enhance drug design and research into 
cancer, diabetes, emphysema, parasitic infections and immune systems 
disorders.
  The almost complete absence of gravity on the Space Station will 
allow new insights into human health and disease prevention and 
treatment, including heart, lung and kidney function, cardiovascular 
disease, bone, calcium loss and immune system function.
  I also share the concern of my good friend, the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), that the continued Russian participation in this 
project needs to be carefully examined. The economic difficulties that 
Russia is currently experiencing have caused several unfortunate delays 
in their delivery of certain Space Station components and this needs to 
be scrutinized. This partnership deserves every chance to succeed 
because of the experience and expertise the Russians bring to the table 
and the potential foreign policy benefits of continuing this 
partnership.
  Mr. Chairman, the International Space Station is vital to continued 
human man presence in space and I would urge a defeat of all three of 
the Roemer amendments.
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I wish to commend the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) for his tenacity on this issue and I once again join him in his 
efforts to cap, curtail or eliminate the International Space Station 
program.
  I have heard all of the arguments over the years, just as many of my 
colleagues have, and I have to say that while I recognize the sincerity 
with which many of these arguments are advanced, I do not accept the 
validity of many of them.
  For example, I do not believe that this debate should be about jobs. 
I do not believe that this debate should be about good money after bad. 
I do not think that it should be entirely about cost, though I would 
point out that the Roemer-Sanford amendment is supported by the 
National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, the 
Concord Coalition and Citizens for a Sound Economy.
  I do not believe those issues should be central to our discussion 
today. Our debate today should be about science.

                              {time}  1345

  It should be about whether or not the International Space Station 
represents good science.
  Dr. Robert Park of the American Physical Society observed that no 
scientists not funded by NASA support this station. My experience 
suggests that is, in fact, true. Dr. Donald Brown, a leading biological 
scientist and staff member of the Carnegie Institution, says NASA plans 
for space-based life sciences research is costly and ineffective; 
ground-based research in other areas are more important.
  NASA once boasted that the space station would have eight major 
scientific objectives. Today, after numerous redesigns and cost 
overruns, the station retains only two of the original eight. Many 
experts in space science believe the station no longer represents a 
worthwhile endeavor, and the science experiments now slated for the 
station could be conducted aboard unmanned satellites or the space 
shuttle at a much lower cost.
  The station's costs are threatening to crowd out promising projects 
within NASA. Last year, NASA shifted $200 million from space shuttle 
safety and space education grants to pay for station overruns. NASA 
also asked for the authority to shift another $375 million in 1998.
  Smaller, cheaper, faster missions will never share the success of 
other small programs like the Hubble Space Telescope and Mars 
Pathfinder if we do not cancel the station now. At $1 trillion in life 
cycle costs, the space station has sucked the air out of space-based 
research and space-based science that should be allowed to exist on its 
own.
  These proposals are thoughtfully presented, they are fiscally 
responsible, and most importantly, they are science-based. I would urge 
my colleagues to support these proposals.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. RIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman, first of all, for 
her ongoing support for this effort that we have put forward, not just 
this year, not just last year, not just the year before, but the 
gentlewoman from Michigan comes to the floor to articulate her strongly 
felt views every single year on this project, and I am grateful to her 
for her strong support and her words of wisdom.
  I do want to say that in reading one of the Congressional Research 
briefings on the space station, they say on page 2 of 13 that there are 
no caps in this House bill. There are overall caps in the Senate bill 
inserted by Senator McCain on the overall costs of the launch and the 
assembly. Mr. Chairman, $21 billion for one, $17.8 billion for the 
other. That is all we are asking in this first amendment. An overall 
$38 billion cap or a fence for disinfectant, for sunshine, for 
policing, for accountability, for good government so that we can 
control the costs of this space station.
  I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  I would like to state my opposition to this amendment, and I would 
encourage my colleagues to vote against it.
  I extend my full support for the sensible NASA Authorization Act 
before us today and I would like to commend the hard work and 
leadership of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).
  With their guidance and support, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), as 
well as the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), the ranking member 
of the Committee on Science, and my good friend the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), a member of the Subcommittee on Space, I 
believe we have a sound bill that will advance scientific research, 
promote commercial and privatized space efforts, and ensure the United 
States' role as a preeminent player in the international space 
community.
  I would like to especially commend the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) for 
maintaining strict oversight throughout the International Space Station 
program and rightly criticizing the participation by the Russian Space 
Agency for some of the inefficiencies that certainly they have been 
involved in.
  I am satisfied that this bill has been stripped of pet projects that 
would take away resources for critical scientific research and 
development. By increasing the total level of funding above the 
President's request, while at the same time ensuring that NASA 
continues to streamline and modernize their operations, I am confident 
that

[[Page 10062]]

this bill will allow NASA to focus funding on advanced space research 
and activities.
  I believe this bill addresses NASA's critical priorities, such as 
space science, life and microgravity sciences, advanced space 
transportation technology, space shuttle safety and performance 
upgrades and numerous education programs. By opposing this amendment we 
are continuing the scientific integrity of this important legislation.
  I urge all of my colleagues to support the NASA Authorization Act and 
to oppose efforts which would burden NASA by adding unnecessary and 
wasteful projects to this bill.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today, of course, in strong support of H.R. 
1654, and I want to talk a little about the amendments. This is an 
annual matter, and I have such high regard for the author, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). I have said so many times that 
this is another of those situations where one likes the author, but one 
cannot stand his amendment. But I am getting used to it, because we 
have voted on this day in and day out, year in and year out.
  I really think some of these amendments are not all that bad. I would 
say that to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). It is kind of like 
in gun control. I do not mind the waiting period, I do not mind 
registering them, but I know that the full intent is to take them away 
from us. Here, these amendments are steps in the direction of losing 
the space station. We do not want to do that. We cannot afford to do 
that.
  I am pleased that the International Space Station and the space 
shuttle operations are fully authorized at the level as requested by 
NASA and this legislation. I think they are entitled to the respect of 
this committee because some time ago the chairman of the Committee on 
Science and I, working together, minority and majority, talked to the 
Administrator and told him of our desire to cut down the NASA 
expenditure and try to cut it by say 25 or 30 percent. It seemed like 
the words were used that if you do not cut the budget here, you know 
how to cut it because you know all of the ramifications of the budget. 
We know about as much as we can know, but we will either cut it with a 
baseball bat or you cut it with a razor and do it in the right manner 
so that NASA could still operate.
  I am happy to say that Mr. Goldin did that and he cut that budget 
almost 34 percent, more than I think any other budget percent-wise has 
been cut on Capitol Hill.
  So I would just say that NASA's space research has been cut, but they 
are still operating, and it results in products that improve our 
quality of life, such as instruments that measure bone density without 
penetrating the skin, cardiac pacemakers, computer readers for the 
vision impaired, smoke detectors, voice-controlled wheelchairs, and the 
list goes on and on of the accomplishments. And yes, the inspiration to 
the young school children all over this country. If we cancel out this 
space station, I would say we would have than uprising from the 
schools, from the intermediate schools on up to the strongest higher 
education levels that this Congress has never envisioned before. I say 
to my colleagues, they would come alive.
  We need to continue the research that the space station could lead 
to, the medical breakthroughs of combating cancer, arthritis, diabetes, 
balance disorders, Alzheimer's, cardiopulmonary diseases and other 
afflictions that threaten our citizens.
  We need this space station. We need the hope that this space station 
holds out. For those wasting away in cancer wards as we speak, they 
have one thing in their heart, and that one thing is hope. I hope that 
this Congress will not let them down and cut off the one operation that 
could deliver to them the deliverance from the wards they languish in. 
They are entitled to that hope.
  Mr. Chairman, throughout America's rich history, there has always 
been among the American people and its leaders a deep and abiding 
belief in that hope, and in that future, a belief that we can and will 
continue to accomplish great feats and make great discoveries. Space is 
our last frontier, and NASA is the organization that provides the 
knowledge, the resources, the heroes and the vehicles necessary for 
space exploration.
  This is important legislation, and just as in the gun control thrust, 
they will take several steps toward it that look innocuous, but would 
take the guns away and violate the amendment to the Constitution that 
these people rely on. This is the same situation. A few amendments can 
cripple the space station. We do not want to get to that point. I think 
this legislation deserves our support today.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1654, the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration Act of 1999, and for the 
important work that NASA has consistently accomplished as the world's 
leader in space endeavors. As a longtime member of the Science 
Committee, it has been gratifying to see the progress that NASA 
continues to make in streamlining its programs, controlling its 
spending, while continuing to deliver good results.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the International Space Station and 
Space Shuttle operations are fully authorized at the level requested by 
NASA in this legislation. The space station represents an investment in 
our future and represents the combined hopes of many nations that 
microgravity research in space will have far-reaching benefits for our 
people. Specifically, this legislation designates slightly more than $1 
billion over the next three years for life and microgravity sciences 
and applications.
  As you know, Mr. Chairman, NASA's space research has already resulted 
in products that improve our quality of life, such as instruments that 
measure bone density without penetrating the skin, cardiac pacemakers, 
computer-readers for the vision-imparied, smoke detectors, and voice-
controlled wheelchairs. We continue to hope that research on the Space 
Station could lead to medical breakthroughs in combatting cancer, 
arthritis, diabetes, balance disorders, Alzheimer's, cardio-pulmonary 
diseases and other afflictions that threaten our citizens.
  This legislation provides $6.9 billion for the international space 
station and $9.6 billion for space shuttle operations. The space 
station began as a dream and still has its share of critics. But 
through hard work, careful planning and the financial commitment of 
many nations, the space station dream is still very much alive. This 
legislation will help keep it so.
  Throughout America's rich history, there has always been among the 
American people and its leaders a deep and abiding belief in our 
future--a belief that we can and will continue to accomplish great 
feats and make great discoveries. Space is our last frontier, and NASA 
is the organization that provides the knowledge, the resources, the 
heroes, and the vehicles necessary for space exploration. This is 
important legislation, Mr. Chairman, that deserves our support today.
  Mr. LoBIONDO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Roemer amendments, and I would 
like to thank the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) again for being 
tenacious with this particular issue.
  We have heard an awful lot of debate about the pros and cons of 
whether we should move forward with the space station. The reality is, 
if we had ideal budget numbers, if we had all the money available to us 
that we wanted for seniors and veterans and for education and 
environment, and a whole host of other issues that we deal with, then 
very possibly if we had all of that money, then we could put money 
towards this. But we do not. We have limited resources, and if we look 
at the reality and the facts of the space station, of the numerous 
missed deadlines; if we look at what the original cost estimates were: 
$8 billion, a lot of money when that was first brought up, and when we 
look at where it is now, $100 billion, that should speak volumes to us. 
If we look at the space station as what scientists are saying about it, 
and we have many scientists who are saying that this is not a good idea 
and we should not move forward. If we look at what NASA may have to be 
doing to other very successful programs like Voyager and the Mars 
mission and

[[Page 10063]]

space shuttles, and many of my colleagues are talking about the 
benefits that we derive right here on Earth from many of NASA's 
projects, and I agree with that, and I am as proud as anyone in this 
House with the accomplishments that we have had with our space 
programs.
  Those same accomplishments can be made without the space station. 
Those dollars, those billions of dollars, $80 more billion that will 
have to be spent on this is money that should be redirected. If we look 
carefully and we understand what we are committing ourselves to in the 
long run, we will understand that the Roemer amendments make sense. The 
Roemer amendments made sense last year and the year before, and I 
supported them very proudly. I think they make even more sense this 
year.
  So once again, I will ask my colleagues to say that enough is enough, 
to look at where we are and where we need to go and to understand that 
the right thing to do is to support the Roemer amendments.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I support efforts to explore space and 
believe the benefits to high technology research and to the private 
sector are vast. But I have grave concerns about our space station 
program.
  Mr. Speaker, we are facing a time of tight budget caps, which I 
support. But these caps force us to make some tough spending choices. 
By making a decision now to cancel the space station, we can fund other 
priority areas within our discretionary budget.
  In 1993, the Space Station was projected to cost about $17.7 billion. 
The estimate has risen to exceed more than $26 billion. The price of 
this program continues to rise, while the target completion date gets 
pushed later and later.
  The fact is, the space station is stripping scarce funds from other 
valuable NASA programs.
  I am excited about our recent successes in exploring Mars through the 
Pathfinder and its rover, Sojourner. It seems to me, we get much more 
value for our dollar through ventures such as this one, than we do from 
the space station, given its excessive price tag.
  Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Roemer/
Sanford amendment. I do not believe that we should be sending billions 
of dollars into space when we have so many more urgent problems here on 
Earth. On top of that, our Country is over $5.6 trillion in debt.
  When NASA proposed the space station back in 1984, the project was to 
cost a total of $8 billion. Since 1984, the space station has been 
redesigned many times and the cost estimates have skyrocketed.
  Mr. Chairman, what does this mean for the taxpayers? Well, it means 
they will be sinking billions and billions more of their hard earned 
money into this space station rat hole. We have all heard many times 
that space is the final frontier. I believe the space station is a 
frivolous frontier. It is yet another example of how the federal 
government cannot do anything in an economical or efficient manner. 
Instead, many fat-cat government contractorsare getting rich at the 
expense of the taxpayers.
  I recently spoke on this floor about another failed space venture, 
the Air Force's Titan IV program. There have been three failures in a 
row for this program at a cost of over $3 billion. If we took all of 
this wasted money and put it towards some of our ailing programs such 
as Social Security, I believe our Country would be much better off.
  Additionally, Mr. Chairman, this Country has paid Russia, our 
partner, hundreds of millions of dollars to participate. What have we 
gotten from Russia in return? Well, we've got increased costs because 
of Russian schedule delays. Mr. Chairman, the United States has enough 
of its own delays. We don't need Russia's help with that.
  When this project was being debated in the early 1990's, a coalition 
of 14 leading scientific groups came out against the space station 
saying that they were especially disturbed that the escalating costs in 
subsequent years would drain money from other important scientific 
projects.
  According to the Congressional Research Service, in 1993, NASA said 
the International Space Station would cost $17.4 billion in research 
and development through the end of construction and it would spend no 
more than $2.1 billion a year on the program. Today, NASA's estimate 
for research and development is between $23 and $26 billion, depending 
on whether construction is completed in 2004 or October 2005.
  Mr. Chairman, this is pitiful. I know of no business that could stay 
in operation with these types of overruns.
  We have far too many more important programs here on Earth to justify 
sending all of these billions into space. I would urge a yes vote on 
the Roemer/Sanford amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 174, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) 
will be postponed.
  Are there further amendments to the bill?


                 Amendment No. 5 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 No. 5 offered by Mr. Roemer:
       At the end of the bill, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 221. 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. Nothing in this 
     section shall prevent the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration from purchasing elements of the International 
     Space Station directly from Russian contractors.
       In the table of contents, after the item relating to 
     section 220, insert the following:

Sec. 221. Cancellation of Russian partnership.

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I want to start with a quote from Winston 
Churchill. He said, and I quote, ``I cannot forecast to you the action 
of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma, but 
perhaps there is a key.''
  The key, Mr. Chairman, is to engage the Russians, to exchange with 
the Russians, to treat the Russians as an equal partner and a friend, 
but not to relegate our science programs to foreign policy welfare.
  What we need to make sure we do, Mr. Chairman, is work carefully with 
the Russians, make sure we do educational exchanges and scientific 
exchanges, and make sure we continue to work carefully and 
diplomatically with the Russians on trying to craft the right kind of 
peace agreement in Kosovo for our troops, for NATO, for the world, for 
the refugees. However, we should not devise international science 
programs that continually, year after year, program after program, 
fail, and result in increased costs, increased burdens, increased 
problems for NASA in trying to build this International Space Station; 
increased problems for the American taxpayer when they have to foot the 
bill of the cost overruns and the delays coming from Russia.

                              {time}  1400

  This is not a partnership. It is a foreign policy pork barrel 
project.
  One of my colleagues said, the partnership between the United States 
and the Russians deserves every chance to succeed. But after 6 years, 
after we were told by the administrator at NASA that their partnership 
would save the taxpayer $2 billion, we now find ourselves 6 years later 
with a $4 billion price tag that the American taxpayer has to foot.
  It did not save us money, it is costing us money, and it is delaying 
when we wanted to launch the International Space Station. Instead of 
launching it in 2002 or 2003, it is now looking at 2004, 2005, 2006.
  Each time we see a delay from one of our partners, in this case, the 
Russians, that adds to the costs for the United States. That adds to 
the burden of the NASA engineers, the NASA personnel, trying to do 
their job on the Space Station which they were contracted to do,

[[Page 10064]]

and now they are doing the Russian jobs. It is not fair. It is not 
right.
  Now, this amendment is not an anti-Russian amendment, it is not a 
severing of ties with Russia amendment. We have given this partnership 
in science 6 years and several billions of dollars to succeed.
  I strongly advocate continued partnership with Russia in a host of 
areas. Russia and China continue to be the United States' two key 
bilateral relationships in foreign policy.
  This is not an amendment to bash the Russians. This is an amendment 
on an international science program to make sure that when we do a 
memorandum of understanding with another country, that they can 
continue to contribute science, they continue to contribute their 
expertise, they continue to contribute money and pay for their fair 
share, and not allow the United States to take up the full burden.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment also is reasonable. It reads, and I 
encourage my colleagues to read the amendment, it does terminate all 
contracts and other agreements with the Russian government necessary to 
remove the Russian government as a partner in the International Space 
Station, but it goes on to say, ``Nothing in this section shall prevent 
NASA from accepting participation by the Russian government or Russian 
entities on a commercial basis. Nothing in this section shall prevent 
NASA from purchasing elements of the International Space Station 
directly from Russian contractors.''
  So my reading of that would be that if the service module is ready to 
go, that the United States could directly purchase that from 
contractors, but the relationship needs to be redefined. I would hope 
that my distinguished chairman in the majority would agree with this 
amendment and we could move on to the next amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased, for once, to support, in the spirit of 
bipartisanship, a Roemer amendment on the Space Station. What this 
amendment does is that it kicks the Russian government out of the 
partnership, but it allows NASA to make contracts with Russian 
aerospace contractors or the Russian space agency, which is a 
government entity, and thus makes Russia and its aerospace firms a 
subcontractor rather than a partner.
  Mr. Chairman, I supported bringing Russia into the partnership when 
it occurred 6 years ago because I thought it would save money, it would 
bring the Space Station on line earlier, and allow the United States 
and the other partners to take advantage of Russia's tremendous 
expertise in constructing spacecraft as well as in long-term human 
space flight.
  Unfortunately, this arrangement has not worked out as everyone had 
hoped. The time has come for a redefinition of the arrangement. Six 
years ago the administration promised that Russia would not be in the 
critical path. It said that Russia would be in an enhancing and not an 
enabling role.
  Unfortunately, Russia is in the critical path. Whose fault it is, I 
do not know, and it is not relevant at this time. But every funding and 
every construction deadline that Russia has set for itself and agreed 
to its other partners with since 1996 has been missed by the Russians. 
They are 100 percent in not living up to their agreements, and that has 
cost the American taxpayers a lot of money.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has said it costs the 
American taxpayers $4 billion. I would say it cost $5 billion. The time 
to prevent further hemorrhaging because of Russia's repeated defaults 
is at hand, and the Roemer amendment proposes to do so.
  The last promise that Russia broke was at the end of last month. It 
broke its promise to decide by April to deorbit the Mir Space Station 
if it did not come up with outside funding to support Mir by April 30. 
Russia did not come up with the funding, and it has not decided to 
deorbit Mir.
  It is obvious that Russia cannot afford two space stations. If Mir 
stays up, it will not have the money to fulfill its further agreements 
for the International Space Station. The Russians made that decision, 
and it is time for the American Congress to respond in kind. By 
removing Russia as a partner but not as a contractor, we can still get 
the benefits of the international cooperation that the administration 
seeks.
  Russia has played the role of contractor successfully. It has been a 
miserable failure in being a partner with the United States, Canada, 
Japan, and the European space agency.
  Two years ago when the NASA authorization bill was on the floor of 
the House, the House approved a bill that contained the Sensenbrenner-
Brown amendment, which required NASA to develop a plan to remove Russia 
from the critical path. The CAV task force appointed by the NASA 
administrator recommended eliminating long-term dependence on Russia in 
its April, 1998, report by developing an independent U.S. propulsion 
capability. NASA echoed those recommendations in a July, 1998, briefing 
to the White House.
  At that time, the White House rejected the task force and NASA 
recommendations, but later reversed itself. NASA has initiated long-
lead procurements for an independent propulsion capability in fiscal 
1999. Their fiscal 2000 request does include funding for an independent 
U.S. propulsion capability, but NASA has not signed a contract to 
develop this capability, which is still in its study phase.
  I would just like to point out that the American people are also fed 
up with Russia's defaults. Florida Today took an online poll. Only 22 
percent of those surveyed wanted to keep Russia as a partner. Thirty-
two percent wanted to end Russia's partnership, and 46 percent wanted 
to reduce Russia's role but not kick it out of the program completely.
  The Roemer amendment does what the 32 percent and the 46 percent of 
the people in the Space Coast and Florida want to see done, and I would 
urge its adoption.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose this amendment, this amendment that 
has had no hearings within our committee. This amendment would force 
NASA to kick the Russians out of the Space Station program with no 
consideration of the potential cost or schedule consequences for the 
United States that will result from such action, and with no 
consultation or negotiation with our 16 international partners in this 
multilateral cooperative program, each of whom have their own financial 
stake in the Space Station program.
  Instead, this amendment would have the United States take unilateral 
action that could damage our relations with our existing international 
partners and do real damage to the Space Station program itself.
  Once again, let me remind this body that two segments, the first two 
segments of the Space Station have been launched and are now in orbit. 
I think this amendment has a real risk of both wasting that particular 
investment and doing away with the potential benefits in the future. So 
for those reasons, I oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GUTKNECHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I suspect that alarms are going off all over down at 
Foggy Bottom right now, but I rise in support of this amendment. My 
colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) who just spoke 
said that this amendment has had no hearings in the Committee on 
Science. That is technically correct, but the whole issue of the number 
of times that the Russians have let us down has been debated, 
discussed, and talked about in the Committee on Science again and again 
and again.
  There is an old German expression that says, fool me once, shame on 
you; fool me twice, shame on me. The expression does not even go on 
beyond that, but the truth of the matter is we have been fooled again 
and again and again by the Russians. It is time for this Congress to 
send a clear statement that we are tired of this gamesmanship that is 
being played by the Russians and by NASA.
  I think this is a good amendment. I hope that colleagues on both 
sides of

[[Page 10065]]

the aisle will join us in support of this, because this is the only way 
we are once and for all going to say to our Russian partners that 
either they play by the agreement that they made, or they do not play 
at all. And the Roemer amendment is even better than that because it 
allows us to continue to contract with those contractors who are 
willing to live up to their end of the bargain.
  This is a good amendment, it is a timely amendment. It may not have 
been formally discussed in our committee, but the whole issue of 
Russian participation has been debated, discussed, ad nauseum in the 
Committee on Science. It is a good amendment. I am happy to support it.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Sensenbrenner) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) as 
well, when I was on the Committee on Science for almost 8 years we 
struggled through NASA's issues and other Committee on Science issues 
together. I have enjoyed the give and take and opportunities to work 
with the Members, but I have to say with this Roemer amendment, I have 
to oppose the chairman of the committee and the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer) as well.
  The spring is here. The Space Station issue is here. We have the 
Roemer amendments. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Chairman, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) wants to kill the Space Station 
program. He wants to cap it, he wants to wound it, he wants to damage 
it any way he can.
  We have been through this process year after year after year in the 
committee, on the floor of the House. We have had a fair fight. The 
issues have been presented. Why do we not say, enough is enough? Why do 
we not get off the NASA employees' backs?
  Mr. Chairman, I urge especially the freshmen who have not been 
through this process before to listen to the debate today and look at 
the history of this House's involvement in this debate, and to 
recognize that the responsible thing to do is to get on with the 
enormous investment that we have made.
  Speaking to the Russian issue, and that issue is a troublesome issue, 
and I know many Members here have struggled with that issue, but the 
International Space Station is a multinational project. It was intended 
when it was first proposed in 1984 by President Reagan to involve the 
International community.
  We have legal agreements that we have to be concerned about that the 
Russians were involved in. If we today say that the House is going to 
decide that we do not want the Russians involved, then we are 
interfering with those legal agreements, as well.
  Again, make no mistake about it, if this amendment passes or is 
accepted this will damage or kill the Space Station program. So I feel 
like I have to rise today in strong opposition to this, one of three 
Roemer amendments, and especially to remind my colleagues that what we 
are talking about today is a responsible investment in NASA, a 
responsible investment in the International Space Station program. 
There is a way to end the Russian involvement and end it responsibly, 
but this is not the way to do it today. Do not fall for this amendment.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). I just would advise those people 
reading the official Congressional Record of this procedure to note 
that I have used the words, I rise in support of the amendment of the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), which is just another miracle, as 
has happened here today.
  The gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) has been very persistent over 
the years, but on this particular amendment we should not ignore the 
fact that we may disagree with him on some things, but that he in this 
amendment is offering us a position that the Committee on Science and 
certainly the Subcommittee on Space has approved of for a long time.
  This message by the Roemer amendment is not aimed at the Russians. We 
are not sending the Russians a message here. The Russians were sent 
that message by us a long time ago. This is a message to our own State 
Department and this administration to start paying attention to what 
this Congress is doing and what we are saying about how this project 
and other projects should be approached.

                              {time}  1415

  This administration has ignored us time and time again on the issue 
of how to deal with the Russians in connection with the Space Station 
program. The Committee on Science, although not having specific 
hearings on this issue, has addressed this issue on numerous occasions, 
and we have expressed our strong desire that the Russians, as the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) stated, be treated, 
not as partners, but instead as subcontractors.
  The concept of the Russians as partners in Space Station, which made 
sense in the beginning, before we knew what chaos that the Russians 
were going to have to go through in the aftermath of the Cold War, 
makes no sense now that we know the limitations, the severe economic 
limitations of the current Russian government.
  The Russians cannot afford to be partners in the Space Station 
program. I remember saying that probably 3 or 4 years ago. Yet, the 
administration proceeded without any regard to what Congress was saying 
and what we were trying to insist upon and continued with this idea 
with the Russians as partners. If we would have proceeded instead with 
Russians as subcontractors, we could, as the Roemer amendment is 
suggesting now, simply pay those subcontractors for what they have 
produced and get on with the program.
  So, that is number one. This mistake was made, and it has turned out 
to be a costly mistake by the administration but it is based on the 
idea, on foreign policy considerations, not on NASA and Space Station 
considerations.
  Secondly, let me suggest this. We have said over and over again that 
the Russians should not be in the critical path. I can remember many 
statements by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Chairman Sensenbrenner) 
admonishing the administration, whatever you do, do not put us in the 
path where the Russians can prevent the success of the Space Station.
  It is time we get them out of the critical path. It is time we make 
sure that we are defining this in a very responsible way. But NASA has 
ignored this committee. Again, it is not NASA that is ignoring the 
committee, it goes straight up to the very top of the administration, 
which has been making irresponsible decisions in terms of our 
relationship with Russia. This is probably paramount in that decision-
making process, which is a flawed decision-making process.
  With that said, let me admit that this Congressman in the very 
beginning supported the idea of having a cooperative relationship with 
Russia. I certainly do not fault the administration with, number one, 
good intentions and a defensible strategy in the beginning. But in 
order to protect the taxpayers when a strategy has gone wrong and when 
it seems that there are intervening circumstances that prevent that 
strategy from being successful, the administration, like everybody 
else, especially in the private sector but also people in government, 
have to admit the strategy can no longer succeed, and change the 
strategy.
  Unfortunately, those of us again who supported the idea of 
cooperation in the beginning have found that, while we recognize the 
strategy had to change or it was going to cost the taxpayer tens of 
billions of dollars, the administration refused to change. We refused 
to change because of perhaps some face-saving concept, if we are going 
to save face for our Russian friends, and certainly the Russian 
government needs that type of moral support, but we should not be 
trying to give the Russian government moral

[[Page 10066]]

support at the cost of tens of billions of dollars. That is what has 
happened here.
  So while I believe the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) probably 
is motivated on his other two amendments to just try to kill the Space 
Station, I think that his amendment at this point is justified. I 
support it.
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, Deputy Secretary of State Talbott, not the NASA 
administrator, signed a multinational agreement for the United States, 
establishing a framework, the legal framework for the national Space 
Station in 1998. This multilateral agreement involves major commitments 
by 15 countries and represents more than a space facility, but a 
political commitment by these countries to work together on a major 
civilian project.
  To terminate Russia's participation in the International Space 
Station would jeopardize the United States' ability in the future to 
work toward a common end with the same set of countries, friends and 
allies on large scale projects.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I ask the gentleman from Texas, what 
is the penalty of that multilateral agreement if any of the partners 
does not fulfill its agreed-upon obligations?
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would assume that we 
would be out of the Space Station. I think that we would probably be 
made to take our tools and go home, and we would lose the billions of 
dollars that we have spent.
  This does not make sense to me as an amendment for what we are trying 
to do in building a relationship with other nations and at the same 
time accomplish science that we believe in.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
  Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, how many defaults of the Russians is 
the gentleman from Texas willing to accept? They have already cost us 
$5 billion. How many more and how much money is the gentleman willing 
to agree for cost overruns caused by the Russians not fulfilling their 
obligations?
  Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I fully understand 
that we have difficulties. We expected to have a challenge when we 
started building this Space Station. It is unfortunate that we have 
problems with the Russian government. But if we take action that 
jeopardizes our own ability to participate in this project, not only do 
we do harm to our other friends while we are trying to do harm to the 
Russians, we take ourselves out of it and we lose a significant 
commitment, a significant investment that we have made.
  I want to point out another thing in the bill. In the very first few 
sentences of the amendment of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), 
it says that the administrator shall terminate all contracts. Then a 
little bit further down the page, it says ``Nothing in this section 
shall prevent the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
accepting participation by the Russian government or Russian entities 
on a commercial basis.'' That conflicts within itself.
  This is not a good amendment. It is not one we should be considering 
here today because it has the potential of defeating the International 
Space Station, dissolving our partnership, costing us the billions of 
dollars that we have invested and that we have a hope that will give us 
something in our future.
  Termination of the International Space Station multinational 
agreement will impose termination costs on all our partners. 
Termination would be programmatically expensive to the United States. 
It would result in major objections from our international partners, 
given their independent agreements with the government of Russia.
  The Russian Space Station has an inextricable involvement in the 
Space Station program as a representative of the Russian government. It 
would be difficult to exclude their space agency from negotiations, 
should NASA be required to contract with Russian industry. I do not 
know how the commercial wording within the language of the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) would work.
  The participation of the Russian government in the Space Station has 
never been more important, not only to contribute money to the project, 
but also to ensure the political stability in a troubled country. As 
long as the United States can keep some kind of good working 
relationship with the Russian government, we can rest a little easier 
during this political turmoil that is going on there.
  Our Russian partners have difficulty feeding its people. I admire 
their commitment to try to complete this long-term space project. From 
what my Russian friends and colleagues tell me, contributing capital 
and human resources to the Space Station is a tremendous source of 
pride among the Russian people. It is one reason why the government 
continues its commitment.
  So as a representative of the United States Government and industry, 
I believe we have to do all that we can to encourage the Russians to 
maintain their involvement with the Space Station, and I would ask that 
my colleagues not support this amendment.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite 
number of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I, too, like 
the chairmen of the full committee and the subcommittee, have expressed 
some very, very serious concerns regarding the management on the part 
of the Clinton administration and the NASA administrator regarding 
these continuing ongoing delays with the Russians. Nonetheless, I do 
not feel that this amendment, as it is currently crafted, is the proper 
way for us to address this problem.
  I have several concerns. As I understand my reading of this 
amendment, should this be enacted into law, there would be nothing that 
would prevent the Russians from essentially charging us $200 million, 
for example, to deliver the service module on orbit, or substantially 
more sums of money. As I understand it, that is the cost of the service 
module. If we add on the cost of launching it, I think the way this 
thing is crafted, it could not only put the Space Station program but, 
as well, the American taxpayers in a very, very precarious position.
  Additionally, I would like to also comment on the fact that as I 
understand the legal language of the international agreement, that we 
as the United States do not have the authority to discharge one 
particular partner from the international agreement. Essentially the 
only options that are available to us under the existing law would be 
for us to remove ourselves from the International Space Station, and 
therefore we would thus no longer be in partnership with some of our 
more reliable partners, such as the Japanese, the Canadians, and the 
Europeans.
  So in summary, though I think the intent of this amendment is a good 
one and that I share the concerns of the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer), and as well I share the concerns of my very esteemed 
colleagues, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the 
committee chairman, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher), the subcommittee chairman, I feel that this amendment, 
the way that it is crafted, it is a bad amendment. It is impossible to 
implement and as well could ultimately, the end result, lead to 
significantly increased costs to the American taxpayers.
  Then for that reason I would highly encourage all of my colleagues on 
both sides of the aisle, not only those who support our manned space 
flight program and the Space Station program but as well those who 
support fiscal responsibility, to reject this amendment.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.

[[Page 10067]]

  Mr. Chairman, I rise against this amendment. For many years we have 
been cooperating with Russia. There is perhaps nothing more important 
in our space program than the symbol that it has for all of man and 
womankind, the chance to show two former adversaries working together.
  Now, as we have a conflict in the Balkans, would be the worst 
possible time to slap the Russians. More importantly, this would be the 
worst possible time to have thousands of Russian scientists capable of 
building ballistic missiles suddenly unemployed as a result of a 
deliberately political and deliberately hostile action of this House 
against Russia, motivated, some would say, by a hostility toward the 
Vice President who played such a creative and important role in 
negotiating with Russia.
  Clearly, the most cost effective way for us to explore space is to do 
it together, not in a race against Russia but in a race against the 
hostilities that can build up between countries, in a race to achieve 
peace and a race to achieve a working together with the only other 
nation to send men and women into space.
  So I speak not only for an efficient space program but also for a 
lessening of international tensions when I rise against this amendment.
  Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Rohrabacher).
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to rise to suggest 
that the level of debate was just brought down, and I resent it. I just 
want to put this on the record. We need not to discuss these issues and 
every time we have a disagreement, relate political motives to each 
other. I for one am a little bit disgusted that every time I have a 
disagreement, not every time but often enough on this floor, that we 
end up saying, if we disagree with somebody over there, all of a sudden 
we are being political because we are opposing something the 
administration wants to do.
  I would inform my colleague that this amendment was presented by a 
Democrat. This is a Democrat amendment. This is by the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), who has strong support, I imagine strong close 
ties to the Vice President. In fact, before the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Sherman) brought up the issue, I do not recall the Vice 
President's name being brought into this debate. In fact, I remember 
specifically stating that I personally supported this tactic and this 
strategy of working with the Russians in the beginning, but that the 
administration had not then shifted with the times and adjusted its 
strategy according to the current situation in Russia.

                              {time}  1430

  So I would suggest to my good friend, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Sherman), that instead of trying to belittle other people or call 
into question our motives that he quit saying that we are being 
political and stick to the issues. And I just personally resent the 
fact there were implications in his words that we were over here trying 
to make political hay out of this.
  I was interested in this Russian issue long before this 
administration became this administration.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. CALVERT. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I believe that in my remarks I simply 
stated that it would be unfortunate if that were to be the motivation 
of anyone in this House. I believe that my colleague is referring to 
only a single phrase in a speech that was not as brief as I wish it 
was. And I think that my colleague can join with me in believing that 
all of us should cast a vote for what is in the best interests of the 
space program and what is in the best interests of our relations with 
Moscow without being colored by any concerns about any political 
matter.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). 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 ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 174, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) will be postponed.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Roemer

  Mr. ROEMER. 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. 3 offered by Mr. Roemer:
       Amend section 101 to read as follows:

     SEC. 101. INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION.

       There are authorized to be appropriated to the National 
     Aeronautics and Space Administration for the International 
     Space Station, for expenses necessary to terminate the 
     program, for fiscal year 2000, $500,000,000.
       In section 106(1), strike ``$13,625,600,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$11,642,900,000''.
       In section 106(2), strike ``$13,747,100,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$11,919,100,000''.
       In section 106(3), strike ``$13,839,400,000'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``$12,248,490,100''.
       In section 121(a), strike ``sections 101,'' and insert in 
     lieu thereof ``sections''.

  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief since we have been talking 
about the Space Station now for several hours.
  This amendment is cosponsored by the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Sanford), the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Woolsey). It is a bipartisan amendment.
  It is also supported by the National Taxpayers Union, the Citizens 
Against Waste, the Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Citizens for a Sound 
Economy, and the Concord Coalition.
  Mr. Chairman, there have been times when I brought this amendment to 
the floor in the past couple of years when we have had four or five 
cosponsors on the bill and, quite frankly, I was not sure we would get 
more votes than those four or five cosponsors, having come within one 
vote of defeating the Space Station back in 1993 on a 215-214 vote.
  It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the facts and the overruns and the 
inefficiencies continue to build up in our favor, yet the votes 
continue to go in the other direction for canceling the Space Station.
  I want to remind my colleagues that this Space Station was first 
designed back in 1984 and the projected cost, Mr. Chairman, was $8 
billion. And my colleagues might say, for $8 billion and eight 
scientific missions, including platforms to help us understand the 
environment of the Earth that would be put on the Space Station, a 
repair weigh station on the Space Station to help us with satellites, 
the Space Station would be used as a stepping stone to help us go and 
explore other planets.
  We had eight scientific missions for this grandiose Space Station. 
That was 1984. Today is 1999. We are down to one mission. We do not 
have any of those platforms left. We do not have any of those 
scientific missions left except, basically, studying the effects of 
gravitation on men and women in space.
  Now, maybe the symbol of some international cooperation and science, 
maybe the symbol of a Space Station up in orbit above the Earth is 
something important for $8 billion. But that cost, Mr. Chairman, has 
gone from $8 billion to now the General Accounting Office estimates in 
their reports $98 billion to launch it, to assemble it, to control it 
once it is up in space. $98 billion.
  Now, I guess, Mr. Chairman, that if this were a welfare program, this 
would have been canceled a long time ago, or if this was a food stamp 
program that had gone up $90 billion over what it cost, it would have 
been canceled. But it is a jobs program and it has been put together 
with Machiavellian type political science in a lot of districts, 
although three States get about 80 percent of the contracts.
  So I do not think, Mr. Chairman, this is a good deal for science. 
This is not fair to the rest of the great things that NASA does in its 
budget. This does not live up to the hopes and the dreams and the glory 
of the wonderful things that NASA has accomplished in the

[[Page 10068]]

past, whether it was putting a man on the Moon, whether it was putting 
together the Hubble telescope, whether it was designing Pathfinder and 
putting it on Mars for $263 million on budget, on time, on schedule. 
And the American people got excited about it. They could not wait to 
ask, ``What did we find today on Mars?'' Budget efficient, fair to the 
rest of the budget. And NASA still allowed us to invest in aeronautics.
  So I think, hopefully, we will vote for the Roemer amendment to fence 
the money, to be accountable for $38 billion of Space Station. If my 
colleagues cannot vote for that, the second amendment is to remove the 
Russians from the critical path and still allow commercial enterprise 
and exchange between the two countries.
  And thirdly, my preference would be to cancel the Space Station, to 
move on, to not let our dreams be suspended 100 miles above Earth in 
technology that was designed 15 years ago. Let us dream about Mars. Let 
us dream about going back to the Moon. Let us dream big dreams like we 
are capable of, NASA.
  I hope to get support on my amendments.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my opposition to this bold attempt to 
ground the International Space Station. Now, this program, in my 
opinion, is vital to developing new technology and new medicines for 
the next century.
  This great land was discovered because of the courage of explorers 
who refused to let obstacles get in the way of their vision. Today, 500 
years later, we talk of cutting exploration to the last frontier at a 
critical time when our budgets and our vision are already shrinking. 
Such a miscalculation not only cuts away at the future, it is a direct 
attack on the American spirit.
  At its very core, the American spirit is based on adventure and 
fighting adversity despite the odds. We should thank God that 
Christopher Columbus was not tied to the short-sighted constraints of a 
U.S. Congress afraid of risks and shy of discovery.
  Discovery of new cures for disease is only one field of many fields 
where space exploration has paid off. Medical innovation and further 
experimentation in space cannot be allowed to wither away. Instead of 
allowing our imagination to fade, we should raise our sights to the 
expectation of new strides in science and new leaps in technology.
  We have come so far, there is absolutely no excuse to turn around 
now. With over $20 billion already invested, there is simply no 
justification for wasting funds that have been spent developing this 
Space Station to this date.
  Despite what the adversaries of this program contend, this Space 
Station is actually on schedule and within its budget.
  Now, not so long ago, a president of the United States challenged 
Americans to test their dreams and wagered that America could reach the 
Moon by the end of the decade. Well, Mr. Chairman, almost 40 years 
later the same country is trying to cut its losses in space because it 
is afraid of failure. Well, we cannot be afraid to fail. We cannot be 
afraid to experiment, and we must be determined to stick with this 
program.
  So I just urge my colleagues to continue to support the International 
Space Station and vote against cutting and killing the Space Station.
  Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
  I also rise to shock the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) 
because I rise to echo the comments of the distinguished gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Tom DeLay).
  Mr. Chairman, when Columbus set sail, about two-thirds of the way 
into his journey a group of the sailors rose and urged that the project 
be defunded and that they return to Spain. We would not be standing 
here today if that amendment had not been defeated, just as we must 
defeat the amendment before us now.
  The Space Station gives us a chance to build bridges to other 
countries, one in particular of which was our former adversary. It 
helps us build our own aerospace industry, which is the leading source 
of American exports.
  In my own district, we are developing batteries for the Space Station 
in a way that may well lead to breakthroughs for an electric automobile 
so critical to the air quality of the most air-quality challenged city 
in America. Just as important is the research that can be done only in 
space on so many diseases, such as cancer, diabetes, AIDS, and 
influenza.
  This Space Station, of course, is a cooperative project, including 
some 16 nations. Those other nations have contributed already $5 
billion to this effort. Today, 250 miles above the Earth, already 
circle the first elements of the Space Station, Zarya and Unity, one 
from Russia, one from the United States.
  Mr. Chairman, America belongs in space. Humankind belongs in space. 
And I can think of nothing worse that we can do at the beginning of a 
new millennium than defund the Space Station. That is why I urge all of 
our colleagues to vote against this amendment.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word and I 
rise in opposition to the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, let me associate myself with the remarks of the 
gentleman from California, with one exception. I doubt that those 
sailors on Columbus' boats would have advocated defunding that mission 
because that meant they would not have been paid when they got back to 
Spain.
  But other than that, I think the argument of the gentleman had a lot 
of merit, and I would hope that the committee and the House would not 
be fooled by the opponent's scare tactics.
  The ground-based flight hardware is 82 percent complete. If we adopt 
this amendment of the gentleman from Indiana, that hardware will not go 
to orbit but will end up in museums around the country as an exhibit of 
Congress' foolishness in defunding the program when it was close to 
completion.
  The flight hardware for the next six flights is already at the 
Kennedy Space Center being ready for launch. We American taxpayers have 
invested $20 billion so far in this project. If the amendment of the 
gentleman from Indiana were adopted, that money would go right down the 
drain. And that is a pretty tough sell to tell our taxpayers that we 
made a $20 billion mistake.

                              {time}  1445

  I would hope that this amendment would be rejected and rejected by 
the same overwhelming margins that have occurred in the last several 
votes on this topic.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the comments of 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). I believe the Space Station 
offers numerous benefits, spin-off technologies in medicine, in 
engineering, in transportation, in energy, in environment. Every year 
this Congress goes through this debate, it gives us an opportunity to 
affirm the benefits that station has.
  The station also has another benefit. That is the intangible but real 
benefit of international cooperation. It has given us an opportunity to 
create a platform for participation and cooperation with the Russians. 
At this very moment, while the entire world teeters at the edge of a 
larger war in the Balkans, we are reaching out to the Russians to ask 
them for help. Let it not be forgotten that this very moment, when the 
Russian leadership has changed, at this very moment Russia is looking 
for the hand of cooperation to bring about peace.
  This is not the time to kill this project which serves as a basis for 
cooperation with the Russians and other countries. This is a time to 
say that we need more projects which enable international cooperation 
and we need more projects that can put us in a peaceful, productive, 
cooperative relationship with Russia. We need Russia's help in building 
peace in this world. We do not

[[Page 10069]]

need to slap Russia's hand on the Space Station. We need Russia to work 
with us in making this project work. We also need to work with them in 
making this project work and in building a framework for peace around 
the world.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate my strong support for the Space 
Station and my strong support for the benefits of the Space Station, 
and my strong support for continuing the relationship with Russia on 
this project and continuing this project as a basis for pursuing peace 
throughout the world.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Today I hope that as we are discussing the Space Station and we get 
into this last area of debate, that we take note that there is one 
person who is usually with us, who has been with us over the years and 
been an integral part of this debate, who is not with us today, whom we 
miss and we hope he is watching over C-SPAN. If he is not, we hope he 
is reading the Congressional Record, but we would all like to send our 
very best wishes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Brown), the 
former chairman.
  The gentleman from California has been a great boon to all of us in 
the Committee on Science. He has provided us an institutional memory 
over his many long years of service. During those many years, the 
gentleman from California has been a strong supporter of the 
International Space Station. In debates like this, he quite often has 
gotten up and reminded us of the long-term perspective and where we 
have been and where we are going, and has certainly done a great 
service to his country in that he has provided us the type of wisdom 
that is necessary for us to not only start projects like this but to 
complete projects like this.
  We hope that the gentleman from California is watching after he has 
gone through, I understand, a heart operation. All of us send our very, 
very warm regards to him. I think that as we vote now on the Space 
Station, on these amendments, and I hope the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer) will not take this badly, but I hope that we keep the 
gentleman from California in mind because he has been such a strong 
supporter.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. I yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
  Mr. ROEMER. I appreciate my friend from California yielding. I just 
want to join him in his heartfelt remarks to my good friend and my 
colleague and my former chairman and my ranking member, the gentleman 
from California. I understand he is doing well. He had a new valve put 
in his heart. He is recovering quickly and fully, I understand.
  We not only miss his great expertise in these areas, we miss his 
wonderful and glowing sense of humor. We wish him Godspeed to get back 
here quickly and help us through some of these difficult dilemmas, even 
though he and I disagree on this issue.
  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time, the gentleman from California 
was the head of the committee for many years as I was a member of the 
minority at that time. If there is anything that has inspired me to try 
my very best not to be partisan, but to try to reach out and find areas 
of compromise and try to be nice and kind and fair to Members who are 
now no longer in the majority, it is the way he treated us during that 
entire time.
  There was no one who treated people more fairly and honestly in any 
committee than the gentleman from California did. We remember that now. 
It gives us a standard by which to judge our own behavior, a man who 
kept a very good spirit, even when there were spirited debates. We had 
honest disagreements under his leadership. Certainly we have a lot of 
honest disagreements because we come from minor political differences. 
By the way, our differences, even in the most adversarial parts of the 
discussion of any issue in this Congress, our differences are so 
minuscule compared to those things that separate other people in other 
countries who are killing themselves and such.
  Here we have certain programs like the space program that binds us 
together as Democrats and Republicans and helps ensure that we all 
understand that there is a big picture, that this is not the 
administration's space program or a Republican or a Democrat space 
program, this is America's space program, and that we have honestly 
tried, and I know that there has been some friction here, to ensure 
that all sides feel that they are part of the decision-making process 
even when there is a disagreement. Let us keep that in mind, 
especially, and keep the gentleman from California in mind, because 
when he was chairman we certainly operated in that spirit.
  As we go to this vote on the Space Station, I would hope that we do 
so, and there are some votes, I am siding with the gentleman from 
Indiana on one and opposing him on several, that we do so in this 
bipartisan spirit. I apologize if I got a little testy earlier when I 
thought the gentleman from California (Mr. Sherman) was suggesting that 
we had other motives.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to wholeheartedly concur with the gentleman from 
Indiana and the gentleman from California's kind remarks concerning the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Brown). He will always be known for his 
humor and his expertise and his fairness. But let me again point out, 
he is doing very well. He is up and about, active, and will be back 
here soon to bring all those same skills to us.
  If I could shift gears just a moment and go back to the amendment at 
hand, which is to kill the Space Station, I think we are all aware of 
the expression, ``same song, second verse.'' This is the same second, 
22nd verse, or more.
  Let me just quickly again remind the Members that two sections of 
this Space Station have already been put in orbit. Most all the 
hardware is on the ground ready to go into orbit. If this amendment 
passes, those billions of dollars of investment will be wasted, as well 
as wasting the potential of the good work of the Space Station.
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, because it seems 
to me that what this amendment is about is the very simple theme of 
putting good money after bad. The reason I say that is that if you were 
$2,000 into a hypothetical $10,000 investment and then all of a sudden 
that $10,000 investment began to look very iffy, would you invest the 
other $8,000 if it was your own money? I think most of us would not.
  That is exactly where we are with this Space Station. We are $20 
billion in, but we still have another $80 billion to go. Would you 
really go that distance if it begins to look iffy, which is what 
basically the scientific community has said? Put another way, if you 
were $200 toward fixing your car in a, quote, $1,000 repair job but 
then it turned out the $1,000 repair job would not get you there, would 
you put in the other $800? I do not think most of us would.
  That fundamentally is what this amendment is all about. There is a 
big hole down in south Texas where there was going to be a 
supercolliding super conductor, yet in the end that project was found 
wanting and people said, ``Let's not continue to fund it.'' This is 
something that is done all day long in people's homes. It is something 
that is done all day long in businesses. Businesses have start-ups, 
they venture out, check it out, see if it is going to work and then if 
it does not look good, they retreat. We can do that in government, too. 
So, one, fundamentally, this is what that amendment is about.
  Two, why is it putting good money after bad? It is putting good money 
after bad because first of all there is a tremendous amount of 
uncertainty in this project. As has already been mentioned, this is not 
the American Space Station, this is the International Space Station.
  As we all know, there is a lot of uncertainty in Russia right now. 
Yeltsin seems to be running through prime ministers on a fairly regular 
basis. There are a whole host of other problems within this country. Is 
this the

[[Page 10070]]

kind of subcontractor you want in a business deal? I know of no 
contractor, whether in Charleston, whether in Houston, whether in Los 
Angeles, who would go out and depend on a subcontractor that was iffy. 
That is exactly what we have in this project.
  Therefore, would you risk $100 billion--or $100--of your own money if 
it was that kind of setup? In fact, it was the independent Chabrow 
report that last year said it is costing us between $100 and $250 
million for each month that the assembly is delayed. That is what this 
subcontractor is costing us. I think it points to the uncertainty of 
this overall project.
  Two, the reason I think it is putting good money after bad is that 
the scientific value so far has proved to be very, very limited. 
Because it is limited, we have to set priorities. Nobody wants to set 
priorities, but that is fundamentally what our role is about here in 
government. Indeed, we have got a lot of priorities in government. You 
could buy 40 B-2s, you could buy a bay full of aircraft carriers, you 
could buy a whole lot of books or computers for education. You could do 
a lot of other things with this money.
  That is why the National Taxpayers Union supports this amendment. 
That is why Citizens Against Government Waste supports this amendment. 
In fact, I have here a stack of different articles that point to again 
the questionable nature of, quote, the scientific value of what is 
being talked about with Space Station, which is the reason it would be 
up there in the first place.
  Indeed, the American Society for Cell Biology declared that 
crystallography experiments in microgravity have made no serious 
contribution to analysis of protein structures or the development of 
new pharmaceuticals.
  I have here another article that points to scientific publication is 
the hallmark of a good laboratory, and yet there is not scientific 
finding or publication out of Space Station. In fact, it points to the 
Howard Hughes Medical Institute, which is by all models a model for 
scientific organizations. It has a budget of about $500 million and has 
numerous findings in all sorts of different scientific journals. 
Therefore, we could fund several fold, in other words, a multiple of 
Howard Hughes type organizations with this money as opposed to sending 
it off into space.
  I have another article here that talks about how the Space Station is 
vulnerable to debris and how NASA is leaving off shields to fast track 
the project. In fact, according to the ISS partners, there is a 24 
percent chance, a 1 in 4 chance that it could be hit by debris. Is that 
the kind of project you want to put $100 billion into?
  I have another article here from the Sunday Times of London talking 
about how NASA jeopardizes Space Station research to help the Russians.
  Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise again in strong opposition to this amendment by 
the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer). This is the third Space 
Station either wounding or killing amendment that the gentleman from 
Indiana will offer. My colleagues should oppose every one of those.
  This is the annual cancellation amendment that the gentleman from 
Indiana has offered. We came into Congress together, so he has offered 
it, I know, since 1991, both in the committee and on the floor at least 
once a year and sometimes twice a year as well. So to say the least, we 
have had a fair fight over this issue.
  But let us talk about how far we have come. My colleagues have said 
we are throwing good money after bad. Not so. We have invested $20 
billion in this program. We have evaluated this program, we have 
redesigned this program, we have micromanaged the program almost to 
death, but we have come too far to turn our back on this very important 
program.
  Let us talk about the science that it will produce, the microgravity, 
scientific opportunities that are available there. There has been 
hearing after hearing in the Committee on Science over the 
opportunities that our scientists have for breakthroughs with diet 
research, with cancer research as well. So to say that the science is 
strictly testing the effects of gravity on human beings is to certainly 
oversimplify what we know many of those scientists and medical 
practitioners around the world are looking forward to pulling off on 
this experiment called Space Station.

                              {time}  1500

  If we do not fund the space station, we might as well disassemble 
NASA, because the space station program is the heart of NASA's research 
and development program and the heart of NASA's science program. This 
is not a project that is supposed to be flown in space for a few weeks. 
Space station will reside continuously in space for more than a decade. 
So for years our scientists will have opportunities to carry out these 
important scientific experiments there in microgravity under 
circumstances that we do not have here on Earth.
  Five hundred thousand pounds of station components, half a million 
pounds of station components will have been built at factories around 
the world by the end of this year. Over 82 percent of the prime 
contractor's development work has been completed. And U.S. flight 
hardware sits at the launch site for the next six flights.
  So this amendment would waste all the hard work that the NASA 
employees have put in, this amendment would waste the billion dollars 
of investment that we have made, and also this amendment and other 
amendments offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) would 
cause us to turn our back on the resources and commitment of the 16 
nations that are participating in this International Space Station, 11 
of those nations and the European Space Agency community as well. So we 
have got international legal agreements that depend on the continuation 
of this funding, and I say let us do it, let us do it decisively, let 
us oppose this amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) and all other Roemer amendments that attempt to mortally wound 
or kill this important space station program.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to rise in strong opposition to the 
amendment by Mr. Roemer and Mr. Sanford to cancel the International 
Space Station.
  This is a debate that we have had every year, and every year the 
House has reaffirmed its support for the Space Station program. While 
much has already been said in our previous annual debates, let me touch 
on a few brief points for our Freshman Members who may be hearing this 
debate for the first time.
  First, let's look at where we've been. Services and products ranging 
from satellite communications to internal pacemakers and cardiac 
defibrillators were either developed or significantly improved because 
of our past investments in space.
  Even until today, Microgravity research has been limited by scarce 
flight opportunities and sporadic access to space. Unlike the Shuttle 
experiments which are limited to about 2 weeks in space, the Space 
Station will reside continuously in space for more than a decade. The 
Space Station will give scientists, engineers, and businessmen an 
unprecedented opportunity to perform complex, long-duration experiments 
that will benefit the world for years to come.
  Next, let's look at how far we've come. At the end of last year, we 
took a significant step towards our ultimate destiny of establishing a 
permanent presence in space with the launch of the first International 
Space Station elements Zarya and Unity, which are now operating 250 
miles above the Earth.
  Led by the United States, the Space Station draws upon the expertise 
and resources of 16 nations, including Canada, Japan, Russia, Brazil, 
and 11 nations of the European Space Agency. In addition to the $20 
billion that we have invested in the Space Station, our international 
partners have contributed $5 billion to date. By the end of this year, 
500,000 pounds of station components will have been built at factories 
around the world. Over 82 percent of the Prime Contractor's development 
work has been completed, with U.S. flight hardware for the next six 
flights at the launch site.
  This amendment would waste all the hard work and all the taxpayer 
dollars that have been spent to date on the program. We've come too far 
for Congress to turn its back on the American people now.
  Now, let's look at where we're going. Microgravity capabilities will 
be available in the spring of 2000, with the outfitting of the U.S. 
laboratory, Destiny.

[[Page 10071]]

  The Space Station will be good for science and good for America. 
Space Station research will complement ground-based research to 
generate tangible returns, improving the quality of life here on Earth 
as well as in space.
  Space is the ideal environment in which to study processes in fields 
such as combustion science, fluid physics, and materials science, which 
are normally masked by gravity-driven forces here on Earth. This 
research could help us decrease pollution, save billions of dollars in 
energy costs, construct buildings that are better prepared for 
earthquakes, and improve the structure and performance of materials 
used in everything from contact lenses to car engines.
  Space Station will enable the medical community to understand bone 
and muscle loss, and possibly lead to the design of countermeasures. 
NASA-developed telemedicine systems will be used to provide high-
quality medical advice, instruction, and education to underserved parts 
of our Nation and our World. Growing and analyzing protein crystals in 
space will play a pivotal role in structure-based drug design.
  Mr. Chairman, we are discussing this bad amendment at a time when we 
should be thinking about the best ways to utilize this opportunity to 
enter into a new era in life and microgravity sciences research which 
will revolutionize the quality of life on Earth. R&D onboard Space 
Station will improve our knowledge of industrial processes, help us 
take substantial strides towards remarkable medical advances, and 
enable that pioneering spirit in all of us to take the next steps in 
the human exploration of the solar system.
  Our continued funding should be looked at as an investment in 
America's future, bringing us new and exciting discoveries that we 
haven't even yet imagined. Mr. Chairman, this is a bad amendment, and I 
urge the Members to defeat it.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). 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.
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 174, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Roemer) will be postponed.
  Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of discussion here today about 
international cooperation, and I would just ask my colleagues to 
consider that we make as much effort to have some across the aisle 
bipartisan cooperation here in the House and in the Senate as we talk 
about between countries.
  One issue that I would ask my colleague to consider as this bill goes 
into conference with the Senate is the issue of the Triana project. Now 
I know that there are those that want to push the Triana project 
because they perceive it as a Democrat issue, and there are those that 
want to oppose it because they perceive it as a Democrat issue. But I 
think that there is some issues here that need to be discussed, and I 
would just ask the conferees as this bill moves forward to give at 
least the strong science part of Triana a benefit of the doubt. We have 
the capability with this project, if it is executed appropriately and 
the partisan politics is kept out of it as much as possible, to finally 
settle the issue of global warming and finally be able to say is the 
billions of dollars that we are considering spending on global warming, 
is it appropriate and is it needed?
  So I would stand here today and ask my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, let us not use Triana for political advantage, let us not 
try to formulate a presidential campaign around a scientific research 
study, and I say sincerely I think both sides bear a degree of 
responsibility here. There are parts of Triana that I would ask the 
chairman and the conference committee to take a look at that is based 
on strong science coming from Scripps Institution of Oceanography and 
see if that portion of Triana can be preserved and enhanced so that 
those of us in the policymaking decision can get good, unfiltered 
information that is not tainted by political agendas to be able to make 
an informed decision about global warming.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Sweeney

  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Sweeney:
       In section 127(a)--
       (1) insert ``(1)'' after ``Limitation.--''; and
       (2) add at the end the following new paragraphs:
       (2) The Administrator shall certify to the Congress at 
     least 15 days in advance of any cooperative agreement with 
     the People's Republic of China, or any company incorporated 
     under the laws of the People's Republic of China, involving 
     spacecraft, spacecraft systems, launch systems, or scientific 
     or technical information that--
       (A) the agreement is not detrimental to the United States 
     space launch industry; and
       (B) the agreement, including any indirect technical benefit 
     that could be derived from the agreement, will not measurably 
     improve the missile or space launch capabilities of the 
     People's Republic of China.
       (3) The Inspector General of the National Aeronautics and 
     Space Administration, in consultation with the Director of 
     Central Intelligence and the Director of the Federal Bureau 
     of Investigation, shall conduct an annual audit of the 
     policies and procedures of the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration with respect to the export of technologies and 
     the transfer of scientific and technical information, to 
     assess the extent to which the National Aeronautics and Space 
     Administration is carrying out its activities in compliance 
     with Federal export control laws and with paragraph (2).

  Mr. SWEENEY (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, let me first congratulate my colleagues, 
specifically the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) from the subcommittee and 
the ranking member, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) for their 
fine work on the NASA reauthorization bill.
  There have been two major occurrences within the past 10 years that 
have proven to be a striking blow to the national security interests of 
our great Nation.
  First, China used information it obtained as a result of our 
cooperation on satellite technology to upgrade its ballistic missile 
force, improving range and accuracy of its booster systems.
  Secondly, the Chinese are also using information they obtained as a 
result of deliberate and, mind you, successful espionage efforts at our 
nuclear laboratories at the Department of Energy in order to improve 
their nuclear warhead arsenal. Mr. Chairman, the combination of these 
two events means that the Communist Chinese government, which currently 
has at least 40 ICBMs, will soon have the capability to launch multiple 
warheads, MIRV missiles, in just 3 to 5 years instead of the 20 years 
it would have taken without these two pieces of American technology.
  Mr. Chairman, we should be outraged as Americans that these two 
events were allowed to occur, seemingly without a hint that the 
national security breaches were occurring at all. With these grave 
events as a backdrop, I offer my amendment today as an attempt to 
reestablish that it is the policy of the United States to ensure that 
our good faith efforts to share our technological advances with world 
partners are not turned against us in the form of military threat.
  The amendment addresses two areas of concern to NASA. First, the 
Chinese espionage experience at the Department of Energy labs is not 
repeated within our space program. The amendment requires the Inspector 
General of NASA to assess on an annual basis in consultation with our 
intelligence community NASA's compliance with export control laws and 
the exchange of technology and information that can be used to enhance 
the military capabilities of foreign entities.
  Secondly, my amendment requires that NASA, before it enters into an 
agreement to exchange technology and information with the People's 
Republic of China to certify with Congress that the exchange of 
technology and information cannot be used to enhance China's ballistic 
missile capacities. This policy is consistent with our export controls 
regarding trade and satellite

[[Page 10072]]

technology and actually mirrors language in the 1999 defense 
authorization which requires the President to certify approved 
satellite technology exports to China. It is entirely appropriate that 
we hold that same standard to the potential technological exchanges 
between our space program and the PRC.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the serious transfers of military 
technology have occurred at NASA, and I stress this, that has not 
happened at NASA yet, yet we need to recognize that there is a 
potential danger that must be addressed. A few years ago we were pretty 
certain that top secret scientific information at our nuclear labs was 
secure. We now know that that was not the case. This amendment insures 
that the appropriate steps are taken to prevent the repeat of the 
breach of our Department of Energy labs and strengthens existing 
controls on the flow of military critical technology being diverted to 
China.
  This amendment also responds to another provision in the 1999 defense 
authorization and approved by a vote of 417 to 4 by this House which 
states that the United States should not enter into agreements with 
China involving space. This amendment does not go as far as to prohibit 
space cooperation with China, but it does raise the bar with respect to 
the types of sensitive technological information that we can exchange 
through NASA.
  Mr. Chairman, NASA is one of the most respected government 
institutions in the world, and its contributions to technology 
development in the United States are enormous. This amendment insures 
that that reputation so painstakingly earned is never tarnished.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SWEENEY. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to accept the amendment 
of the gentleman from New York. It requires a certification in advance 
that the cooperative agreement with the People's Republic of China does 
not harm the U.S. space launch industry or improve the missile launch 
capabilities of China and also directs the NASA Inspector General to 
conduct an annual audit to make sure that these certifications are 
being complied with.
  It is a constructive amendment, and I hope it is adopted.
  Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 174, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order:
  The amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Weiner), 
amendment No. 4 offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), 
amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer), and 
amendment No. 3 offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                    Amendment Offered by Mr. Weiner

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Weiner) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will designate the amendment.
  The Clerk designated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 225, 
noes 203, not voting 5, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 134]

                               AYES--225

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E.B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pickett
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Quinn
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogan
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shays
     Sherman
     Shows
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--203

     Aderholt
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Paul
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)

[[Page 10073]]


     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--5

     Brown (CA)
     Cox
     McDermott
     Napolitano
     Serrano

                              {time}  1534

  Mrs. MYRICK and Mr. WATKINS changed their vote from ``aye'' to 
``no.''
  Mr. BOEHLERT, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. HALL of Texas, Mrs. KELLY, Ms. 
BROWN of Florida, Ms. SLAUGHTER, and Ms. CARSON changed their vote from 
``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 134, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Pursuant to House Resolution 
174, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes 
the period of time within which a vote by electronic device will be 
taken on each amendment on which the Chair has postponed further 
proceedings.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Roemer

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 114, 
noes 315, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 135]

                               AYES--114

     Abercrombie
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Danner
     Deal
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Dingell
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Ganske
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Gutierrez
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Kaptur
     Kasich
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     LaFalce
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     McCarthy (MO)
     McHugh
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Owens
     Pallone
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Woolsey

                               NOES--315

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     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
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Martinez
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brown (CA)
     McDermott
     Napolitano
     Serrano

                              {time}  1544

  Ms. SLAUGHTER changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. TOOMEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Chairman, during rollcall vote No. 135, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Roemer

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman 
from Indiana (Mr. Roemer) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 117, 
noes 313, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 136]

                               AYES--117

     Armey
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Boehlert
     Bonilla
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Canady
     Cannon
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Costello
     Cunningham
     Danner
     Deal
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Fattah
     Fossella
     Ganske
     Gekas

[[Page 10074]]


     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hayes
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Jones (NC)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (NY)
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Mica
     Mink
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Myrick
     Paul
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pombo
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Roemer
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sanford
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shuster
     Smith (TX)
     Spence
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Thomas
     Tiahrt
     Tierney
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Whitfield

                               NOES--313

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (NE)
     Barrett (WI)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayworth
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Morella
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stenholm
     Stupak
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brown (CA)
     Napolitano
     Serrano

                              {time}  1554

  Mr. ROYCE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                 Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Roemer

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana 
(Mr. Roemer) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 92, 
noes 337, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 137]

                                AYES--92

     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Camp
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Coble
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cubin
     Danner
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeMint
     Dingell
     Duncan
     Evans
     Fattah
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gutierrez
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Largent
     Latham
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manzullo
     McHugh
     McInnis
     Meehan
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Pallone
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Roukema
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Shays
     Shuster
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Stark
     Strickland
     Tancredo
     Tierney
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Woolsey

                               NOES--337

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bateman
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hooley
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Owens
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne

[[Page 10075]]


     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Sisisky
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wise
     Wolf
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Brown (CA)
     Cox
     Napolitano
     Serrano

                              {time}  1602

  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. MINGE changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                    Amendment Offered By Mr. Bateman

  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Amendment offered by Mr. Bateman:
       In section 101(1), strike ``$2,482,700,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,382,700,000''.
       In section 101(2), strike ``$2,328,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$2,228,000,000''.
       In section 101(3), strike ``$2,091,000,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,991,000,000''.
       In section 103(4)--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), strike ``$999,300,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,099,300,000'';
       (2) in subparagraph (A)(i), strike ``$532,800,000'' and 
     insert ``$632,800,000'';
       (3) in subparagraph (A)(i), strike ``$412,800,000 to be for 
     the Research and Technology Base'' and insert ``$512,800,000 
     to be for the Research and Technology Base, including--

       ``(I) $20,000,000 for the Innovative Aviation Technologies 
     Research program;
       ``(II) $30,000,000 for the Aging Aircraft Sustainment 
     program;
       ``(III) $10,000,000 for the Aircraft Development Support 
     program;
       ``(IV) $20,000,000 for the Unmanned Air Vehicles program; 
     and
       ``(V) $20,000,000 for the Long-Range Hypersonic Research 
     program'';

       (4) in subparagraph (B), strike ``$908,400,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,008,400,000'';
       (5) in subparagraph (B)(i), strike ``$524,000,000'' and 
     insert ``$624,000,000'';
       (6) in subparagraph (B)(i), strike ``$399,800,000 to be for 
     the Research and Technology Base, and with $54,200,000 to be 
     for Aviation System Capacity'' and insert ``$54,200,000 to be 
     for Aviation System Capacity, and with $499,800,000 to be for 
     the Research and Technology Base, including--

       ``(I) $20,000,000 for the Innovative Aviation Technologies 
     Research program;
       ``(II) $30,000,000 for the Aging Aircraft Sustainment 
     program;
       ``(III) $10,000,000 for the Aircraft Development Support 
     program;
       ``(IV) $20,000,000 for the Unmanned Air Vehicles program; 
     and
       ``(V) $20,000,000 for the Long-Range Hypersonic Research 
     program'';

       (7) in subparagraph (C), strike ``$994,800,000'' and insert 
     ``$1,094,800,000'';
       (8) in subparagraph (C)(i), strike ``$519,200,000'' and 
     insert ``$619,200,000''; and
       (9) in subparagraph (C)(i), strike ``$381,600,000 to be for 
     the Research and Technology Base, and with $67,600,000 to be 
     for Aviation System Capacity'' and insert ``$67,600,000 to be 
     for Aviation System Capacity, and with $481,600,000 to be for 
     the Research and Technology Base, including--

       ``(I) $20,000,000 for the Innovative Aviation Technologies 
     Research program;
       ``(II) $30,000,000 for the Aging Aircraft Sustainment 
     program;
       ``(III) $10,000,000 for the Aircraft Development Support 
     program;
       ``(IV) $20,000,000 for the Unmanned Air Vehicles program; 
     and
       ``(V) $20,000,000 for the Long-Range Hypersonic Research 
     program''.

  Mr. BATEMAN (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the 
Record.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer my amendment and to 
express my displeasure with the drastic reductions in the NASA budget 
over the past several years. I am particularly concerned about the 
reduction in funding for aeronautics research. The gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Scott) shares my concerns and joins in this amendment.
  NASA is not simply a space exploration agency; it has also played a 
vital role in the creation of important technology used in civilian and 
military air transport. These contributions are among the brightest 
jewels in NASA's crown, but the last several years have seen the 
aeronautics budget dwindle precipitously.
  The Clinton administration is rarely so zealous in its attempt to 
reduce nondefense discretionary spending. It is, therefore, ironic and 
unfortunate that it is so determined to scale back aeronautics 
research.
  Today I have presented or am presenting an amendment to transfer $100 
million from the International Space Station account to the 
Aeronautical Research and Technology account for each of the 3 fiscal 
years covered by the authorization bill before us. I have long been a 
supporter of the Space Station and remain so, but I feel that it has 
received more than generous funding while aeronautics research has 
suffered disproportionately.
  I expect that it may be said that this $100 million reduction in the 
funding for the Space Station is a killer amendment. This is not the 
case, in my view, unless those who direct the Space Station program 
choose to make it so, and to me it is inconceivable that they would to 
this. No one, on the other hand, can do the vital aeronautics research 
identified in my amendment unless it is adopted.
  Nearly $5 billion has been spent on the Space Station in the last 2 
fiscal years, and another $2.4 billion is included in the President's 
budget for fiscal year 2000. Meanwhile, aeronautics research will have 
been reduced by $400 million over the same period.
  The reduction in budget authority for aeronautics would bring the 
reduction in that program to 50 percent of what it was 10 years ago. 
Clearly aeronautics research has suffered disproportionately.
  The Bateman-Scott amendment will transfer $100 million from the Space 
Station account to the aeronautics account for each of the 3 fiscal 
years covered by this bill. Failure to increase our commitment to 
aeronautics research will have grievous economic and national security 
consequences to the United States. The Bateman-Scott amendment will 
help guarantee that American aviation will preserve its traditional 
dominance.
  My colleagues' support and vote for the Bateman-Scott amendment is 
solicited and will be appreciated.
  Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Bateman-Scott 
amendment. The amendment will transfer $100 million from the 
International Space Station for each of the next 3 fiscal years to the 
Aeronautics Research and Technology account.
  This amendment is necessary to restore deep cuts in aeronautics 
research and development programs as proposed by the bill. It is 
especially important when we know that several aeronautics R&D programs 
were cut, in large part in order to fund continued cost overruns for 
the Space Station.
  We know that the Nation's aeronautics research program are in serious 
decline. The proposed FY 2000 NASA budget decreases an already 
underfunded aeronautics research effort by an additional 33 percent.
  Mr. Chairman, we know that dollar-for-dollar investments in 
aeronautics research pay off. This is because aeronautics is the second 
largest industry in terms of positive balance of trade, second only to 
agriculture, and that goes back and forth every year. That is directly 
attributable to our past investments in aeronautics research.
  Every aircraft worldwide uses NASA technology. For example, 
engineering principles developed from this research have contributed to 
overall aircraft

[[Page 10076]]

safety and efficiency, including things like wing design, noise 
abatement, structural integrity and fuel efficiency. Such improvements 
are part of every aircraft in use today and are a direct result of our 
investment in aeronautics research.
  Contrary to being corporate welfare, Federal investment in 
aeronautics research and development is vital because private companies 
are reluctant to fund this type of research when future applications of 
that research are unknown or will not pay dividends for 20 years. So 
our past and current funding of aeronautics research represents an 
appropriate and responsible Federal role.
  The steady decline in aeronautics has already had an impact on United 
States competitiveness. Less than 10 years ago, United States firms 
held more than 70 percent of the world market share of civilian 
aircraft sales. But today, Europe's AirBus has more than 50 percent of 
that market share.
  So while the U.S. has continued to severely cut research in this 
area, other countries have aggressively increased their investment. 
Japan, for example, will put $20 million more towards high speed 
transport research, while this budget ends our investment in high speed 
transport research.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and 
support our continued investment in aeronautics research and 
development.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record a letter from Virginia Governor 
Jim Gilmore expressing his opposition to the bill and a January 18, 
1999 article entitled the ``Cost of Station Cuts Into Funds For 
Supersonic Airplane Effort'' in ``Space News'', as follows:
                                         Commonwealth of Virginia,


                                       Office of the Governor,

                                                     May 18, 1999.
     Hon. Robert C. Scott,
     Rayburn House Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Congressman Scott; I write to you on behalf of the 
     National Aeronautics and Space Agency Langley Research Center 
     (NASA-LARC) and request your assistance during this year's 
     appropriations process in the 106th Congress. Specifically, I 
     request you cast your vote against H.R. 1654. President 
     Clinton's budget proposal, submitted to Congress earlier this 
     year, drastically reduces, for the second straight year, 
     funding for the NASA-LARC to a level that threatens its 
     critical research initiatives. NASA Langley is a national 
     resource that is based in Virginia. I believe, therefore, 
     that it is incumbent on all of us in elective office to 
     represent its national mission. I respectfully request you 
     halt this proposed budget cut and increase funding for this 
     facility that is vital to the economy of the Tidewater 
     region, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and our national 
     competitiveness.
       Over the last 2 years the NASA-LARC has been cut 24% 
     comprehensively and the aeronautics portion has been reduced 
     by 33%. This year, the President's budget proposes a cut of 
     over $110 million and the reduction or abolition of numerous 
     programs, including the elimination of two major programs--
     High Speed Commercial Transport (HSCT) and Advanced Subsonic 
     Technology (AST). If this proposal is not overturned, 
     Virginia will experience a direct loss of over 500 
     aeronautical engineering jobs through the end of 2000. 
     Collateral effects include a total loss of approximately $275 
     million to the Virginia economy and 1,900 jobs lost. 
     Moreover, these effects will not be contained strictly to the 
     Tidewater region, but will also be realized in Blacksburg, 
     Charlottesville and Northern Virginia as well.
       The United States has drastically reduced federal 
     aeronautics funding from $1.3 billion per year to $640 
     million per year--a 51% reduction--over the last ten years. 
     In 1997, ``aeronautics products'' was the second largest U.S. 
     export category ($69 billion) in our balance of trade, second 
     only to agricultural products. While the United States 
     continues to reduce its ability to compete in this market, 
     other nations, such as Great Britain, South Korea, France, 
     Taiwan and China, are increasing the amount of their 
     investment in aeronautical R&D and are strong partners with 
     their private sector companies. For example, Boeing has seen 
     its share of the global commercial aircraft market go from 
     90% to less than 50% over the last 15 years. Airbus, based in 
     France, has seen its share increase from 0% to approximately 
     50%. This comes as no surprise since the best aeronautic R&D 
     facilities are now located in Europe.
       In conclusion, I would like to point out that in a 
     dangerous world in which this administration has deployed our 
     military personnel to a multitude of locations around the 
     globe, the most important thing necessary to insure their 
     safety is complete domination of the skies over their heads. 
     The current situation in the Balkans is a clear-cut example 
     of why it is important to maintain a position for the United 
     States at the forefront of aeronautics research and 
     development.
       Once again, I ask you to join me and fight to preserve 
     NASA-LARC and see that it continues to play the integral role 
     it has play in the economy of Virginia, in defense of this 
     notion and the promotion our commercial interests in global 
     economy.
           Very truly yours,
                                            James S. Gilmore, III,
     Governor of Virginia.
                                  ____


                  [From the Space News, Jan. 18, 1999]

     Cost of Station Cuts Into Funds for Supersonic Airplane Effort

                           (By Brian Berger)

       Washington.--Funding for NASA's effort to develop 
     technology for the next generation of supersonic passenger 
     airplanes will be slashed and possibly eliminated to help 
     NASA pay for cost overruns on the international space station 
     program, according to government sources.
       When U.S. President Bill Clinton presents his 2000 budget 
     request to Congress in early February, sources said funding 
     for NASA's High-Speed Research program--a nine-year-old 
     effort to develop a concept for an environmentally friendly 
     supersonic passenger jet--will be significantly reduced or 
     cut from the space agency's budget altogether.
       Last year, Congress appropriated $190 million for High-
     Speed Research in 1999, according to the NASA Comptroller's 
     Office.
       Although some sources say NASA could be in line for a small 
     budget increase for 2000, congressional sources said its 
     unlikely the White House will add enough money to pay for 
     space station overruns without making cuts elsewhere.
       A congressional source said some combination of new funds 
     and program budget cuts are to be expected in a year when the 
     White House is under political pressure to find as much as $1 
     billion extra for the international space station.
       ``This is the first year there hasn't been tremendous 
     support for High-Speed Research,'' a senior NASA official 
     said.
       The NASA official declined to offer details of the cut 
     pending the president's release of his spending plan. But a 
     congressional source said the president's budget will reflect 
     a deliberate decision to phase out the High-Speed Research 
     program.
       ``I think it's dead,'' the source said, ``and I wouldn't be 
     surprised if it goes away for a while.''
       The NASA program began in 1990 to help U.S. aerospace 
     companies develop the technologies needed to build a 
     supersonic passenger plane capable of meeting the more 
     stringent environmental regulations predicted for 2010.
       But when industry-partner Boeing Co., Seattle, announced 
     last fall that it would delay for 15 years its plans to build 
     a supersonic passenger plane--also known as a high-speed 
     civilian transport--until 2025, both the environmental and 
     economic goals of the NASA program changed to reflect the new 
     time frame.
       Boeing spokeswoman Mary Jean Olsen said the company will 
     not invest tens of billions of dollars in building a 
     supersonic passenger jet until the technology and market 
     demand for the product presents itself.
       Alan Wilhite, deputy director of the Office of High-Speed 
     Research at NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, Va., said 
     the program was on track to meet all the economic and 
     environmental goals Boeing set for the program in 1990.
       He said the program is now undergoing a year-long 
     feasibility study to determine what must be done to meet more 
     stringent environmental and economic goals forecasted for 
     2020-2025. Word of the budget cut comes as program officials 
     at Langley are preparing to begin the next phase of the 
     program, an eight-year, $700 million effort that includes the 
     test and assembly of a full-scale supersonic engine.
       But a Boeing program official said it is too soon to build 
     an engine for an airplane that is still 20-25 years from 
     reality.
       ``We really should not proceed with manufacturing 
     technology,'' said Boeing's Robert Cuthbertson, program 
     manager for the High-Speed Civilian Transport program.
       During a NASA hearing before the House Science Committee in 
     February 1998, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Calif.) questioned 
     NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin about the advisability of 
     building a full-scale engine for an airplane that may not be 
     built.
       ``The whole program is being looked at very closely in 
     terms of what level of investment the government should put 
     in this area,'' the senior NASA official said.
       Cuthbertson said Boeing is cutting back its investment in 
     high-speed research substantially, estimating a 75-80 percent 
     reduction over the next seven years.
       John Logsdon, director of the Space Policy Institute at the 
     George Washington University here, said aeronautics research 
     is the subject of a long-standing debate between the White 
     House and NASA.
       ``The argument is that aeronautics is a mature industry and 
     ought to be paying for its own [research and development]'' 
     Logsdon said. ``Some say it's inappropriate for the 
     government to be paying for [a research and development] 
     program that is essentially for Boeing.''

[[Page 10077]]

       Boeing is the only U.S. company currently building large 
     commercial airframes.
       Robert Walker, former chairman of the House Science 
     Committee, said the debate goes back decades, but that the 
     High-Speed Research program was usually seen as the kind of 
     pure technology development effort NASA should be supporting.
       Driving the budget cut, a NASA and congressional source 
     said, is a White House in search of money to pay for cost 
     overruns in the international space station program without 
     raiding NASA science accounts.
       ``One way or another, you have to fix the space station 
     overrun problem,'' a senior NASA official said.
       With NASA program officials calling for more than $700 
     million for High-Speed Research through 2007, the program 
     presents a tempting target for the White House budget ax.
       ``There aren't a lot of cookie jars for NASA to go after,'' 
     the congressional source said.

  Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number 
of words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I am in support 
of the bill and the piece of legislation and opposed to the amendment. 
Mr. Chairman, this amendment is in direct contradiction to the 
President's and Administrator Goldin's priorities for the space program 
for NASA.
  I understand the concern of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) 
about the continuing reductions over time that we have seen in NASA's 
aeronautics budget. But cutting the Space Station to fund aeronautics 
is not the appropriate answer.
  However, at this point, let me point out that the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), again, the truth of his arguments is that we have 
to prioritize. If we are going to be spending huge chunks of money on 
the Space Station, that is exactly right. It is a very painful process. 
This is what part of that painful process is. Once again we are faced 
with something that comes from our decision, the decision of the whole 
body, to move forward with the Space Station.
  Administrator Goldin in this environment says his top three 
priorities are, number one, safety; number two, finishing the Space 
Station and getting it over with; and advanced space transportation 
technology. Everything else comes after that as far as the 
administration and Mr. Goldin and his priorities go.
  That means that the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) is 
proposing cutting the administrator's number two priority, which will 
in fact increase total Space Station costs because it will cause delays 
just to fund the station at a different level of priority.
  So let us not think that this is just an easy answer that takes 
somebody through Space Station. When we are here in the very last few 
moments of getting the Space Station up, any delay in this system will 
be very expensive, and there will be delays if we start cutting 
precipitously like this.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman) may or may not know that 
this bill does not cut research at NASA's Aeronautics Center one bit. 
In fact, this bill directs NASA to bring the resources and talents of 
the excellent scientists and engineers at the Aeronautic Center to bear 
on a higher priority. It is a priority, as I just mentioned, of Mr. 
Goldin's; it is one of his top three priorities. It is a much more 
difficult challenge than just trying to improve aeronautics, and that 
is to improve and to meet the challenge of advanced space 
transportation technology.

                              {time}  1615

  Simply keeping the aeronautics centers working on aeronautics only is 
a very bad strategy. Now, yes, we realize that that is valuable work. 
But there are many challenges that we face and contributions that they 
could make outside the area of aeronautics. And limiting these centers 
to aeronautics, basically it is a very bad strategy and it is based on 
a going-out-of-business strategy.
  I, therefore, respectfully oppose the well-intentioned but I say 
counterproductive amendment of the gentleman. Because in the end, by 
delaying the Space Station and by taking money precipitously from it, 
it will cause disruptions in the Space Station program and the plan 
that we are moving forward on and we will not be getting done with the 
project and it will end up costing us more money and putting even more 
pressure on aeronautics and other aspects of NASA's budget.
  So while I understand the pressures we are under, I can sympathize 
with the idea that certain areas are not being funded like we would 
like to see them be if we had unlimited funding, but just cutting the 
Space Station precipitously is not the answer. Perhaps the answer 
should be, as I say, looking at the aeronautic centers and trying to 
broaden their area of research rather than keeping them just on 
aeronautics.
  So I reluctantly and respectfully oppose this amendment.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of 
words.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the Bateman-Scott 
amendment. They have both been good friends of NASA and tireless 
champions of aeronautic research. I believe this amendment is well-
intentioned.
  Nevertheless, I think taking money from NASA's Space Station will 
simply destabilize that program and that will result in more station 
cost growth, more pressure on the NASA budget that will not benefit 
anyone in the long-run.
  So although I think we need to take a long hard look at what needs to 
be done to keep NASA's aeronautics program world class, I oppose taking 
money from the Space Station. And I urge Members to vote against this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bateman).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 140, 
noes 286, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 138]

                               AYES--140

     Baldwin
     Barrett (WI)
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Bliley
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Bryant
     Camp
     Capps
     Capuano
     Carson
     Chabot
     Chenoweth
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Danner
     Davis (VA)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dickey
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Evans
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goodling
     Graham
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hinchey
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kildee
     Kind (WI)
     Kingston
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     LoBiondo
     Lowey
     Luther
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntosh
     Meehan
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moore
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Pease
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Ryan (WI)
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Skelton
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Traficant
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Wamp
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey

                               NOES--286

     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Andrews
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Cardin
     Castle
     Chambliss
     Clayton
     Clement
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey

[[Page 10078]]


     Cramer
     Crane
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dixon
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hill (IN)
     Hill (MT)
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kasich
     Kennedy
     Kilpatrick
     King (NY)
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Lantos
     Larson
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lofgren
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Packard
     Pastor
     Payne
     Peterson (PA)
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Salmon
     Sanchez
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherman
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stabenow
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Velazquez
     Walden
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watkins
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wise
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Abercrombie
     Brown (CA)
     Cox
     Ganske
     Lipinski
     Napolitano
     Serrano

                              {time}  1636

  Messrs. TAYLOR of Mississippi, SMITH of Michigan and FROST changed 
their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. SPRATT, Mr. OLVER and Ms. DeLAURO changed their vote from ``no'' 
to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). Are there any other 
amendments?
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
  Let me quickly thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) 
and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and their staff 
for their efforts to try to bring about a good bill here, but I have to 
say I am disappointed that we were not able to get that done.
  Let me point out very quickly that Dan Goldin, the NASA 
administrator, has strongly suggested that Members oppose this bill; 
that the OMB has recommended this bill be opposed, for a variety of 
reasons:
  Quickly, because it would delete all funding for NASA's information 
technology initiatives, it would hold NASA's earth science research 
program hostage to an unworkable data buy earmark, it would cancel the 
peer reviewed Triana scientific and educational mission and waste the 
$35 million already appropriated, and it would prohibit any research on 
innovative inflatable technologies that have great potential to lower 
the costs of future human space operations.
  You can be pro NASA and against this bill. I recommend, as the 
ranking member on this committee, a ``no'' vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. 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. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Shimkus, 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. 
1654) to authorize appropriations for the National Aeronautics and 
Space Administration for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002, and for 
other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 174, 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, and was 
read the third time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 259, 
noes 168, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 139]

                               AYES--259

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Archer
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Barrett (NE)
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bateman
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Bliley
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Campbell
     Canady
     Cannon
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Chenoweth
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cook
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Cunningham
     Davis (VA)
     Deal
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dickey
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Ewing
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Fowler
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gejdenson
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goodling
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hastert
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hill (MT)
     Hilleary
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hutchinson
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kasich
     Kelly
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kleczka
     Klink
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     Kuykendall
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lazio
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Maloney (CT)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntosh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Metcalf
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Ose
     Oxley
     Packard
     Pease
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pickett
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogan
     Rogers
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salmon
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shows
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)

[[Page 10079]]


     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spence
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Talent
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins
     Watts (OK)
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Weygand
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wu
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--168

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett (WI)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Coburn
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Danner
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     Delahunt
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Dixon
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Duncan
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Franks (NJ)
     Ganske
     Gephardt
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Herger
     Hill (IN)
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Holden
     Holt
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jefferson
     John
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     LaFalce
     Lantos
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (NY)
     Martinez
     Mascara
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Minge
     Mink
     Moakley
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sanford
     Sawyer
     Schaffer
     Schakowsky
     Scott
     Shuster
     Sisisky
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Stabenow
     Stark
     Stupak
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Vento
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Wise
     Woolsey
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Brown (CA)
     Hooley
     Napolitano
     Pastor
     Serrano
     Shimkus
     Terry

                              {time}  1658

  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas changed her vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. PASTOR. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 139, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________